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

10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

vg.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 138 posts

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#31

Post by BBC-vs-neolibs »

skrebbel wrote: post #16
neither_color wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“APPROX. 18:30: The son of Trond Berntsen (the security guard and police officer who was among the first to be killed) is standing in the sea on the southern tip when he comes face to face with Breivik. The terrorist shoots and kills five people in front of him. ‘Don’t shoot me!', the boy shouts, doing all he can to demonstrate to the gunman how small he is. Breivik does not shoot the ten year-old. According to the t…

How entire goal was to eradicate the most promising young people of the Labour Party, ie the country's likely future leaders. Iirc his idea was when the most promising political talents are dead, the party has to settle for less and will lose votes. So it wasn't really mental gymnastics, it was a conscious attempt to curb a particular party's future. It's evil and it's nuts, but it makes logical sense. It's not dissi…

And it largely worked. His party went on to win elections.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#32

Post by pimterry »

haasted wrote: post #27

Anyone know what Norway will do when Breivik's 21 year prison sentence [0] is up in 10-12 years? Difficult to imagine him being released back into society. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivi...

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 serving the original sentence, the detention can be extended by five years at a time. Renewal of the detention every five years can in theory result in actual life imprisonment.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#33

Post by ashtonkem »

iamshs wrote: post #20

The fact that Breivik cited Hindu Nationalism in his manifesto went under-reported totally. The guys he cited are today on Twitter spewing the same hatred day after day. Hindu Nationalism now rules over India and they aren't going anywhere. World has changed so much within a decade.

Hindu nationalism is pretty scary stuff and is relatively under reported in the western world. The body count it's racked up so far is genuinely shocking. One riot[0]in 2002 (some argue it was a pogrom) killed at least 1,000 people. Some people accuse the current prime minister of either initiating it or at least ordering the police to do nothing, since he was the chief minister of the area at the time. I only know about this because of "Behind the Bastards", I've never heard a lick about this stuff in my regular news channels.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#35

Post by magicalhippo »

haasted wrote: post #27

Anyone know what Norway will do when Breivik's 21 year prison sentence [0] is up in 10-12 years? Difficult to imagine him being released back into society. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivi...

He was not sentenced to regular prison, but rather detention[1]. The difference being that the former is a punishment and the latter is to protect the public.

While detention must be evaluated at given intervals, it can be extended indefinitely[2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_detention

[2]: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forvaring

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#36

Post by toss1 »

neonnoodle wrote: post #12

Ten years on, and it's chilling to consider how much more widespread Brevik's ideology has become worldwide. Ethnonationalism has elbowed its way to a seat at the table, demanding "toleration" for itself that it would never reciprocate for pluralism.

Yup, an he was an early (in this cycle) example of the importance of the Paradox of Tolerance.

"A concept advanced by the philosopher Karl Popper which claims that unlimited tolerance necessarily results in the destruction of the tolerant by the intolerant, resulting in a society in which tolerance is no longer possible. Therefore, while paradoxical to the concept of free speech, it is necessary to be intolerant of intolerance. "[1]

In short, in a society of unlimited tolerance, the intolerant will drive out tolerance and take over. In This murderer's example, by simply eliminating those whose views he doesn't like.

[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#37

Post by BBC-vs-neolibs »

rectang wrote: post #29

The headline of the English translation is "The Terror Attacks That Changed Norway". Did anything actually change? In the US, we're accustomed to mass killings not changing anything, and I'm curious if Utoya was different.

It changed the Labour party, otherwise I don't see any evidence it changed Norway much.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#38

Post by ceejayoz »

roel_v wrote: post #25
ceejayoz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might be that he killed 33 children that day.

I'm obviously not defending him, but those were 16-18 year olds who were already party members. My point is: it's easy to find flaws in the reasoning of extremists, and use that to show how "crazy" and "illogical" and "insane" they are, and thereby distance ourselves (mentally) far from them. What we need to do however is face the much more scary truth that even the people who commit atrocities are for the most part…

Two 14 year olds, seven 15 year olds, eight 16 year olds, sixteen 17 year olds. I wasn't counting folks eighteen and over.

He killed 33 children.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#39

Post by DoingIsLearning »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #23
neonnoodle wrote: post #12

Ten years on, and it's chilling to consider how much more widespread Brevik's ideology has become worldwide. Ethnonationalism has elbowed its way to a seat at the table, demanding "toleration" for itself that it would never reciprocate for pluralism.

It's the paradox of tolerance in action. Tolerate intolerant ideals and there will be a sudden jerk to intolerance.

For context Karl Popper's quote on the paradox of tolerance:

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." [0]

[0] K. Popper (1945) 'The Open Society and Its Enemies'

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#40

Post by refurb »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #23
neonnoodle wrote: post #12

Ten years on, and it's chilling to consider how much more widespread Brevik's ideology has become worldwide. Ethnonationalism has elbowed its way to a seat at the table, demanding "toleration" for itself that it would never reciprocate for pluralism.

It's the paradox of tolerance in action. Tolerate intolerant ideals and there will be a sudden jerk to intolerance.

The paradox of Tolerance says to actually tolerate intolerance unless it’s violent.
Post reply on HN