Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–199 of 199 posts

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#191

Post by gamerdonkey »

sliverstorm wrote: post #166
gamerdonkey wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate that this nitpicking has become the standard response whenever someone is facing a prison sentence. It utterly belittles the hardship that people like Pfc. Manning actually face, even if it is for 7-8 years in the end. Additionally, the parole or probation that she faces even after release are still punishment. It's not as though the troubles are suddenly over. Treating the issue in this way makes it sound lik…

35 years vs. 7-8 years is not exactly nitpicking. What they get out in, is just as relevant as what they were sentenced to. Otherwise, why do we get so mad when a murderer is sentenced to 20 years and out in 2?

I agree that it is a fairly large difference in number, but I still think that trumpeting on about it distracts from the primary discussion.

At best, this is all speculation. 7-8 years is the time before Chelsea Manning becomes eligible for parole. Whether or not she is actually released will depend on a number of factors, including the political climate at the time. We'll only really find out around 2021.

Finally, and this is something I touched on in my first comment, even 7 years in a federal prison is nothing to sneeze at. A non-trivial amount of time spent on federal probation after release isn't exactly going to be a cakewalk, either. And this is all on top of the time already spent in the military justice system, including almost a year of solitary confinement. Basically, I'm just asking that we don't downplay what must be an awful experience simply because our justice system has wiggle room.

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#192

Post by dinkumthinkum »

ck2 wrote: post #55
duaneb wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if either of them deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, but I believe Manning's sentence is reasonable. I'd like to shake his hand, buy him a beer, thank him personally, but it's a decision he made that has severe consequences for a reason. And while I don't like Snowden at all, I think his actions are much more justifiable from an ethical point of view. It's not like terrorists were unaware the NSA was spying…

So by your standard, Martin Luther King Jr. should be getting out of prison just about now? Manning was a whistlerblower, just like Snowden, with less power and ability for flight to defend themselves. There was no personal gain ever intended or achieved, yet great personal loss even in the best outcome. They saw something very wrong happening and had little to no way to say "hey there are some incredibly powerful fo…

Let's not compare Martin Luther King Jr. to Snowden and Manning.

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#193

Post by dinkumthinkum »

Pxtl wrote: post #156
xaa wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal value system (and perhaps milord grandparent's) rates the accurate use of words (aka, truth-telling) rather high on the scale of values. Clear thought is impossible without it. When we, as a society, take words such as "war" and "gender" that previously referred to physical realities and make them highly metaphorical or even completely arbitrary, we dilute our vocabulary. We make it harder to think and co…

Look, we're all coders here, I get the instinct to be precise with our words. But what about the cost/benefit trade-off? Is a small matter of personal policy related to definitions really worth hurting somebody who's already a member of easily the most downtrodden and crapped-upon group in modern society? Is preventing a tiny incremental shift in vocabulary really worth kicking somebody while they're down? I mean, I'…

How far do we take this? This is a conversation about the actions of these people. It is not coder pedantry to refer to Manning with male gendered pronouns. Are we now required to know how everyone feels about their gender before we use any pronouns describing them in every context? In fact, we have to keep with everyone's opinions about their genders throughout their whole lives. This is impractical.

I think here, we just have delusion of persecution.

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#194

Post by dinkumthinkum »

LukeShu wrote: post #134
xaa wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal value system (and perhaps milord grandparent's) rates the accurate use of words (aka, truth-telling) rather high on the scale of values. Clear thought is impossible without it. When we, as a society, take words such as "war" and "gender" that previously referred to physical realities and make them highly metaphorical or even completely arbitrary, we dilute our vocabulary. We make it harder to think and co…

The word "sex" refers to physical realities; "gender" refers to social constructions. By conflating the two words, you are the one diluting our vocabulary. Now, it wouldn't be totally unreasonable for you to assert that pronouns should be tied to sex, not gender; but that's not what you're saying here.

You're just wrong here. Whether "gender" is pure a social construction is a matter of debate. Your fallacy is in assuming a position you personally hold is a priori. You're just espousing one particular position.

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#195

Post by dinkumthinkum »

Cushman wrote: post #159
xaa wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@LukeShu I'm well aware of the current usage of "gender" in educated circles. That's why I chose it as an example. "Gender" previously was essentially a synonym for "sex" (except in the field of linguistics). But now that it has been repurposed in some circles, half the American population thinks it refers to a state of mind and the other half thinks it refers to biology. The result: confusion and miscommunication. I…

There is no debate, because this isn't about correctness. It's about respect. Let me throw out some hypotheticals here: My given name is Jonathan. I think this sounds childish, so I tell you that I go by Jack instead. But you've seen my birth certificate, so you keep calling me Jonathan. I got married and changed my last name to my husband's. You think it's confusing to change names, so you continue to write me using…

I don't want to be too flippant here but you seem to be making case that we would not want to refer to you specifically in any context ever because you are determined to make it frighteningly complicated to avoid persecuting you.

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#196

Post by dinkumthinkum »

sergiotapia wrote: post #44
praptak wrote: post #13

While I'm fond of any form of flipping the NSA-backing US administration the bird, the Nobel Peace prize has not enough reputation to matter in this context. Al Gore got it for raising awareness of climate change. Obama got that for not being Bush. Even if Snowden gets it, it doesn't really matter.

In all honesty, Obama got it for being the first black president - it was a HUGE deal, remember that.

That's pretty ridiculous. You are really misrepresenting what happened. Sure, you can say it was little more than for a promissory note of peace, which is what people were saying at the time but this is just too much.

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#197

Post by orakle »

Cushman wrote: post #175
xaa wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite the asshole you think I am. If someone asked me to call them by a certain pronoun or salutation (names are different as they are completely arbitrary), I would do it, out of respect for them. But let's be clear about what's being asked: I am being asked to lie -- to misrepresent reality -- to that person, and possibly to other people for that person. That's a (small) favor being asked, an…

You know what? I'd also be pretty pissed off if I worked hard to be considered an American and you insisted on calling me Filipino because you happen to know where my parents are from. I would be pretty sore if you acted like not doing that was a special favor you were doing me, by "lying" to people about my ethnicity, and not just being a decent human being. It would sound like you value my expressed wishes for how…

If you are an American citizen then you are American. A more apt example is someone living in Philippines wanting to be called American even though they are not a citizen.

Someone living in Philippines who has no citizenship to America says "i am American", you would look at them and say "no you are not". No matter how much they wanted it to be true the facts do not support it.

Re: Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize

#198

Post by hessenwolf »

Shish2k wrote: post #14
hessenwolf wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume it must have been before it lost the status when they gave it to a guy who had yet to do anything, other than give some captivating speeches... so... several minutes sometime?

> a guy who had yet to do anything Thus making him infinitely more peaceful than every other major politician of the era :P (If by "major politician" you mean "American president", and by "era" you mean "2001-2010". Which actually is what most people mean, AFAICT...)

Let's scale it by how long he had been in power by that time...
Post reply on HN