Europe submits voluntarily

[NightSky]

NightSky, DrZoidberg
It's hard to take you too seriously.

Dude, I am a person and not a life-threatening disease. The latter deserves to be taken too seriously. I'll just settle for the seriously minus the too. Consider the pesky "too" too gone.

/humor and so please do consider (here) the "too" and "seriously" broken up with one another

 

[LordKiran]

NightSky, DrZoidberg
It's hard to take you Two seriously.

Two-A number

To-A preposition

Too-An adverb

English isn't a hard language, Barbos.

I wouldn't normally get on someone's case for a language error, but given how your post reeks of presumed superiority, I consider it a public duty to keep your pride in check.

 

[repoman]

grammar fight!

 

[Bomb#20]

(1) What did the Daily Mail article say that you are claiming is make believe? Answer with a quotation.

First off, your first question is askew. DrZoidberg said, and I quote, "So yes, the article is make believe." He did not say that specific sentences in the article were make believe. <snip>

In other words, Mr. Sky, in your expert opinion, you can't identify anything the Daily Mail story said that wasn't 100% accurate?

It's okay, go ahead and say it, they know.
[/Joe Pesci]

(2) What is the make believe thing TSwizzle posted that you are claiming he knows is just make believe?

To answer your second question, although obvious now from the heels of assertions above, is that TSwizzle is posting an article which DrZoidberg does not understand to be a matter which involved immigrants or refugees to be rioting (based on Swedish reporting) on this thread about the dangers of refugees and immigrants. Do you think that now qualifies DrZoidberg to being able to say that TSwizzle is posting a make-believe thing that he knows is make-believe?

As you are surely aware, my question wasn't directed to you. It was directed to DrZ. It follows that the "you" in my question doesn't refer to you; it refers to him. It follows that the "he" in my question doesn't refer to him; it refers to TSwizzle. Your question to me has an ambiguous reference: the antecedent of the "he" in your question might be either of them. But your line of argument strongly suggests that you are using "he" to refer to DrZ. If that is the case, then your answer to me is simply unresponsive -- it addresses an entirely different topic from question I asked DrZ.

But in the event that you did intend the "he" to refer to TSwizzle, then no, I do not think that any of your analysis of DrZ's state of mind about the riots, irrespective of whether it's a correct analysis, in any way qualifies DrZ to make pronouncements about TSwizzle's state of mind. If you think it qualifies DrZ to know what's going on in TSwizzle's head, why do you think that?

 

[Bomb#20]

NightSky, DrZoidberg
It's hard to take you Two seriously.

Two-A number

To-A preposition

Too-An adverb

English isn't a hard language, Barbos.

I wouldn't normally get on someone's case for a language error, but given how your post reeks of presumed superiority, I consider it a public duty to keep your pride in check.

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of too
1
: besides, also <sell the house and furniture too>
2
a : to an excessive degree : excessively <too large a house for us>
b : to such a degree as to be regrettable <this time he has gone too far>
c : very <didn't seem too interested>
3
: so 2d <“I didn't do it.” “You did too.”>

Perhaps barbos intended to use "too" in sense 2c. If so, then his English was flawless.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes. And this has been done. And I already cited just such a serious study, upthread, in post #2253. (Good god, 2500 posts ago! This thread is still going strong after a year and a half, and your refusal to fact-check your claims is still going just as strong.)

To repeat, here is the complete list of source countries, the immigrants and children of immigrants from which commit crimes at more than three times the per capita rate of indigenous Swedes:

Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Chile, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Syria

Those are the facts, according to Swedish government statistics.

I answered this in my next post. What was wrong about my answer? I won't revisit those points.

The question being begged here is whether there's something about the culture in those countries you listed that makes people more criminally inclined. I can't see it be supported by the data. You first got to compensate for stuff like immigrants in general are more likely to be convicted since they just don't know how the justice system works in their new country. Or any of the other social factors connected with having moved to a new country. Like poverty.

Especially refugees have ... nothing and might need cash fast for something the rest of us have savings that cover. They might owe money to traffickers. Or need to raise cash to help friends stranded god knows where. Which is not their fault. It's down to obstacles we've thrown in their way.

All this can explain why the crime rate for these people is slightly higher than for non-immigrants.

It's not statistically significant enough to worry about it IMHO.

