Riots erupting in immigrant-dominated Swedish suburb

[Deleted]

Why do demographics offend you? The numbers are what they are. We are a nation of immigrants and you are a nation of Swedes. I have no idea why you find those facts to be offensive but, based on this entire conversation, I truly think you just take offense extremely easily. Check some of that pride at the door if you want to discuss things with those from other nations.

Because those "facts" are wrong and hillariously ignorant, that's why. You are so ignorant of the real facts that I'm not even sure were to begin telling you how wrong you are. At the same time, you act like you know everything and that by virtue of being born in the US you've got knowledge and comprehension that I'm just too simple to grasp.
Based on this entire conversation, I think you're either presenting fallacies on purpose or you're just incapable of understanding that what you're saying is absurd, aggrevating and ignorant. But it's pretty typical of someone that's just baiting, which is probably why you get infracted for it.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure the fact that America's crime rates are higher ease the minds of the Swedish people who are currently experiencing a spike in crimes.

/sarcasm

What spike?

- - - Updated - - -

No, because crime rate among Swedes can have gone down while we've gotten more criminals that are foreigners.

Citation needed.

[Deleted]

What spike?

There was far less crime when I was growing up than there is now.

[Auxora]

I was a bit skeptical at first based on the vague picture attached, where you can't really tell if it's 1 guy that lit a trash can on fire (which I wouldn't clasify as a riot). But looking more into it, although it was a relatively small riot I will say that there definitely was one.



This doesn't really give Trump a pass, since he said things were happening Saturday night and this didn't happen until 3 days later. And I know people in Sweden are all probably saying the same "not by me" line, but approach of sticking all the refugees in 1 concentrated area in Rinkeby isn't a great solution either. That just helps feed gangs/groups forming and leads to this stuff with disaffected youth.

It also sounds like the police have probably been too soft and fearful of the whole area. That's not good either. When that's happened in the US in a few areas where police don't even like to go...the outcome isn't a good one. St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago, have all had certain areas like that and they end up becoming post-apocalyptic nightmare places before long when police, EMS, and even garbage collection and other normal services are afraid to go in.

[Bakis]

Another thread with cluless Americans yapping since US is the greatest including safest country on earth.

[Deleted]

Were the perpetrators refugees? This seems like an integration problem and not an immigration problem.

[Deleted]

I'll be perfectly honest, even though I know you won't respond in an honest manner. There are a lot of figures flying around. I have seen some solid cases made for both sides of this. Truthfully, I don't really know whose to believe, but I know that I personally do not want to do the work to sort it out myself.

That said, there is another statistic that can be tossed out there, that can't be refuted. Every single crime committed by a refugee, would not have been committed if he were not present to commit the crime. Every single one. Now, I'm not making a case for just abandoning refugees. But if you are being honest, you have to admit that historically, it was completely a non-issue non-thing that a refugee would enter a country, then attack them for it. This is a new deal, yo.

Regardless of whose figures you trust, the notion that refugee assimilation is just a non-topic, with nothing to discuss, is pretty laughable.

Usually those statistics are heavily cherry-picked. Some types of crimes are up, some others are down. The rape statistic is usually singled out because if you just look at the pretty colored graphs it looks quite bad, but if you actually read the reports you'd know about several things that heavily influence the graphs.

So for instance, this is how sex crimes have evolved



Now if you have an anti-immigrant agenda you might say "look at that spike 2013, it's the immigrants!". But if you actually look at what happened, Sweden changed the law in 2013. The same thing happened in 2005, but I couldn't find a graph going back that far.

[Deleted]

Citation needed.

Tell the government to give people access to the data then. Then we can easily see who is right and who is wrong. As it stands, they are not doing anything to check this and provide data and instead think people will just buy into what they say without any studies/data to confirm it.

[Deleted]

I'll be perfectly honest, even though I know you won't respond in an honest manner. There are a lot of figures flying around. I have seen some solid cases made for both sides of this. Truthfully, I don't really know whose to believe, but I know that I personally do not want to do the work to sort it out myself.

That said, there is another statistic that can be tossed out there, that can't be refuted. Every single crime committed by a refugee, would not have been committed if he were not present to commit the crime. Every single one. Now, I'm not making a case for just abandoning refugees. But if you are being honest, you have to admit that historically, it was completely a non-issue non-thing that a refugee would enter a country, then attack them for it. This is a new deal, yo.

Regardless of whose figures you trust, the notion that refugee assimilation is just a non-topic, with nothing to discuss, is pretty laughable.

Usually those statistics are heavily cherry-picked. Some types of crimes are up, some others are down. The rape statistic is usually singled out because if you just look at the pretty colored graphs it looks quite bad, but if you actually read the reports you'd know about several things that heavily influence the graphs.

