I really don't care about any of this but I don't see the need to play ignorant as to why many people might understandably find what she did distasteful.
>> If flattering a superpower by giving them a meaningless statue can help her do that ... why wouldn't she?
> Come on, you know exactly why: integrity.
> I really don't care about any of this but I don't see the need to play ignorant as to why many people might understandably find what she did distasteful.
Please go into more detail what you mean by "integrity." Because, that can mean a lot of different things, and what I think you mean sounds like a priority inversion.
If a Venezuelan giving the stupid hunk of metal away could help Venezuela, who cares about how some Norwegian committee and its fans feel about it? They're comfortable and unimportant.
It's obvious isn't it? An award has an element of consensus, we choose to make the Nobel prizes mean something by agreeing they mean something.
I don't think it's controversial to say that they are considered a highly prestigious award.
I also don't think it's controversial to say that treating them as transferable undermines the whole point of the award (that they are exclusive, that they are awarded based on merit and careful judgement and not just some free-market commodity that can be bought and sold). If they were, they would be completely worthless.
This is like.. the whole point of awards, trophies etc.
I vehemently have no horse in this race, I'm just trying to live my life, but I refuse to believe that someone who browses HN and articulates themselves well doesn't grok the generally well-understood social contract which underpins things like the Nobel prize and how some might see giving one away as undermining not just to the prize but to the many others who have been deemed worth enough to earn said prize.
Integrity is exactly the right word IMO because awards rely on the integrity of the participants to not do exactly what has been done in this instance at the risk of basically throwing the honor they were given back in the faces of the ones who bestowed it.
Honestly I don't care and I wish I hadn't said anything, but surely you're not sat genuinely scratching your head at why some groups find it objectionable
palmotea|1 month ago
> Come on, you know exactly why: integrity.
> I really don't care about any of this but I don't see the need to play ignorant as to why many people might understandably find what she did distasteful.
Please go into more detail what you mean by "integrity." Because, that can mean a lot of different things, and what I think you mean sounds like a priority inversion.
If a Venezuelan giving the stupid hunk of metal away could help Venezuela, who cares about how some Norwegian committee and its fans feel about it? They're comfortable and unimportant.
ceuk|1 month ago
It's obvious isn't it? An award has an element of consensus, we choose to make the Nobel prizes mean something by agreeing they mean something.
I don't think it's controversial to say that they are considered a highly prestigious award.
I also don't think it's controversial to say that treating them as transferable undermines the whole point of the award (that they are exclusive, that they are awarded based on merit and careful judgement and not just some free-market commodity that can be bought and sold). If they were, they would be completely worthless.
This is like.. the whole point of awards, trophies etc.
I vehemently have no horse in this race, I'm just trying to live my life, but I refuse to believe that someone who browses HN and articulates themselves well doesn't grok the generally well-understood social contract which underpins things like the Nobel prize and how some might see giving one away as undermining not just to the prize but to the many others who have been deemed worth enough to earn said prize.
Integrity is exactly the right word IMO because awards rely on the integrity of the participants to not do exactly what has been done in this instance at the risk of basically throwing the honor they were given back in the faces of the ones who bestowed it.
Honestly I don't care and I wish I hadn't said anything, but surely you're not sat genuinely scratching your head at why some groups find it objectionable