And then there's just the fact that the crime rate for Sweden overall has dropped since we started taking in refugees. But this of course isn't linked to the refugees. That's just linked to that the crime rate has steadily been dropping since 1933. When we started with social welfare. There's of course statistical variation. But Sweden has never before been safer and more free of crime than today. That's just fact. The slightly raised crime rate that immigration brings with it isn't enough to dent that.

Let's review the bidding, shall we?

bb: You need to stop doing this, and wake up to the demonstrable fact that refugees are no more likely to be rapists than anyone else.

B20:The hypothesis that refugees are no more likely to be rapists than anyone else is not a demonstrable fact

DrZ: This is something that has been studied extensively https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime Whenever any of these studies come out racists brand them as fake news or liberal bias media or whatever. Even though it's proper research with all the bells and whistles. I'm not sure what more we (not racists) can do to prove it?​

You said that, so I provided a study that directly contradicts what you (erroneously) implied your link shows. The issue at hand, therefore, is not whether it's their fault that they're more criminally inclined, or whether you can come up with some theory other than culture to account for people from the refugee source countries being more criminally inclined. Bilby did not say "It's not their fault more of them are rapists; poverty is to blame." He said "refugees are no more likely to be rapists". And you expanded the topic to crime in general. So the issue at hand is whether they commit more crimes. The issue at hand is whether you and bilby are making up stuff and pretending it's fact. You are.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But why would they? They're the biggest Swedish newspaper. They have an incentive to skew the reporting in a way to increase drama and throw gasoline on any fires. Which they have been doing until now. But of course transparent to anybody that fact checks.

But now they decided to stop doing that because they were hurting Sweden. Honesty is the new thing for them now. They have one a day now with statistics published straight up. Each of these article holds up when fact checked.

The point is the article doesn't prove what it supposedly does.

It sounds more like the government asked them to participate in the whitewash.

Good luck finding another one. I've never heard of it before. And it's certainly something that would make the news. And as always, the original story is probably exaggerated to begin with. Sweden is not a good country if you like excitement

That's assuming a reporter heard of it.

 

[Bomb#20]

Oops, you asked me a question.

... And I already cited just such a serious study, upthread, in post #2253. ... Those are the facts, according to Swedish government statistics.

I answered this in my next post. What was wrong about my answer? I won't revisit those points.

I told you what was wrong about your answer in post #2372.

 

[DrZoidberg]

grammar fight!

Grammar Nazis against Islamic immigration.

 

[NightSky]

In other words, Mr. Sky, in your expert opinion, you can't identify anything the Daily Mail story said that wasn't 100% accurate?

It is Ms. Sky, thank you, sir.

In other words, Mr. Bomb #20, you still are arguing a losing position. To answer your question, a story can have statements that are true but the story still be a story that is slanted to give an impression that is both erroneous and misleading. Do you disagree that The Daily Mail with the headline gave the impression that the story was about immigrants and Muslims rioting without any proof? The riot happening in a 75% neighborhood of immigrants does not mean in any scenario that the perpetrators of the riot were factually either Muslims or immigrants. Yellow journalism? I think so. This presumption is only bolstered by the fact that DrZ says from Swedish reporting he doesn't understand immigrants to have been the instigators of the riot at all. It is not any accident, I might add, that Wikipedia, itself not a trusted source academically as a citation within pedagogical institutions, recently voted to ban The Daily Mail as an unreliable source.

It's okay, go ahead and say it, they know.
[/Joe Pesci]

Are we playing golf now?

You're doing it again, you know, the thing that I clarify later in this post that led me to respond to you.

As you are surely aware, my question wasn't directed to you. It was directed to DrZ. It follows that the "you" in my question doesn't refer to you; it refers to him. It follows that the "he" in my question doesn't refer to him; it refers to TSwizzle.

This is a public forum. Please understand I have been part of other forums and know how forums generally work even if I'm new here. Part of the nature of the forum is the reasonable risk that you or anyone and including me takes in making a public post that we're inadvertently inviting others not contemplated to respond even when the questions are directed at specifically someone and part of an ongoing conversation with that someone. So, I'm unsure as to why you should personally think the lecture is warranted. To the best of my knowledge, I have not been impolitic.

However, if you must know as to why I responded when your question was towards DrZ, an implicit question I presume in your post if not actually outright asked, it is because not only did I think your questions were askew but you gave the attitude of wanting to get one over on him in an unkind way. It was the line "I have two questions for you, I expect you'll duck them" that rubbed wrong.

