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

81–90 of 138 posts

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#81

Post by [deleted] »

toss1 wrote: post #36
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 i…

[deleted]

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#82

Post by magicalhippo »

foreigner wrote: post #18

Weapons purchased completely legally.

This was an act planned for years by someone who was sane and seemingly normal. To get the weapons he had, he had to pass a test[1] and apply to the police for approval[2]. He got the approvals as he passed the test and had joined a gun club as is required.

Arguing that ABB using legally purchased guns means gun control doesn't work is pretty much the same as saying burglars will bypass the lock on your door so might as well not have any doors in your home.

[1]: https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/breivik-kjopte-drapsvapen-i-r...

[2]: https://www.tv2.no/a/13199459/

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#83

Post by [deleted] »

sinyug wrote: post #73
nefitty wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s unclear to me whether you’re defending the massacre or what your argument is. It was set off by an arson. Ok. Are you implying that the reaction was justified?

> It’s unclear to me whether you’re defending the massacre or what your argument is. My argument is that the way the comment is structured, it appears that Hindu nationalism randomly causes Hindus to attack and kill 1000 Muslims just for the heck of it. The murder of Hindu pilgrims by a Muslim mob triggered the Hindu-Muslim riots, not Hindu nationalism.

[deleted]

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#84

Post by michael1999 »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #48
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.

Do I misunderstand these terms, or hasn't ethnonationalism been the norm historically and pluralism quite rare?

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

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#85

Post by toss1 »

toss1 wrote: post #36
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 i…

Seems the point is being missed here - the point is that tolerant societies must nevertheless be vigilant to contain serious intolerance or it will take over.

It is easy to have an absolutist rule "oh just let anyone say and do anything". Seems like the simple freedom, but the paradox points out that this WILL be hacked and destroyed by some intolerant group.

It is much harder to implement a few constraints that are actually required to keep things free. But it is necessary (and that murderous rampage to literally eliminate a class of future leaders is an example of why it is necessary).

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#86

Post by api »

harpersealtako wrote: post #80
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's the paradox of intolerance because it's a paradox, i.e. a logical contradiction. If you are tolerant to intolerant views, they will gain power and censor your tolerant speech. But on the other hand, if you are intolerant towards intolerant views and censor them, then it's ok for someone else to censor YOU for being intolerant. You can go a step farther and say that "tolerance towards intolerance leads to intoler…

It reminds me of game theory and how difficult it is to create cooperator strategies that prevent the invasion of defectors in e.g. the prisoners' dilemma.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#87

Post by refurb »

ceejayoz wrote: post #47
refurb wrote: post #41

Humans break sometimes and get violent. Just the other day a 16 year old student in Singapore used an axe to kill a 13 year old in a bathroom at school. They had never met.

This was a crime planned for months, carried out with care, and based in ideology. Comparing it to a random act of violence is disingenuous.

You think some 16 year just randomly decided to bring an axe to school and kill someone?

None of these are spontaneous.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#88

Post by throwaway894345 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #70
throwaway894345 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I misunderstand these terms, or hasn't ethnonationalism been the norm historically and pluralism quite rare?

No, the existence of ethnicities is old but the concept of tying them to national borders is very young (modern era, and mostly 19th century and beyond) and the specific interpretation of ethonationalism here (ethno exclusionism within a set of borders) is even younger. I have to work right now so can't work through all the examples listed by another poster below, but will try to come to this thread later. But if you…

I'm still a bit confused, but I think the takeaway is that I was conflating "any ethnic persecution" with "ethnonationalism". It sounds like the latter is much more specific ("we don't want Jews in our country" versus "this country belongs to Germans"?)?

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#89

Post by 74d-fe6-2c6 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #70
throwaway894345 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I misunderstand these terms, or hasn't ethnonationalism been the norm historically and pluralism quite rare?

No, the existence of ethnicities is old but the concept of tying them to national borders is very young (modern era, and mostly 19th century and beyond) and the specific interpretation of ethonationalism here (ethno exclusionism within a set of borders) is even younger. I have to work right now so can't work through all the examples listed by another poster below, but will try to come to this thread later. But if you…

The concept of a territory been defended by tribe against other tribes is as old as mammals.

Re: 10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

#90

Post by cmrdporcupine »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #88
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the existence of ethnicities is old but the concept of tying them to national borders is very young (modern era, and mostly 19th century and beyond) and the specific interpretation of ethonationalism here (ethno exclusionism within a set of borders) is even younger. I have to work right now so can't work through all the examples listed by another poster below, but will try to come to this thread later. But if you…

I'm still a bit confused, but I think the takeaway is that I was conflating "any ethnic persecution" with "ethnonationalism". It sounds like the latter is much more specific ("we don't want Jews in our country" versus "this country belongs to Germans"?)?

I think it's normal to be confused, because the terms and history all have different interpretations and meanings.

What is German? What is Jew? What is "country"? And what is nation?

The answer to all those questions changes. Which is one of the reasons why I think it's important to be incredibly suspicious of any person who claims to have the answer, and to be able to state with certainty that this country belongs to Germany or this is the homeland of the Jews.

What are they really trying to accomplish?

Also, I'm super suspicious of anybody who says about any topic "it's always been this way" or "it's just common sense"... because a) they're usually wrong b) that's usually just obscuring a proposition or action they don't want to justify or defend using arguments so they appeal to nature/God/common-sense/natural-rightness instead.

Post reply on HN