• bedwyr@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    How could that be true? People making war after getting the prize are cases in point, and the nobel committee has to answer it, or continue to have 0 credibility and only be respected by people that are ignorant or bad.

    • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      So your threshold is that they have to be able to see the intent of people’s hearts and predict the future? How would anyone succeed at those goals? How about not giving it to people who have directed no clear progress towards peace in the first place, like Barack Obama? That’s a much lower bar and reasonably achieved, and they haven’t even done that. They could also not give it to people until the results of their efforts, or at least the trends of their efforts regardless of results, we’re clear. That would still disqualify Obama, but also Ahmed.

      • bedwyr@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Barak Obama was and is, a piece of fucking shit.

        He is case and point why the nobel committee eats oligarch dick.

        It’s tricky, giving the prize, but a true leader will admit a mistake, and tell us how they will do better in the future, and the Nobel committee has not done that.