But in the event that you did intend the "he" to refer to TSwizzle, then no, I do not think that any of your analysis of DrZ's state of mind about the riots, irrespective of whether it's a correct analysis, in any way qualifies DrZ to make pronouncements about TSwizzle's state of mind. If you think it qualifies DrZ to know what's going on in TSwizzle's head, why do you think that?

Your written English is, so far as at least I can tell, flawless. I'm sure you'll agree. So, I'm sure you'll understand my skepticism as to you not understanding as to who the pronoun "he" referred to within my post. Your original question was, "What is the make believe thing TSwizzle posted that you are claiming he knows is just make believe?" And then after my assertions connecting the dots, I said precisely, "Do you think that now qualifies DrZoidberg to being able to say that TSwizzle is posting a make-believe thing that he knows is make-believe?"

But to answer what I consider frankly a question that's entirely unnecessary and in some ways absurd as my coloring of the questions show above, of course the pronoun "he" was referring to TSwizzle. However, that wasn't my comment to you by way of a response. My comment by way of response was the question, "Do you think that now qualifies DrZoidberg to being able to say that TSwizzle is posting a make-believe thing that he knows is make-believe?" After understanding that the story did not point the fingers at immigrants or refugees or Muslims at the culprits despite the DM headline, I think it did qualify DrZ to be able to say that TSwizzle was ignoring an understanding of the specific situation that would make the posting of the article irrelevant and thereby in the realm of "make-believe" as it was not supported by current known facts that would point the fingers towards immigrants or refugees or Muslims in a thread specifically about the dangers of them.

If you think it qualifies DrZ to know what's going on in TSwizzle's head, why do you think that?

Great question. To the degree that our posting habits and assertions reflect our state of mind and overt prejudices or lack thereof, I'd say that DrZ can qualify himself to say what's going on in TSwizzle's head even when DrZ or anyone else here cannot factually know what is going on in any person's mind. It is, I imagine, also the reason why courts allow testimony of others as to the impression the defendant gave as to his/her state of mind even when it is understood that such cannot be factually known.

Peace.

 

[DrZoidberg]

As you are surely aware, my question wasn't directed to you. It was directed to DrZ.

As I've already written, Nightsky nailed it. This is a forum. Jumping in on discussions is fine. If it wasn't we'd write personal letters to each other.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The point is the article doesn't prove what it supposedly does.

Here's where they get their data.

http://www.scb.se/en_/

Feel free to fact check. They're a fully independent government agency. It's a feature. The prime minister or the rest of the government has no pull here.

It sounds more like the government asked them to participate in the whitewash.

All the statistics are freely available to the public. Sweden has a thing about transparency. You can check all the numbers yourself. There's no way they could participate in any kind of whitewash and get away with it. They'd be crucified by the rest of the press, and then by the Swedish public.

You grossly overestimate the power of the Swedish government.

Good luck finding another one. I've never heard of it before. And it's certainly something that would make the news. And as always, the original story is probably exaggerated to begin with. Sweden is not a good country if you like excitement

That's assuming a reporter heard of it.

What are you implying? That Sweden has so much crime that there's no way the police or the press can keep up with it, so major events just get ignored... because of all the refugees and Jihadis committing so much crime all the time? You're starting to sound like a lunatic.

I'm pretty sure that any riot gets attention by the police, and if it gets attention by the police it goes in a police report that is freely available to the public because of our laws regarding governmental transparency. If it's available to the public it's noticed by the press.

 

[angelo]

Who's paying for all this if not Swedish taxpayers?
https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938

 

[LordKiran]

Who's paying for all this if not Swedish taxpayers?
https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938

Why is that question paired with an article that reads "Swedish Welfare State Collapses as Immigrants Wage War" and what do either have to do with Europe submitting to Islam?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Who's paying for all this if not Swedish taxpayers?
https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938

Why is that question paired with an article that reads "Swedish Welfare State Collapses as Immigrants Wage War" and what do either have to do with Europe submitting to Islam?

That's not the only thing that's wrong with the article. I read it and thought about a reply. But that article is a complete fantasy. I also know what it all refers to. It's all misunderstandings of the Swedish debate. But I can start by the title.

