Bomb detonates at Sweden Democrat's home!

[Endus]

http://www.tino.us/2013/12/vad-som-u...dringsopinion/


You're being dishonest by saying that people are pro-immigration, it's not as black and white as you make it out to be. There's a very small minority that want immigration completely stopped, yes, but that's because the majority actually would rather see it just controlled instead.

No, the blog post you're linking is the one being deliberately dishonest and manipulating the numbers. There's three responses to each question; "Good suggestion", "Poor proposal", and "Disagree". The blogger you're citing is trying to conflate "Poor Proposal" and "Disagree" answers as if those were the same thing, while arguing that combining "Good Suggestion" and "Poor Proposal" is somehow illegitimate.

In other words, he's doing exactly what he's complaining isn't right. And worse, because the "poor proposal" response is for people who agree in principle, but disagree on implementation. So he's combining people who think Sweden's already helping as many refugees as they can afford to with people who hate refugees and think they should all be sent home.

And that is dishonest.

[Deleted]

No, the blog post you're linking is the one being deliberately dishonest and manipulating the numbers. There's three responses to each question; "Good suggestion", "Poor proposal", and "Disagree". The blogger you're citing is trying to conflate "Poor Proposal" and "Disagree" answers as if those were the same thing, while arguing that combining "Good Suggestion" and "Poor Proposal" is somehow illegitimate.

There is no "Disagree". There is "No stance" as the third response, which would make the the people who think higher refugee reception is a a bad proposal the majority(Which they would be even if it would've been "disagree") and the people who want lower reception is the relative majority.

By over-represented do you mean that they commit rapes at a rate 1% higher than the average swede? Oh yeah that's totally a reason to hate the entire population.

97% of swedes do not rape 96% of muslim immigrants do not rape.

Just going to have to ask you, do you know what overrepresentation means? It means they commit more crime relative to their population than is expected, which gives them a far higher rate than 1% higher, immigrants have an overrepresentation of 400-500%(All immigrants lumped together) in more serious crimes. That's not 1% higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra...o_Sweden#Crime

Immigrants are overrepresented in Sweden's crime statistics. In a study by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention in 1997–2001, 25% of the almost 1,520,000 offences were found to be committed by people born abroad and almost 20% were committed by Swedish born people of foreign background. In the study, immigrants were found to be four times more likely to be investigated for lethal violence and robbery than ethnic Swedes. In addition, immigrants were three times more likely to be investigated for violent assault, and five times more likely to be investigated for sex crimes. Those from North Africa and Western Asia were overrepresented.

So, they make up what, 15-20% of the population yet stand for 45% of the crimes? Yeah, no, that's not 1% higher rate.

[Deleted]

http://www.tino.us/2013/12/vad-som-u...dringsopinion/


From the SOM-institutes survey:

1. The relative majority want a decrease in refugee reception.
2. The majority thinks a higher refugee reception is a bad idea.
3. The refugee reception is an economical loss of about 19 billion per year if counting low and not including all posts and if including more posts it's 39 billion per year. That's a net loss of atleast -0.2% of BNP per year and higher if you include more posts in the calculations.
4. Only 12% of the members in the moderate party wants a higher reception of refugees.
5. 53% of the members in the moderate party wants a lower reception of refugees.
6. Only 16% of the members in Centerpartiet wants a higher reception of refugees.
7. 40% wants lower reception, only 29% oppose lower reception.

Okay, so I want to point out a couple of things:

1. The plurality, that is 45%, wants a decrease in refugees. This is a very low percentage in comparison to how it's been the last 23 years. The support for less refugees has in general gone down with a few years where it's gone up slightly, but if you look at diagram 1, it's clear that the Swedish people is generally getting more okay with refugees. In fact, last year was an all-time low with 41% thinking a decrease in refugees is a good idea.
3. Which is why it's important with integration politics. Sweden could make a large gain with immigration if integration worked good. By taking in less immigrants the problem still persists and we will keep losing money if nobody does anything about the integration.
4 + 5. The Leftist Party, the Social Democrats, the Christ Democrats, the Enviromental Party and The People's Party still doesn't have a majority that says that they want less refugees.
6 + 7. So 40% wants lower reception, and 16% + 29% oppose it. That's 45% that opposes less refugees.

Refugee reception from the third world is a net loss. It is not economically sustainable to have a high refugee reception and keep the welfare state because it will eventually crumble. You have to choose, welfare state or high refugee reception, welfare benefits is a hindrance to integration and keeps people away from the job market as do unions.

The system is not about to crumble. You said so yourself, a loss of -0.2% of BNP per year. That's not even 1%.