So for instance, this is how sex crimes have evolved



Now if you have an anti-immigrant agenda you might say "look at that spike 2013, it's the immigrants!". But if you actually look at what happened, Sweden changed the law in 2013. The same thing happened in 2005, but I couldn't find a graph going back that far.

[Endus]

No, because crime rate among Swedes can have gone down while we've gotten more criminals that are foreigners.

And it could be because Swedes and immigrants have all committed zero crimes, but the Kaped Kriminal is running rampant and causing every single crime in Sweden, all by himself, with his mystical Krime powers.

Without data, both are equally likely. And no, citing crime rates from 15 years ago in that one BRA report whose conclusions contradict your own isn't going to help you make your case.

[Deleted]

Usually those statistics are heavily cherry-picked. Some types of crimes are up, some others are down. The rape statistic is usually singled out because if you just look at the pretty colored graphs it looks quite bad, but if you actually read the reports you'd know about several things that heavily influence the graphs.

So for instance, this is how sex crimes have evolved



Now if you have an anti-immigrant agenda you might say "look at that spike 2013, it's the immigrants!". But if you actually look at what happened, Sweden changed the law in 2013. The same thing happened in 2005, but I couldn't find a graph going back that far.

The amount of women who were subjected to sex crimes were at 3% in 2016. You can't explain that with law changes. There's been no law changes that would increase reported sex crimes. There's been law changes that could affect data on rape, yes. But it does not affect victimization studies where people are asked if they have been subjected to a sexual crime.

[Deleted]

Because I'm not inclined to get into stupid arguments with people who will constantly go "SOURCE FOR THAT?" all the time instead of already being knowledgable about the topic. Do not engage in a discussion if you do not know anything about the topic.

THe point of a discussion is to learn and understand new things, to present facts and ideas about topics that are being discussed. If I'm actually wrong, I want to be proven wrong and that's why I ask for sources and actual facts. And when someone is doing what you're doing, makign statements without support, I ask them to support it because unless they do, they don't have a leg to stand on.
That's how a discussion/debate works. You can't just spew things out and then when people want you to support it, dismiss them as unworthy and ignorant. By doing what you're doing, you're proving that your argument is weak and that you can't support it. But rather than admit you're wrong, you're gonna get defensive.

[Deleted]

Without data, both are equally likely. And no, citing crime rates from 15 years ago in that one BRA report whose conclusions contradict your own isn't going to help you make your case.

It's not contradicting anything I've said.

- - - Updated - - -

THe point of a discussion is to learn and understand new things, to present facts and ideas about topics that are being discussed. If I'm actually wrong, I want to be proven wrong and that's why I ask for sources and actual facts. And when someone is doing what you're doing, makign statements without support, I ask them to support it because unless they do, they don't have a leg to stand on.
That's how a discussion/debate works. You can't just spew things out and then when people want you to support it, dismiss them as unworthy and ignorant. By doing what you're doing, you're proving that your argument is weak and that you can't support it. But rather than admit you're wrong, you're gonna get defensive.

No, a discussion/debate assumes that people have some knowledge about the topic they're talking about.

(I even linked a breakdown by SVD about the data from BRÅ. But I guess it's fine to ignore that too if you're too lazy to read BRÅ.)

Or are you going to say that you'll go and discuss nationalekonomi with jan ekberg and ask him for a source for every thing he says?

If you want to be lectured, then go to a lecture instead.

[Tijuana]

Because those "facts" are wrong and hillariously ignorant, that's why. You are so ignorant of the real facts that I'm not even sure were to begin telling you how wrong you are. At the same time, you act like you know everything and that by virtue of being born in the US you've got knowledge and comprehension that I'm just too simple to grasp.
Based on this entire conversation, I think you're either presenting fallacies on purpose or you're just incapable of understanding that what you're saying is absurd, aggrevating and ignorant. But it's pretty typical of someone that's just baiting, which is probably why you get infracted for it.

- - - Updated - - -



What spike?

- - - Updated - - -



Citation needed.

I'm sorry but, if you want to refute my facts, then provide your own, or show me where I am wrong. I never said I know everything. What I said was, your claims that we Americans have no insight to offer the Swedes, in regards to immigration or diversity, is laughable. I never put my nation above yours, or stated anything as being inferior in any way. But the fact of the matter is, we have differences in our demographics, and that leads to a different human experience. You are just offended for the sake of being offended. I'm sorry if you think a person having a different opinion from yours is abusive, but it sort helps make my case that diversity may be a challenge for you, in this case, diversity of opinion.

[Taneras]

Americans pointing their finger at Sweden about Violent Crime, is like a Saudi pointing his fingers at the USA over women's rights.

