10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway • Hacker News Board

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#131

Post by jollybean » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 10:17 PM UTC

jolux wrote: post #126

jollybean wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's very reasonable to point out that there's rarely such thing as 'pure ethnicity' and especially the 'lensing' issue of scale is insightful, and of course that some eras there's more evolution than that others ... ... but none of this upsets the fact that ethnicity is the 'primary weight' in the ultimate definition of borders, other than the borders which are artificial (i.e. political) which is why those tend…

You’re begging the question of why ethnicity implies borders. Borders are purely political objects. Without states, there are no borders. Labeling geographic areas as being primarily inhabited by descendants of a certain ethnicity does not at all imply that there is a well-defined point at which one ethnicity becomes another ethnicity in those areas. You can’t just ignore the existence of the nation-state in discussi…

I think you're missing a lot of information here.

"Without states, there are no borders"

Well, the 'Nation State' is a modern concept, so no.

But if you were to say 'borders imply an administrative region of some kind' - then maybe.

But even without official, stated administrative organization, 'borders' still exist as the demarcation point between groups.

"You can’t just ignore the existence of the nation-state in discussing borders."

I absolutely did not, and I have no idea what you are referring to here.

"your argument here completely falls apart for America. "

No, it doesn't.

Start with the point that most 'states' (or administrative regions) in history, have been ethnocentric. From Egypt through Minoan, Greek, Roman etc..

Some more so than others. The US, no, Sweden, mostly.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#132

Post by orwin » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 10:26 PM UTC

jollybean wrote: post #124

orwin wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, dismissing my points. What about Britanny (breton and Gallo, see my previous post)? What about the Basque country? What about Alsace? What about Savoy then, if it was "mostly a political organization" (that created modern Italy by the way)? What about Occitanie? and Catalonia (Roussillon mostly)? Aquitaine? Do we talk about northern France then, since we saw pretty much All the south is NOT French? Is Normandy…

I'm not dismissing your points - I accept there's a lot of ambiguity. Given the level of fragmentation you want to get into by highlighting tiny, short-lived political entities that had small populations and exited only for a blip in history ... well, you'll find many of them. But you're missing the forest through the trees: the borders are unambiguously ethnic, to the point where it's not really even an argument. 'S…

You're reversing the causes and effect here. The basque did not have any issue being divided between 3 kingdoms for a thousand years. Breton did not mind being ruled by Gallo for at least as much time. Somehow, they started revolting when the state, the nation rather, started imposing their own languages and forbidding them to keep their cultural identity. Everybody talk about the Armenian genocide, but this is only the last of a long history, the 19th century is riddled by ethnic displacement to make the nice looking european border match the ethnicity. Italy did exactly the same, Austro-Hungary too. The Balkan crisis is caused by an ethnonationalism the did not exist before.

You know that have multiple culture in your kingdom was a sign of strength until the end of the 18th century, right? Despite the Villers-Coteret directive, nothing could please a King of France more than listening the his multilingual, multicultural country. It is really obvious than the cultural area we have no were forced. I know there is a lot of fear behind the sinicization, but France did the same in less than 50 years, although at a smaller scale, with a modicum of violence and some small concessions.

Aragon was probably one of the most multicultural, multilingual kingdom of old, but since the concept of nation did not exist, and that ethnicity was just another word for language 95% of the time, it did not cause any issue, and certainly not ethnic tensions.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#133

Post by jolux » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 11:05 PM UTC

jollybean wrote: post #131

jolux wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re begging the question of why ethnicity implies borders. Borders are purely political objects. Without states, there are no borders. Labeling geographic areas as being primarily inhabited by descendants of a certain ethnicity does not at all imply that there is a well-defined point at which one ethnicity becomes another ethnicity in those areas. You can’t just ignore the existence of the nation-state in discussi…

I think you're missing a lot of information here. "Without states, there are no borders" Well, the 'Nation State' is a modern concept, so no. But if you were to say 'borders imply an administrative region of some kind' - then maybe. But even without official, stated administrative organization, 'borders' still exist as the demarcation point between groups. "You can’t just ignore the existence of the nation-state in d…

> Well, the 'Nation State' is a modern concept, so no.

The nation state is. The state is not. The state is ancient.

> But even without official, stated administrative organization, 'borders' still exist as the demarcation point between groups.

But they’re not borders as such. Without administration, they shift constantly, and frequently are not clear at the edges.

> Start with the point that most 'states' (or administrative regions) in history, have been ethnocentric. From Egypt through Minoan, Greek, Roman etc..

Sure, but the phenomenon of the nation state is the part that you’re missing here. You can argue that historically, humans have grouped themselves ethnically. What you can’t argue is that this somehow makes ethnocentrism in the political environment of a nation state “natural,” as the concept of the nation and the state have been aligned for hundreds of years now.

> Some more so than others. The US, no, Sweden, mostly.

