Sweden -- Yes, Sweden -- Leads Anti-Immigration Shift
155 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Joffy;46661041]True, I'm probably just being over dramatic because of the situation I'm in, but how is it a good idea to say that all swedes should get high paying jobs that require a university degree and that all immigrants should be happy with doing all the dirty work?
I know several people who do jobs that would be considered easy and dirty, but they are pretty happy with doing it. I would be aswell, atleast for a couple of years.
Wouldn't this way of doing things would just create an underclass consisting of only people from differing ethnicities? That hardly seems like a good or moral way of doing things.[/QUOTE]
No no, anybody with a degree, as in, anybody who spent the time getting educated, should be able to get a job, and due to you being Swedish you have an advantage over everyone else, as the Swedish educational system is both one of the best in the world, and it's free. Somebody from Venezuela, like me, has to work significantly harder than you ever will to be considered for the same jobs, just because the country I was born on hasn't invested as much as it should in education.
This is actually the reason why I consider emigrating, by the way. I have free education in Venezuela but it is not of the same quality than in the First World. In America education is expensive, it's expensive in the UK as well, my other options are Europe or Asia. The culture shock from Asia would be way to heavy for me to bear, so my only option left is any country in the EU. Of those countries, the most notable which have free education are basically only the Scandinavian and Nordic ones, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. Of those, only Sweden gives undergraduate courses in English. I could finish my undergraduate education in Venezuela but the economic situation in my country is getting more grim by the minute, so I have to find somewhere else to live on.
Just like me, there's a thousand more prospective immigrants who are merely looking for a better opportunity, who are looking for a chance to succeed in life, which their home country doesn't provide.
[QUOTE=The fox;46661495]You don't need to look far, ANTIFA for example... constantly disrupting peacefull protests etc etc.[/QUOTE]
Yes those poor neo-nazis not being able to protest peacefully, truly a great shame.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46663673]Yes those poor neo-nazis not being able to protest peacefully, truly a great shame.[/QUOTE]
Who was that guy who said the thing about defending other peoples right to free speech even if they don't agree with them?
I mean that's probably relevant now considering that antifa goes around setting peoples houses on fire and trying to murder them.
In the long list of crimes committed in the name of leftism, breaking up far-right protests is probably the least of people's concerns. I don't agree with Antifa but when they mess up a nazi protest im not complaining.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46663748]In the long list of crimes committed in the name of leftism, breaking up far-right protests is probably the least of people's concerns. I don't agree with Antifa but when they mess up a nazi protest im not complaining.[/QUOTE]
Would it be acceptable for nazis to break up antifa protests?
[QUOTE=Deng;46663758]Would it be acceptable for nazis to break up antifa protests?[/QUOTE]
Of course not
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46663824]Of course not[/QUOTE]
So what justifies antifa breaking up nazi protests?
A bit of a double standards thing here?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46663824]Of course not[/QUOTE]
jesus christ
[QUOTE=Deng;46663932]So what justifies antifa breaking up nazi protests?
A bit of a double standards thing here?[/QUOTE]
Apples and oranges. It's silly to conflate antifa and neo-nazi groups as somehow equal, which why people would see it as a double standard in regards to protests. I'm fine with antifa breaking up nazi protests, because they are assisting all of society by preventing fascists from organising. I'm not fine with the nazis breaking up antifa protests, because that means a ground level organisation dedicated to preventing fascism from developing is failing. All other pretensions antifa has for the removal of capitalism etc. are irrelevant. It's literally just that fascism is so unbelievably awful that giving them space is entirely inappropriate.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46664047]Apples and oranges. It's silly to conflate antifa and neo-nazi groups as somehow equal, which why people would see it as a double standard in regards to protests. I'm fine with antifa breaking up nazi protests, because they are assisting all of society by preventing fascists from organising. I'm not fine with the nazis breaking up antifa protests, because that means a ground level organisation dedicated to preventing fascism from developing is failing. All other pretensions antifa has for the removal of capitalism etc. are irrelevant. It's literally just that fascism is so unbelievably awful that giving them space is entirely inappropriate.[/QUOTE]
And who gave you the authority, to make this decision?
If fascists ought not to be permitted to organize, then this says that there are certain political viewpoints, ideologies, groupings, etc that can be justifiably suppressed?
I mean, I don't like communists, libertarians, or clowns, but I don't want them getting beaten up on the streets or having their houses firebombed for acting stupid.
[editline]8th December 2014[/editline]
Also if you think antifa makes meaningful contributions towards combating fascism I'm sorry but they do very little.
