[A_D_E_P_T]

At this point they should really do away with the peace prize, or dramatically change how it's granted.

As things stand, it's frequently a complete debacle. (Of course in 2025, but see also, e.g., Abiy Ahmed.) Or an embarrassment. (Too many examples to list.)

They ought to either cancel the thing outright, or invert the usual Nobel Prize rule and only award the peace prize posthumously. That would solve every problem.

[Jordan-117]

A local PTA has a "parent of the month" award.

One month, a vain, vindictive, mentally unstable, and heavily armed parent who tirelessly lobbied for the award and lost begins physically threatening and menacing their neighbors, declaring that if they won't be recognized as the best parent, then by god they'll just take what they're owed until they feel they've gotten what is "psychologically needed for success."

In that scenario, I don't think focusing on reform of the office politics and favoritism of the PTA award is the most productive use of time.

[andsoitis]

What's the point of the Parent of the Month award?

[A_D_E_P_T]

This analogy would work if 2025 were an isolated incident. But the award has been a joke for a very long time, if not actively harmful, and recent events make such a mockery of its founding premises that it's simply too much to bear. What if the "parent of the month" award were perpetually mired in controversy? I think it would be fair to reconsider the thing.

[lovich]

How is it actively harmful?

If I don’t get what I want from an event can I just make it controversial by yelling all the time to close it down?

You’re arguing that everyone should just give up to muggers

[gizajob]

I think Obama winning the prize just for winning the election while being black was a very poor precedent to set.

[fifilura]

The Obama prize was a problem that haunts the committee. I agree

But you are simplifying greatly. He got it because he reached out to Arabic leader to lower the tone set by George "crusader" Bush.

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award on October 9, 2009, citing Obama's promotion of nuclear nonproliferation[2] and a "new climate" in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize

Either way. Stating that you don't care about world peace because you didn't receive a prize. It is a bit childish. I would not let guy near something that requires responsibility. You win some you lose some. Get on with life.

[rjrjrjrj]

I think the US electing a convicted criminal as President was a very poor precedent to set.

[moogly]

Henry Kissinger though?

[adamtulinius]

Who "they"?

The problem here is that Trump believes that the Norwegian government has any say in what a private organisation is doing, and - to be frank - just shows that Trump is a tyrant who wants everyone to use illegal force to please him.

[testing22321]

It gives good insight into how trump thinks of his own power in the US.

“I do whatever the fuck I want. I say jump, people ask how high. People do what I say”

He expects the same of other leaders in other countries.

[A_D_E_P_T]

They would be The Norwegian Nobel Committee, who at this point should realize what a disaster their prize has been, and not only last year. It was inherently poorly conceived, and shouldn't be awarded to the living, who can and do go on to wage war, agitate social instability, and act against the interests of peace.

[gizajob]

Having a situation where a president demands the peace prize otherwise he causes a war isn’t a good look for Nobel, and shows that we’ve now moved so far from the original intention of the prize that the peace component really should be scrapped.

[s_trumpet]

The brink of world war 3 over fucking goodhart’s law.

We are not a serious species.

[gizajob]

When combined with the Peter principle, it doesn’t make for great progress, no.

[oenton]

> isn’t a good look for Nobel, and shows that we’ve now moved so far from the original intention of the prize that the peace component really should be scrapped.

I don't follow. Are you saying the committee should have known that Trump would literally wage a military war if he isn't awarded the peace prize? Are you saying if they changed their mind now and allowed Venezuelan politician Machado to gift her prize to Trump, that Trump would no longer have a desire to own Greenland? I'm honestly trying to understand but maybe I missed an important story.

[gizajob]

Well it should be apparent that Greenland is the sovereign territory of another NATO member, Denmark. Coming along like a transactional narcissist and claiming you “need it or else” and breaking nato over it OR you get the Nobel peace prize for not capturing it.

[A_D_E_P_T]

Right! Either scrap it, or award it only to (A) those recently deceased who have devoted their lives to making peace, or (B) defunct organizations who have completed their mission and had operated in the interests of peace.

Giving a "peace" award to living people/organizations -- who can and do go on to sully the award with most unpeaceful deeds -- is a proven failure.

[fifilura]

The thing is, they don't "need" to do anything.

This is the prize.

If people find it irrelevant it will become irrelevant.

The committee didn't ask for the US president to put so much relevance into it.

He got the FIFA peace prize. It would be better if he valued that prize higher.

You have to ask yourself. Why is it important for you that they change?

[throw0101d]

> Right! Either scrap it, or award it only to (A) those recently deceased who have devoted their lives to making peace, or (B) defunct organizations who have completed their mission and had operated in the interests of peace.

The legal trust for all the Nobel Prizes state (AIUI) that they can only be awarded to living persons.

The only option would be to not award it (like happened in 1948).

[andsoitis]

> The legal trust for all the Nobel Prizes state (AIUI) that they can only be awarded to living persons.

Can the Nobel Foundation change their rules? Or is static, forever set in stone? In a complex world, you need to be able to adapt.