But this distinction basically proves this is not intrinsic to how humans function. The existence of variation is a pretty good argument against historical determinism.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#134

Post by jollybean » Fri, Jul 23, 2021, 2:35 AM UTC

jolux wrote: post #133

jollybean wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing a lot of information here. "Without states, there are no borders" Well, the 'Nation State' is a modern concept, so no. But if you were to say 'borders imply an administrative region of some kind' - then maybe. But even without official, stated administrative organization, 'borders' still exist as the demarcation point between groups. "You can’t just ignore the existence of the nation-state in d…

> Well, the 'Nation State' is a modern concept, so no. The nation state is. The state is not. The state is ancient. > But even without official, stated administrative organization, 'borders' still exist as the demarcation point between groups. But they’re not borders as such. Without administration, they shift constantly, and frequently are not clear at the edges. > Start with the point that most 'states' (or adminis…

" What you can’t argue is that this somehow makes ethnocentrism in the political environment of a nation state “natural,” as the concept of the nation and the state have been aligned for hundreds of years now."

??? Yes, I'm making that argument and it's really obvious.

The 'modern nation state' is not fundamentally different from historical 'states' in this regard.

'Gaul' was an administrative state, part of the Roman Empire, roughly ethnocentric. 'France' is now.

Borders bounce around, but they mostly fit between ethnic groups. It doesn't really matter whether we are dealing with the modern notion of state or not.

"Some more so than others. The US, no, Sweden, mostly.

But this distinction basically proves this is not intrinsic to how humans function."

It really doesn't.

That 'some nation states' do not form along ethnic boundaries in not way 'proves' that ethnicity is not a natural vector for state formation.

Even if 'most' nation states formed along some other means, it still wouldn't prove that ethnicity is not a vector of formation.

The fact a number of ethnocentric states exists proves that it's a vector of formation.

The fact that 'most states' are roughly ethnocentric proves my point.

It's fairly obvious and not very controversial.

I think it's just one of those issues that triggers some people who hate the fact that ethnicity is a fairly important part of our identity, and then they step out of their ability to apply rhetoric in a reasonable way i.e. a kind of bad faith argumentation. It's the only explanation I can fathom for why people would argue with something so obvious. Vietnam has Vietnamese and Korea has Koreans. Obviously it's more complicated than that, but unless there are literal Nazis running around, and there generally are not, then who cares. It's really not a problem in most places in the world.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#135

Post by sershe » Fri, Jul 23, 2021, 3:55 AM UTC

agency wrote: post #44

pimterry wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 21 years because that's the longest formal imprisonment sentence allowed for crimes (other than war crimes) in Norway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway . It doesn't mean that such prisoners are definitely released with 21 years - it can (and likely will) be extended indefinitely for as long as a prisoner remains dangerous to society: > If the prisoner is still considered dangerous after…

It’s fascinating getting glimpses of other justice systems like this. Meanwhile in the US many states have three-strikes laws where you can get a mandatory life sentence for repeat offenses, even if the last offense is relatively minor or non-violent. Insanity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockyer_v._Andrade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_L._Tyler

Why exactly is it insanity? I like the 3 strikes better (my only concern is drug crime and other non-crime) - 3 separate occasions of disregarding others' most basic rights establish a clear pattern; the society reciprocates by not respecting the rights of the criminal as it protects itself from them. It's only incidentally a punishment, it's really removal - in fact, humanistic removal, the more cost-effective one would be execution.

Now, in case as unique and clear-cut as that of Breivik, I would advocate for an extremely rare application of actual punishment-punishment - e.g., keeping him alive for as long as possible while torturing him.

As for three-strikes-society-removes-you, that's probably my favorite part of the justice system in the US.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#136

Post by voisin » Fri, Jul 23, 2021, 9:16 AM UTC

Maphistow wrote: post #67

I don't understand why they mention the terrorist so much in this in memorial, also photos of him in combat gear. The majority of comments here are about him and his deeds; this is exactly the kind of thing these people want, to be remembered. Discussion about motives, political background are warranted but these people really should not be remembered by name or face.

I concur. I have great respect for the PM of New Zealand and the media that subsequently followed who refused to name the shooters in the Christchurch mosque massacre. Also, the Canadian media that refused to name the Nova Scotia shooter.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#137

Post by foolinaround » Sun, Jul 25, 2021, 3:45 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #122

foolinaround wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logical statement is that more the good guys have guns, the lesser chance the bad guys have to inflict damage. It would be great to have no bad guys, but they will always exist, and will not follow the laws no matter what. Laws should be written to enable good guys to protect themselves.

> The logical statement is that more the good guys have guns, the lesser chance the bad guys have to inflict damage. That's some crazy logic. A "good guy" doesn't mean a person capable of making the right decisions in front of a bad guy. Would they be able to deescalate? Would they shoot an innocent bystander? Would they shoot another good guy mistaking them for a bad guy? The correct path forward is to educate and r…

in todays society, i look as guns not as a good, but as a necessary evil, needed to protect the weak from the strong, and level the playing field in a physical situation ( not ideal, but can't be wished away either)

For this reason, the gun ownership needs to increase among the traditionally weaker classes ( women, minorities ) who currently are at threat.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#138

Post by michael1999 » Mon, Jul 26, 2021, 12:33 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #92

michael1999 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Consider France -- until Napoleon forged modern France, it contained dozens of languages and ethnicities. Then the modern world steam-rolled them into Frenchmen.

I don't think "the modern world" can be faulted. The French explicitly had a top-down campaign to forge a French national identity/ethnicity. But I take the broader point, I thought "ethnonationalism" was any kind of persecution of ethnic minorities.

What could be more modern than a top-down, homogenous education campaign?