In American marriages and maybe this is a general Anglosphere cultural tradition you’re expected to provide and sacrifice if need be for your family (including spouse/kids). So if you had a hobby of, idk, drag racing cars it might be expected you give that up in some marriages, though certainly not all. Also if you have a child your hobby can wind up leaving your spouse with sole child responsibilities which typically falls on the mother. So you wind up with a father who works and then does their hobby, and you end up with a mom that also works and their hobby becomes raising a child. This can cut both ways or course.

I think I was listening to a world-famous rock climber who had toned down their extreme sports adventures (toned down for them) because they didn’t want to die and leave their spouse and child without a father over the pursuit of a hobby. So it’s a maturity thing too.

Most definetly, maturity and actual level of danger.

I don’t think anything Woz has done is moderately dangerous. If they wanted to lock him up I’m sure he could call to a competent lawyer and state he is a respectable citizen who co-founded the friggin Apple.

Woz has an extremely long history of egging people of authority and I don’t think he’s ever been to court from those escapades (please correct me if I’m wrong).

Maybe you're right that his actual risk is non-existent because some people are more equal than others.

I would hope we're not in such a world though.

This was not as much about privilege than about Woz having a life long experience of trying to bend conventions and rules and probably had a good intuition how far he could goof off given his social and financial status etc.

Doubtful. You only need to make one mistake to throw your life off track when it comes to playing on the edges of the legal system. You don't know how "close" you're getting until you get a conviction.

Right. I just don't know if "giving a fake Id to secret service " counts As a"pre-existing hobby" :-)

* * *

You guys only value independence for Western Europeans.

Alligevel vedtager I en "Ghettopakke", der lovligt legaliserede at splitte migrantfamilier fra hinanden. I er lige så dårlige som resten af andre hvide mennesker, jeg har mødt.

[0] - https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/4895/Denmark:-Ghetto-P...

[1] - https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/10/un-human-rig...

I'm not sure why you are venting, but if you are having a hard time in your life I'm sorry you are going through that.

Now, our discussion was about Woz's zany antics, but I still have to clarify some geographical things:

1. Western Europe[0] and nordics[1] are two disjoint sets of countries

2. Of 28M nordic people only roughly 1/5 is Danish. And, there is very little political cohesion between the countries, except by national parliaments copying established successfull schemes from each other when it suits them individually

Personally, I am a Finn and had to google translate the bit of Danish in your message - I don't really follow Danish politics but I don't think it's fair to think every Dane would support this bill. This is actually the first time I read about this.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_geoscheme_for_E...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries

Yea. It was moment of venting tbh. I just get pissed off when a handful of commentators from Scandinavia act "holier than thou" when there is still some real racism and toxic commentary around migrants. With a mom who's Mirpuri background. I've heard down the grapevine how much it sucks for the community in DK and NO.

It is a bit weird you got triggered by this out-of-context association when we were discussing the ethics of Woz's story, but you are correct, nordics are quite racist: https://harvardpolitics.com/nordic-racism/ - I would not say there is "some real racism" but call it a pretty entrenched position unfortunately.

Agreed that I got triggered and completely derailed this thread, and totally apologize about it btw. It just gets annoying sometimes when people from any community (America, Nordics, China, etc) get on a high horse sometimes.

Idk, for some reason the idealization of "Nordics" (itself a highly contentious term - is Estonia nordic? is Greenland?) on internet forums gets annoying, because I can just tell it's white people (in reality Western European+American, not like Romanians, Bosnians, Turks, or Albanians got it better in Malmö) talking to other white people and just completely ignoring the very real elephant in the room.

Once again sorry about that but I think that offhand comment the GP made was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

No problem :)

Nordic countries is a well defined collection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries - Greenland/Nuuk is part of them given it is a region of Denmark.

I don't think the racism can be helped short term - nordics have been isolated polities that only in past decades have had large flows of migrants from different cultures. (Well, apart from Sweden attempting to conquer Europe in the 17th century but it did not end well).

If it's any consolation nordic people can be quite xenophobic even toward each other so it's not as if they would be uniquely harsh towards specific ethnicity. Every non-native will be discriminated against pretty much equally, regardless of origin or complexion. They abhor anything unfamiliar regardless of complexion. The general narrative of historical racism in these areas is quite different as compared to more cosmopolitan western countries such as UK, France or US.

Law of Jante is a pretty good framework for understanding the nordic mindset (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante) - the baseline response even towards in-group members that are different will be severe.

> And if they had apprehended Woz he would probably had a lawyer to bail him out and smooth things over.

One can have a good lawyer but that lawyer cannot change the facts of the case.

So? Law is about men's rea and judge-ment, not mere facts.

> So?

So facts are unimportant or not a very big part of convictions?

A lawyer can help you decide which facts to reveal and which to withhold. A good lawyer will prevent you from making the state's case for them.

Facts in my comment refer to the information the prosecutor has at their disposal.

I thought the context of this discussion was concerning an interview with law enforcement, in this case the Secret Service.