You're being dishonest by saying that people are pro-immigration, it's not as black and white as you make it out to be. There's a very small minority that want immigration completely stopped, yes, but that's because the majority actually would rather see it just controlled instead.

You linked a report about refugees, not about immigrants. You're comparing apples to oranges.

[Deleted]

You would be called a racist in sweden for saying/suggestioning something like this.

Dont forget having your door destroyed, and draged out in the middle of the night.

[Deleted]

Dont forget having your door destroyed, and draged out in the middle of the night.

Do you even live in Sweden?

[Deleted]

Dont forget having your door destroyed, and draged out in the middle of the night.

When has that ever happened in Sweden? Even SD says it might not be politically motivated.

[Deleted]

Do you even live in Sweden?

dont be racist bro

[jaakkeli]

Interestingly they also target a demographic that is going g to have less exposure to different people. In the end the vaccine for racism is exposure and understanding

I was very liberal, pro-immigration and anti-racist when I lived in a small town with very few immigrants. After I moved to a city I started actually meeting immigrants and now I'm a devoted far right voter. It didn't happen right away, at first I spent most of my time at the university where the only "immigrants" are foreign lecturers and exchange students, but then real life intervened and I had to take jobs where you have to deal with every type of people.

The problem with this theory is that the anti-immigrant parties always tend to do best in the areas with a lot of immigration and they get next to no support in areas without any real immigration. Actual contact with fresh off the boat third world immigrants indeed tends to wipe out prejudices about immigrants - namely, they wiped out all the positive prejudices that I had after a lifetime of multicultural promotion at schools, home and media.

We've had decades of ivory tower elites insulated from real contact with the immigrants that they invite imagining that the next generation will be less "racist" because they've grown up with the immigrants and have more experience with them. And now it's turning out that the young voters who are indeed more experienced with immigrants instead flock to the so-called far right parties which are gaining ground all over Europe. This whole "they're people just like us just with a different skin tone" was just another prejudice and for me it has been completely wiped out after witnessing the medieval attitudes and the explosion in crime that comes precisely from certain immigrant groups (not even a race thing even though people who talk about this get called racists, the crime-prone groups have a certain other thing than race in common...).

I despair that crazy parties like Sweden Democrats are our only alternative to this but hey, politics is always about the lesser evil.

[Wells]

Yeah sure treating people the same is a form of prejudice and its totally not a race thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Far right parties are gaining traction because austerity is taking its toll and these fascists and racists offer the hardest hit demographics a scape goat. Its the oldest story.

[Deleted]

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel...rtikel=5650939

Another poll, showing widespread Swedish support for immigration.

The Swedish people are mostly pro-immigration. It's just a vocal minority who are rabidly opposed to it. It's like if we had (another) thread on gay marriage in the US, and had 3-4 people posting who were members of Westboro Baptist Church; they don't speak for most Americans.

does this poll include people who want less immigration, but still think immigration is good for the country?

because thats where i fall, i know the country needs immigration, i'd just like to see it move to a system like Canadas/Australia with a point based entry system. but im really not opposed to immigration

[Deleted]

jaakkeli, I'm sorry you've had a poor experience with immigrants, I was somewhat islamophobic back in the day, but then I actually started socialising with immigrants and they were just like any other Swede.

We've had decades of ivory tower elites insulated from real contact with the immigrants that they invite imagining that the next generation will be less "racist" because they've grown up with the immigrants and have more experience with them. And now it's turning out that the young voters who are indeed more experienced with immigrants instead flock to the so-called far right parties which are gaining ground all over Europe.

I'd like to point out that while SD's largest vote group is the 18-25 age group, they still don't have much of the vote - 9.3% of 18-25-year old's votes went to SD, with the Social Democrats, Moderates and Enviromental Party. In fact, the Enviromental Party got almost twice the votes SD got, 18.2%.

[madmanx]

I was very liberal, pro-immigration and anti-racist when I lived in a small town with very few immigrants. After I moved to a city I started actually meeting immigrants and now I'm a devoted far right voter. It didn't happen right away, at first I spent most of my time at the university where the only "immigrants" are foreign lecturers and exchange students, but then real life intervened and I had to take jobs where you have to deal with every type of people.

The problem with this theory is that the anti-immigrant parties always tend to do best in the areas with a lot of immigration and they get next to no support in areas without any real immigration. Actual contact with fresh off the boat third world immigrants indeed tends to wipe out prejudices about immigrants - namely, they wiped out all the positive prejudices that I had after a lifetime of multicultural promotion at schools, home and media.