A single mediocre tv documentary is probably more effective than the whole antifa organisation;
AFA pretty much just helps them get more publicity, because of course all the media will be writing about far-left vs far-right protests that devolves into violence. They have no sense of critical thinking at all
It's not like we don't already suppress undesirable political viewpoints. I can't imagine the US government would ever allow Al-Qaeda or the Taliban to organise politically in the US, even though they are essentially political groups. Why should we think of fascists in a different light? Because they're not explicitly marked as terrorists? It's a silly distinction which ignores the fact that they qualify, like Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, as a group which goes against the general morality of society.
[editline]8th December 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Deng;46664087]
Also if you think antifa makes meaningful contributions towards combating fascism I'm sorry but they do very little.
[/QUOTE]
They do a hell of a lot more than all the people who'd let a nazi party protest freely
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46664161]It's not like we don't already suppress undesirable political viewpoints.[/QUOTE]
Of course, there's a lot of things suppressed these days. Difference is that the "Socialist" "Workers" "Parties" are tolerated and fascist groups attacking them are wrong, while antifa is actually encouraging to go out and attack fascist groups.
[quote]Why should we think of fascists in a different light? Because they're not explicitly marked as terrorists? It's a silly distinction which ignores the fact that they qualify, like Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, as a group which goes against the general morality of society.[/quote]
Well, why go attack them? If allowed to speak in the open, what's the harm? If they spread their bile then people should be smart enough to know not to listen to them.
Can't we just apply a westphalian sovereignty principle to opinions or something?
[QUOTE=Deng;46664199]Well, why go attack them? If allowed to speak in the open, what's the harm? If they spread their bile then people should be smart enough to know not to listen to them.
Can't we just apply a westphalian sovereignty principle to opinions or something?[/QUOTE]
I hate to be cliched but this was tried before and it didn't end too well.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46664242]I hate to be cliched but this was tried before and it didn't end too well.[/QUOTE]
Well, the same happened with communists and anarchists. Why not ban them all too?
I'd be more than happy for stalinists to be banned. The others, not so much
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46664295]I'd be more than happy for stalinists to be banned. The others, not so much[/QUOTE]
Well, anarchists have been quite dangerous in the past. One of them shot the archduke for crying out loud. Anybody who professes to follow revolutionary marxism too I suppose, or anything which advocated violence as a political tool.
I suppose we can lump in the Jacobins and Whigs. I suppose most of the anticolonial movements too. Militant trade unions perhaps. Maybe some feminists or animal rights activists or the such.
Quite a few of these have at times advocated the use of, well, violence of some kind to achieve their goals. Given the threat to public security they pose, why not rid the world of them along with nazis?
[QUOTE=Deng;46664339]Well, anarchists have been quite dangerous in the past. One of them shot the archduke for crying out loud. Anybody who professes to follow revolutionary marxism too I suppose, or anything which advocated violence as a political tool.
I suppose we can lump in the Jacobins and Whigs. I suppose most of the anticolonial movements too. Militant trade unions perhaps. Maybe some feminists or animal rights activists or the such.
Quite a few of these have at times advocated the use of, well, violence of some kind to achieve their goals. Given the threat to public security they pose, why not rid the world of them along with nazis?[/QUOTE]
The use of violence has very little to do with it you know. I'm not sure why you're pressing it so hard.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46664295]I'd be more than happy for stalinists to be banned. The others, not so much[/QUOTE]
Banning an idea just removes it from public scrutiny and provides it with an underground forum to fester and grow. When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.
Ban violence, ban threats, but do not ban ideas. Realize that your justification of censorship is in many ways identical to the justification used by any fascist, and it is identically unsound.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46664412]The use of violence has very little to do with it you know. I'm not sure why you're pressing it so hard.[/QUOTE]
Well it's more something held in common.
I suppose any ideology which opposes the state or capitalism should be rid of as well. I mean, those ideologies are harmful to the state/capitalism, so why not get rid of them?
I don't like nazis or communists (both of which i equally detest for their hypocritical views and actions), but getting rid of them just isn't a good way of doing it.
You don't interrupt an idiot when you want to laugh at him. That's why I enjoy listening to Russell Brand for instance.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46664438]Banning an idea just removes it from public scrutiny and provides it with an underground forum to fester and grow. When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.
Ban violence, ban threats, but do not ban ideas. Realize that your justification of censorship is in many ways identical to the justification used by any fascist, and it is identically unsound.[/QUOTE]
Fascism literally requires massive popular, public support for its justification and for it to function. I'd argue removing it from public discourse is the most effective way of combating it.
