The current institution just uses it to whitewash war criminals like Kissinger or to manufacture consent, such as this current year with trying to justify regime change in Venezuela against a popularly elected leader while the US Empire slaughters Venezuelans.

An actual peace prize? Give it to those who risked their lives or sacrificed them in trying to deliver aid to Palestine. The journalists that Israel murdered, the doctors working in Gaza trying to save as many people as possible from genocide.

I think it's dumb how much cultural weight the Nobel Peace Prize is still given. It's a popularity contest judged by 5 Norwegian politicians.

Obama getting the prize less than a year into his presidential term, only to airstrike Libya two years later. And the entire EU winning the prize in 2012 for existing.

I'm similarly unimpressed with prestige awards elsewhere, like the Oscars for film.

Greta Thunberg

greta or the flotilla crew but they definitely wouldn't accept it; i honestly don't know of many people who are truely working for peace in the world.

Ms Rachel.

No, not since Obama got one. I'm sure some were given to other monsters before him, but he was the one that made me stop taking it seriously in any capacity.

It really doesn't make any sense. The candidates and winners are chosen by a committee appointed by the Norwegian goverment, there is 0 objectivity there. The notion that it is a legit award gets more ridiculous the more you read into it.

It has always been hit or miss and has been given to warmongers who happen to negotiate for peace at one point.

The problem is, I think, abundance of quality - or the lack thereof. For all the research based prizes, there is enough stuff floating around the ether that you can pick something interesting and worth the prize to be awarded. Old Phil Physicist, not by accident a man, will get the prize for fundamental research into clockwise spinning protons and that helps us today with welding or something. Nobody but the experts understands this and we're okay with that.

And then Literature and Peace. They seem more subjective. Us non-labcoats have opinions on these ones. And thus the controversy likelihood is much higher.

Since they get awarded every year, it's become a fixture in media coverage. Like the New Year's ball drop, Carnival in Rio, the Pope urbi'ing et orbi'ing, Black Friday, etc. It's predictable news coverage.

I don't think they should stop it. Even the institutionalized reminder once a year that it's worth it working towards peace is not a bad thing. I think the prize has the most gravitas when it's awarded for long time services to peace on the books. Like giving it to the chemical weapons disposers, the red crescent/cross or even the EU, which has probably prevented more deaths from wars within than it has tolerated refugees drowning in the Med. They have done more good stuff for peace. It's tricky when they give it to people for more current achievements. Kissinger wasn't the peacemaker it looked like he was. Aung San Su Kyi was a great figurehead while under house arrest 1.0 - and arguably not great enough for the Rohingya when she was let out. Obama got it because they thought he wasn't Bush, and then he sent the drones. We want our laureates to be saints and it hurts when we find out they are just flawed humans.

I think it's dumb the most peaceful people aren't people who are recognized nearly enough to be a candidate for the "Nobel peace prize". Also out of billions of humans giving it to one person (sometimes organization) is foolish

Obama. Mostly because the orange one would have a stroke if that happened.

Benjamin Netanyahu