We've had decades of ivory tower elites insulated from real contact with the immigrants that they invite imagining that the next generation will be less "racist" because they've grown up with the immigrants and have more experience with them. And now it's turning out that the young voters who are indeed more experienced with immigrants instead flock to the so-called far right parties which are gaining ground all over Europe. This whole "they're people just like us just with a different skin tone" was just another prejudice and for me it has been completely wiped out after witnessing the medieval attitudes and the explosion in crime that comes precisely from certain immigrant groups (not even a race thing even though people who talk about this get called racists, the crime-prone groups have a certain other thing than race in common...).

I despair that crazy parties like Sweden Democrats are our only alternative to this but hey, politics is always about the lesser evil.

I take it from your name (and the fact that you registered your place of birth as Finland on numerous gaming forums) that you are Finnish...the group that all Swedish bigots hated before they found more easily identifiable targets. Not sure if this is funny or just very, very sad.

[Deleted]

jaakkeli, I'm sorry you've had a poor experience with immigrants, I was somewhat islamophobic back in the day, but then I actually started socialising with immigrants and they were just like any other Swede.

Anecdotal. Just like my experience is, which was the polar opposite, I started out as very tolerant but the more I was exposed to them the more negative I became.

Far right parties are gaining traction because austerity is taking its toll and these fascists and racists offer the hardest hit demographics a scape goat. Its the oldest story.

The Sweden Democrats are not a far right party or fascist though.

[Endus]

does this poll include people who want less immigration, but still think immigration is good for the country?

because thats where i fall, i know the country needs immigration, i'd just like to see it move to a system like Canadas/Australia with a point based entry system. but im really not opposed to immigration

That's the issue, IMO. I'm not sure about that particular poll; I wasn't able to find an English version (or one I could unleash Google Translate upon, at least), but in general, you'll have three rough "sides" to most issues;

1> Totally for it.
2> Totally against it.
and 3> Kind of for it, but maybe we need to be cautious about the "how" because I think we're screwing that up.

This generally leads to both sides trying to claim that middle-ground group as "theirs", which I don't think is tenable. People like yourself aren't opposed to immigration, or immigrants, at least in principle. And that's a legitimate stance. I'm not trying to pick a fight on that side.

What I'm trying to point out is that the #3 group are more similar in principle to the #1 group. They are, fundamentally, in favor of X. They just have a "but" qualification. In your case, yours would be something like "but we need stricter entry requirements overall".

Trying to equate that group with the people saying "all Muslims are terrorist bombers who rape women" is completely ludicrous. Having some concerns about the current implementation is not in any way similar to being opposed to an idea wholesale.


To make an analogy to a completely separate issue, it's like people's stances on Obamacare (and for the love of Corgis and bacon, take it to the ACA thread if you want to talk about that outside this analogy). You can be for the ACA, or totally opposed to any kind of government interference in health care. Or you can think the government's screwed up the implementation, or the ACA doesn't go far enough, etc. And in many cases, they're lumped in with the far-right no-gov-healthcare crowd because they don't love Obamacare completely. Which is bollocks. They have legitimate concerns, but in principle, they think it's a step down the right path.

And you need to make a firm distinctions about whether your issue is with base principles, or just implementation.

[jaakkeli]

I take it from your name (and the fact that you registered your place of birth as Finland on numerous gaming forums) that you are Finnish...

Those other jaakkelis are probably not me but you're right.

the group that all Swedish bigots hated before they found more easily identifiable targets. Not sure if this is funny or just very, very sad.

This is of course true and you know what? Everyone else was *right* to ask questions about whether Finns make good citizens.

Finland for most of the recent centuries has been a violent backwater ruled by outsiders prone to collapse to near warlordism whenever outside influence weakened. The first thing that happened when Finns got their own state in 1917 was a socialist coup that led into an especially brutal civil war with death squads of both sides running around executing people on whim and tens of thousands dying of starvation and disease in de facto death camps.

After the right-wing victory in the civil war Finland sent out its first wave of immigrants: a significant part of the socialist leaning population fled the country, mostly to the United States or Russia while Sweden closed its doors (with good reason). A lot of these Finns brought trouble to their new countries with plenty of hard, often violent political extremism and outright gangsterism. (My favourite story is the one when the communists robbed the Bank of Finland before fleeing the lost civil war to Soviet Russia where the communist party found their headquarters turned into a nest of prostitution and gambling with the greedy Finns shooting each other. Not a lot of Finns survived the purges.)

Before World War II, Finland was a huge mess of right-wing extremism drunk of power from their victory in the civil war and the same newspapers that now praise multiculturalism were printing articles about how most of Swedish (and Norwegian, Estonian, Russian and Latvian) territory rightfully belongs to Finland and agitating Finnish minorities in Sweden to armed rebellion. Finns abroad were largely left-wing extremists fleeing persecution in right-wing extremist Finland and they brought their nasty plans with them. Sweden had very good reasons to not be unquestioningly friendly towards Finns.