What is true is that our immigration authority is nearing collapse. It has already in most cases. This is down to them not preparing one iota for the influx of Syrian refugees. And when they started arriving the Swedish government was clear that they would receive no extra money. The object was simple. They didn't want to give the Sweden Democrats (our racist nationalist party) any more votes by creating this minus post.

But all these refugees needed putting somewhere, and that costs money. So what they did was to come up with the creative solution of shipping the refugees to various corners of Sweden and basically dump them on counties and say, "well, this is your problem now, bye". The problem is that a completely different set of laws kick in. The gist of it is that basic human rights and needs have to be met. And there's no upper limit to how expensive it's allowed to get. And the migration authority decides where to put people, so the various countries just have to bend over and take it. And guess what, they didn't necessarily have anywhere to put the refugees.

This led enterprising entrepreneurs to set up refugee camps charging inordinate amounts of money for each refugee. In many cases the counties had no option. And one can suspect that they also were in cahoots with those entrepreneurs. Impossible to prove. But Sweden is small. The influential people in small counties all tend to know each other. This wasn't always the case of course. But it happened more than in one county.

The end result is a skyrocketing bill for the refugees which all could have easily been avoided if only the government would have given the immigration authority a bit more money to begin with. All of this was bureaucratic mismanagement and idiocy of the highest order. The government is happy because the official numbers for the refugee cost is low. But they've just moved the cost somewhere else. Ie social welfare system. Making it very hard to calculate the end bill.

So what about the headline. Well, Swedish newspapers went out with headlines about this saying "systemkollaps". In Swedish this has dual meanings. On one hand it means that one system has collapsed. It can also mean that all systems have collapsed in Sweden. Basically Swedish Armageddon and that it's all fucked now. This is something the liberal press had a lot of fun poking fun at this. It's such histrionics.

It is true that our immigration authority has pretty much collapsed. But that's because we've allowed it to. Refugees wait an absurd amount of time for anything. Just getting visas for non-EU citizens can take months now. This is nothing a little extra money can't fix. But they're still not giving them it.

This was then creatively translated to the international press as the collapse of all manner of things. One creative interpretation is that collapse of our social welfare system. but it's doing just fine. It hasn't collapsed. Immigrants causing a disproportionate strain on our social welfare system isn't true. In Sweden it's not easy to just live off welfare indefinitely. The system is going to harass you until you get your act together and find a job. Yes, you can live off welfare as long as you want really. But it's not that much easier than just getting a job. Which most people do. Even immigrants.

Anyway... that was why I first couldn't be bothered to reply. Whoever wrote that article had not read the original sources for any of that. Just the words he uses tells me that's it's been filtered through various blogs skewing the source material until it gets farcical.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's where they get their data.

http://www.scb.se/en_/

Feel free to fact check. They're a fully independent government agency. It's a feature. The prime minister or the rest of the government has no pull here.

The problem is that only one of those charts has a time component at all. 3 of the 4 show absolutely nothing about crime rate changes.

It sounds more like the government asked them to participate in the whitewash.

All the statistics are freely available to the public. Sweden has a thing about transparency. You can check all the numbers yourself. There's no way they could participate in any kind of whitewash and get away with it. They'd be crucified by the rest of the press, and then by the Swedish public.

You grossly overestimate the power of the Swedish government.

I'm not saying the data is false. I'm saying the data is irrelevant.

Good luck finding another one. I've never heard of it before. And it's certainly something that would make the news. And as always, the original story is probably exaggerated to begin with. Sweden is not a good country if you like excitement

That's assuming a reporter heard of it.

What are you implying? That Sweden has so much crime that there's no way the police or the press can keep up with it, so major events just get ignored... because of all the refugees and Jihadis committing so much crime all the time? You're starting to sound like a lunatic.

I'm pretty sure that any riot gets attention by the police, and if it gets attention by the police it goes in a police report that is freely available to the public because of our laws regarding governmental transparency. If it's available to the public it's noticed by the press.

We have many reports of the police downplaying the threat.

 

[Bomb#20]

As you are surely aware, my question wasn't directed to you. It was directed to DrZ. It follows that the "you" in my question doesn't refer to you; it refers to him. It follows that the "he" in my question doesn't refer to him; it refers to TSwizzle.

This is a public forum. Please understand I have been part of other forums and know how forums generally work even if I'm new here. Part of the nature of the forum is the reasonable risk that you or anyone and including me takes in making a public post that we're inadvertently inviting others not contemplated to respond even when the questions are directed at specifically someone and part of an ongoing conversation with that someone. So, I'm unsure as to why you should personally think the lecture is warranted. To the best of my knowledge, I have not been impolitic.