No, the two are nothing alike because you're comparing what populations do (America vs Sweden) to what's allowed under the law (America vs Saudi Arabia). Those are two different conversations. Just because America has a higher crime rate doesn't mean we cannot spot a rise in Swedish crime and draw inferences as to what might be behind that spike.

[Endus]

The amount of women who were subjected to sex crimes were at 3% in 2016. You can't explain that with law changes.

When you literally change the definitions that define what "sex crimes" are, and broaden them, that's exactly what explains it.

There's been no law changes that would increase reported sex crimes. There's been law changes that could affect data on rape, yes. But it does not affect victimization studies where people are asked if they have been subjected to a sexual crime.

The number of reported rape offences has increased over the last ten years (2006-2015). The increase can be partially explained by the entry into force of new sex offence legislation on 1 April 2005. This legislation entails, among other things, that certain acts which were previously classified as sexual exploitation are now classified as rape. The effect of the statutory change appeared in the statistics such that the number of reported offences in respect of sexual coercion and exploitation declined in the years immediately following the statutory change while the number of reported rapes increased. As from 1 July 2013, the sex offence legislation was again made tougher; among other things rape was expanded to include cases where the victim reacts passively.

https://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-englis...-offences.html

Since you like BRA sources, there you go. You are objectively, factually wrong. The laws were changed in statistically significant ways in both 2005 and 2013.

[Deleted]

When you literally change the definitions that define what "sex crimes" are, and broaden them, that's exactly what explains it.

There's been no change of definition regarding what sex crimes are. There's been a change in how rape is defined, on the other hand, but not sex crimes. Crimes that were redefined to be included under rape were still sex crimes before the change but not considered rape. Not all sex crimes are rape.

[Endus]

There's been no change of definition regarding what sex crimes are. There's been a change in how rape is defined, on the other hand, but not sex crimes. Crimes that were redefined to be included under rape were still sex crimes before the change. Not all sex crimes are rape.

This might shock you, but rape is a sex crime. And no, rape wasn't the only definition that was changed. See above; you're clearly wrong about this.

[Tijuana]

Usually those statistics are heavily cherry-picked. Some types of crimes are up, some others are down. The rape statistic is usually singled out because if you just look at the pretty colored graphs it looks quite bad, but if you actually read the reports you'd know about several things that heavily influence the graphs.

So for instance, this is how sex crimes have evolved



Now if you have an anti-immigrant agenda you might say "look at that spike 2013, it's the immigrants!". But if you actually look at what happened, Sweden changed the law in 2013. The same thing happened in 2005, but I couldn't find a graph going back that far.

I am fully aware of the rape stats, and it's the primary reason I stated this in your quote: There are a lot of figures flying around. I have seen some solid cases made for both sides of this. Truthfully, I don't really know whose to believe, but I know that I personally do not want to do the work to sort it out myself.

I have no anti-immigrant agenda. I have a public safety agenda, and also a secondary agenda. The secondary agenda is: Why in in the actual fuck, are we exporting and entire nation of able bodied young men, who instead should be handed boots, helmets, and rifles, and then pointed in the direction of their enemy? I'm perfectly fine with removing everyone from immediate danger. In fact, I could not support that more. I fail to see what is accomplished, however, from including fighting age men among those who are exported to halfway across the planet.

[Deleted]

It's not contradicting anything I've said.

- - - Updated - - -



No, a discussion/debate assumes that people have some knowledge about the topic they're talking about.

(I even linked a breakdown by SVD about the data from BRÅ. But I guess it's fine to ignore that too if you're too lazy to read BRÅ.)

Or are you going to say that you'll go and discuss nationalekonomi with jan ekberg and ask him for a source for every thing he says?

If you want to be lectured, then go to a lecture instead.

The knowledge you speak if seems entirely limited to you and only you, which makes it important you try and support it with something we can actually believe in.
No, I told you that I might have missed things and I wished for you help provide it again.
You are trying your hardest to avoid having to support your statements and arguments, by acting like you're too good for it.

That depends on what he says and claims. You're just some guy on an internet forum making bold statements, you've got no expertise on this subjected so what you say has to be supported.
If you're so immature that you can't support your statements then you have no place in an actual discussion. What you want to do is just yell things out at people, not actually discuss anything.

[God Save The King]

So stupid. They arent saying "Sweden is way worse" they are saying "Lets fix this, look whats happening in Sweden". Liberals cant even pick a narrative to stay with, all over the place. I guess I would too if my logic was as stupid as theirs. You cant even understand what is being discussed, why would we expect you to contribute anything realistically intelligent.

Ah yes the liberal insults come pouring. Must be the evil stupid lerrburls fault