It has all turned around and you know why? It's from Finns taking a good look at what a mess the country is and what an embarrassment Finns abroad are and striving to change that. The perception of Finns changed because Finns changed, not because some multiculturalist ideologue banned the discussion of Finnish tendencies to export political extremists and gangsters. All the propaganda in the world would not have changed the reality that Finns had a lot of nasty baggage for the first half of the last century, Finnish migrants were often disastrous for receiving countries and the only way to change the perception of Finns was to get rid of the nasty tendencies.

Similarily, the common European dislike of Islam is never, ever going to change through multicultural indoctrination. It will only change if enough Muslims understand that there is something seriously wrong and start changing thing. This is one reason Finns don't fall for multicultural lunacy as much as Swedes do - I mean, we all know that we've just done a century of hard work to get rid of nasty elements among Finns to fit in with the world better and now we're suddenly expected to not expect other people to do the same thing?

[Baracuda]

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel...rtikel=5650939

Another poll, showing widespread Swedish support for immigration.

The Swedish people are mostly pro-immigration. It's just a vocal minority who are rabidly opposed to it. It's like if we had (another) thread on gay marriage in the US, and had 3-4 people posting who were members of Westboro Baptist Church; they don't speak for most Americans.

Few are against immigration per se, it's the current numbers and how unqualified many are that is criticized.

[Deleted]

Those other jaakkelis are probably not me but you're right.



This is of course true and you know what? Everyone else was *right* to ask questions about whether Finns make good citizens.

Finland for most of the recent centuries has been a violent backwater ruled by outsiders prone to collapse to near warlordism whenever outside influence weakened. The first thing that happened when Finns got their own state in 1917 was a socialist coup that led into an especially brutal civil war with death squads of both sides running around executing people on whim and tens of thousands dying of starvation and disease in de facto death camps.

After the right-wing victory in the civil war Finland sent out its first wave of immigrants: a significant part of the socialist leaning population fled the country, mostly to the United States or Russia while Sweden closed its doors (with good reason). A lot of these Finns brought trouble to their new countries with plenty of hard, often violent political extremism and outright gangsterism. (My favourite story is the one when the communists robbed the Bank of Finland before fleeing the lost civil war to Soviet Russia where the communist party found their headquarters turned into a nest of prostitution and gambling with the greedy Finns shooting each other. Not a lot of Finns survived the purges.)

Before World War II, Finland was a huge mess of right-wing extremism drunk of power from their victory in the civil war and the same newspapers that now praise multiculturalism were printing articles about how most of Swedish (and Norwegian, Estonian, Russian and Latvian) territory rightfully belongs to Finland and agitating Finnish minorities in Sweden to armed rebellion. Finns abroad were largely left-wing extremists fleeing persecution in right-wing extremist Finland and they brought their nasty plans with them. Sweden had very good reasons to not be unquestioningly friendly towards Finns.

It has all turned around and you know why? It's from Finns taking a good look at what a mess the country is and what an embarrassment Finns abroad are and striving to change that. The perception of Finns changed because Finns changed, not because some multiculturalist ideologue banned the discussion of Finnish tendencies to export political extremists and gangsters. All the propaganda in the world would not have changed the reality that Finns had a lot of nasty baggage for the first half of the last century, Finnish migrants were often disastrous for receiving countries and the only way to change the perception of Finns was to get rid of the nasty tendencies.

Similarily, the common European dislike of Islam is never, ever going to change through multicultural indoctrination. It will only change if enough Muslims understand that there is something seriously wrong and start changing thing. This is one reason Finns don't fall for multicultural lunacy as much as Swedes do - I mean, we all know that we've just done a century of hard work to get rid of nasty elements among Finns to fit in with the world better and now we're suddenly expected to not expect other people to do the same thing?

Your story doesn't add up, why should all Finns judge themselves by what some commies and extremists did almost 100 years ago? Not to mention I doubt the majority of Finns were jackasses because that just doesn't add up either. Not to mention... did Finns have a bad reputation? Never heard of. So if anything the only thing they should've learned is that extremist authority is bad and there are assholes out there who steal from banks and follow authoritarian regimes. And right there is the problem with what you just wrote, Swedish immigrant's "leaders" are mostly native Swedes, so according to you the immigrants should learn what a horrible people they are based on what they think is bad about the almost fully native Swedish government. That makes no sense.

[someotherguy]

did anyone claim responsibility? or are there any strong leads?

[madmanx]

Well Jaakkeli, I could mention that your stupid rhetoric seems a bit too rehearsed for someone that regrets having to vote for a nut case right-wing party but .......

I decided to laugh at you and let the Finns be embarrassed instead.