As you are surely aware, my question wasn't directed to you. It was directed to DrZ.

As I've already written, Nightsky nailed it. This is a forum. Jumping in on discussions is fine. If it wasn't we'd write personal letters to each other.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Oh, for the love of god! Are both of you that reading-comprehension-impaired? I drew attention to the identity of the person I was talking to in order to establish what the antecedents of the pronouns I'd used were, because NightSky's response to me appeared to have changed a pronoun referent. The subsequent sentences NightSky quoted back to me and DrZoidberg deleted made that perfectly clear. At no point did I give any indication that there was anything improper about NightSky choosing to weigh in on a discussion between me and DrZoidberg.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The problem is that only one of those charts has a time component at all. 3 of the 4 show absolutely nothing about crime rate changes.

I don't understand what you're on about? SCB has an open database. You can search whatever in Sweden at your hearts content. Why get worked up about the choice of table that Aftonbladet used? When you're making a pedagogical point you sometimes have to simplify. Simplification loses fidelity. And if you want to know more, just go to the source. There's few countries where it's as easy to do research as Sweden, since nearly everything is in a searchable database.

I'm not saying the data is false. I'm saying the data is irrelevant.

Perhaps you want them to be talking about something slightly different. So what would you prefer them showing with the data?

We have many reports of the police downplaying the threat.

That wasn't the topic. You're implying that riots in Sweden somehow go unnoticed by the press. Are you high? Swedish newspapers report on stuff like somebody found a dead mouse in the bread package. Things worth reporting in Sweden are rare. I'm pretty sure any minor riot would make the front page all over Sweden, regardless if they cops would try to downplay it.

The image of Sweden as somehow overrun by militant Muslims making life difficult here is just nonsense. It's a product of a wave of Swedish nationalist and racist bloggers making bullshit posts, just lies, about Muslims. And then this getting picked up by International press.

There's nothing to whitewash. The idea that we have a problem with our Muslim immigrants is pure fabrication. I'm living right next to Sweden's biggest "immigrant ghetto" and "no-go zone". I haven't seen a trace of it. And it's not like people here aren't aware of the International image. The kind of stuff Angelo and Tzwissle posts is a source of... well.. comedy here. We just laugh at it. Because it's so twisted and out of touch with reality.

Sweden is as boring and safe as it's been the last hundred years. The Muslim immigrants haven't changed that.

 

[TSwizzle]

Straight from the horses mouth;

A Swedish detective who has triggered a row by blaming violent crime on migrants has gone one step further and accused politicians of turning a blind eye to the problem because of 'political correctness' He wrote: 'Here we go; this I've handled Monday-Friday this week: rape, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, rape-assault and rape, extortion, blackmail, off of, assault, violence against police, threats to police, drug crime, drugs, crime, felony, attempted murder, Rape again, extortion again and ill-treatment. 'Suspected perpetrators; Ali Mohammed, mahmod, Mohammed, Mohammed Ali, again, again, again Christopher... what is it true. Yes a Swedish name snuck on the outskirts of a drug crime, Mohammed, Mahmod Ali, again and again.'

DailyMail

Flies in the face of the "data" but we all know why.

 

[NightSky]

Oh, for the love of god! Are both of you that reading-comprehension-impaired? I drew attention to the identity of the person I was talking to in order to establish what the antecedents of the pronouns I'd used were, because NightSky's response to me appeared to have changed a pronoun referent. The subsequent sentences NightSky quoted back to me and DrZoidberg deleted made that perfectly clear. At no point did I give any indication that there was anything improper about NightSky choosing to weigh in on a discussion between me and DrZoidberg.

I apologize if I misunderstood. I honestly thought you were emphasizing that DrZ should have been responding and not a third party to the discussion. I also thought your subsequent sentences were simply a segue-way to underlining that I additionally made a point that was according to you "unresponsive." And the next paragraph I'd read as you highlighting what you felt was a remote possibility as to the issue of me having used the pronoun "he" to refer to TSwizzle. If you reread your your own posted response, I'd hope you'd be able to comprehend how I'd come to the above conclusion and subsequently responded accordingly.

Thanks for issuing the clarification; I do appreciate it, and I concede I might have misunderstood your position.

Peace.