And as I have pointed out before, my justification of banning them is at this point entrenched into the way we currently operate politically, with islamists etc. I'm not doing anything new. The difference between what I desire and what a fascist desires is that I'm banning them along moral lines and not in order to create a one party state. So just because Mussolini's state was capitalistic that doesn't mean capitalism is inherently bad, the same goes for censoring political ideologies.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46664553]Fascism literally requires massive popular, public support for its justification and for it to function. I'd argue removing it from public discourse is the most effective way of combating it.[/quote]
If it requires massive popular public support, then why worry? People can think for themselves, and they aren't stupid enough to vote in a bunch of nazis, unless they would genuinely want them.
[quote]And as I have pointed out before, my justification of banning them is at this point entrenched into the way we currently operate politically, with islamists etc. I'm not doing anything new. The difference between what I desire and what a fascist desires is that I'm banning them along moral lines and not in order to create a one party state. So just because Mussolini's state was capitalistic that doesn't mean capitalism is inherently bad, the same goes for censoring political ideologies.[/QUOTE]
Well if they are to be banned because others have done it, does that make it right?
Restrict immigration, make sure the people here get properly integrated and become contributing and self-sustained members of society, strengthen the welfare system and make it safer for everyone, like it once was, and make society in general prepared for a larger population, then we can slowly begin to open the valves again.
And while it's never happened to me, I don't at all understand why some people feel inclined to yell "Racist" into your face whenever you propose something like this
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46664161]It's not like we don't already suppress undesirable political viewpoints. I can't imagine the US government would ever allow Al-Qaeda or the Taliban to organise politically in the US, even though they are essentially political groups. Why should we think of fascists in a different light? Because they're not explicitly marked as terrorists? It's a silly distinction which ignores the fact that they qualify, like Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, as a group which goes against the general morality of society.[/QUOTE]
This isn't true at all. If al-Qaeda was a peaceful political organization that was working for the implementation of strict Sharia in the US through purely political means, they would not be banned. No groups gets banned due to "the general morality of society." What does fuck does that even mean lol?
[QUOTE=Explosions;46664794]This isn't true at all. If al-Qaeda was a peaceful political organization that was working for the implementation of strict Sharia in the US through purely political means, they would not be banned. No groups gets banned due to "the general morality of society." What does fuck does that even mean lol?[/QUOTE]
What about the Taliban then? They were a governing party declared terrorists because of their association with Al-Qaeda after 9/11. For all intents and purposes they were (unfortunately) a legitimate political force which was than proscribed due to their ideological proximity to Al-Qaeda. Would a Taliban party be able to operate in the US? Of course not. Regardless, it doesn't even have to be a literal banning for my point to stand. You'd be hard pressed to find a country which doesn't or didn't explicitly suppress an ideology because it goes/went against the general ideals of that country. The McCarthy era is an example, for one.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46664950]What about the Taliban then? They were a governing party declared terrorists because of their association with Al-Qaeda after 9/11. For all intents and purposes they were (unfortunately) a legitimate political force which was than proscribed due to their ideological proximity to Al-Qaeda. Would a Taliban party be able to operate in the US? Of course not. Regardless, it doesn't even have to be a literal banning for my point to stand. You'd be hard pressed to find a country which doesn't or didn't explicitly suppress an ideology because it goes/went against the general ideals of that country. The McCarthy era is an example, for one.[/QUOTE]
Why is the Taliban example any different? It would be banned because the Taliban actually commit terrorist acts. If there was a non-violent Taliban party, it wouldn't be banned simply because of its ideology. And the communist party was never banned and it still exists in the US.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46664996]Why is the Taliban example any different? It would be banned because the Taliban actually commit terrorist acts. If there was a non-violent Taliban party, it wouldn't be banned simply because of its ideology. And the communist party was never banned and it still exists in the US.[/QUOTE]
Except before the insurgency period, when the Taliban used terrorism in order to fight the coalition forces, the justifications of the coalition in fighting them was on the basis that they harboured terrorists. They may have used terrorism before then, but from my knowledge the Taliban being terrorists came after the fact of them being proscribed.
Anyway, as I said, it doesn't have to be a literal ban for a country to actively suppress an ideology. the McCarthy era was meant as an example of that.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46663748]In the long list of crimes committed in the name of leftism, breaking up far-right protests is probably the least of people's concerns. I don't agree with Antifa but when they mess up a nazi protest im not complaining.[/QUOTE]
You don't support free speech if the people affected have beliefs different then your own?
Then you are against free speech entirely.
[QUOTE=Garrot;46660799]We also pretty much invented eugenics and racial biology on an institutional level. The State Institute for Racial Biology of Sweden performed forced sterilization into the 70s.[/QUOTE]
Something that the Social democrats (the ones who "won" the election) supported and helped fund.
[QUOTE=maeZtro;46666262]Something that the Social democrats (the ones who "won" the election) supported and helped fund.[/QUOTE]
They are also responsible for the big J in Jewish passports during World War 2.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.