Swedish Parliamentary Election

[Aimless]

Re. "citation needed", though I concede that I'm trolling when I characterise SD's electorate as consisting mostly of angry, ugly unemployed alcoholic misogynists, here you go:

http://www.interasistmen.se/

The influence of IS and Muslim extremism is and has always been vanishingly small in Sweden, and, if that is changing, then perhaps SD should take a moment to consider all possible reasons and solutions. The harmful influence of nazism and racism on the other hand cannot be denied.

[Nessus]

I can't speak for the Swedish party, but one of my main issues with our freedom party (wilders) is that they don't offer solutions, and only use immigration, EU etc as distraction from that. Plus they have shown that they don't actually want to govern and take responsibility, they just want to complain. And the things yet do propose tend to be quite strongly unconstitutional which is somewhat odd for a group that claims to defend Dutch values. And it's often a very bad idea to begin with and they tend to ignore facts. All of that goes equally for the socialist party, though. I guess I just hate populism. I don't think their voters are stupid, alcohol abusing, at least no more than your average citizen. Angry, possibly at the establishment for being ignored, or at least feeling they are, but that's probably not what Aimless meant.

Oh and their representatives in our congress tend to be rather bad, you could make a great blooper reel from stupid and blatantly untrue shit they've said. That's also true for other parties, but they are certainly the Kings of it (not to mention they lead by a mile with criminal records of their representatives, and for more fraud related things). But that likely also has a lot to do with being a relatively young party, and the way the party is set up (with wilders being the 'dictator' of the party, which I imagine deters capable people who want to do more than parrot what he said).

That's the sad thing, isn't it. I can draw a direct line from Kekkonen's political testament to where the "immigration-critical" movement stands today in Finland; they might not market themselves as that, and perhaps they associate themselves too freely with the types you mention. And, I can't say how it is there, but at least here, the main media outlets have their own reasons for portraying certain figures in a bad light, enforcing the idea that "those people" are "kings of bloopers", when in reality, well.

What I find astounding, and what brother Enoch has graciously joined me in noting, is that Minx finds those distasteful who'd dehumanize others, by dehumanizing them. This blatant hypocrisy is not only intellectually void, it's terrible and radical to behold. I don't even have to draw straw-men to Stalin here, he's literally set those up for us. It's all quite psy-duck to me.

[Nessus]

Re. "citation needed", though I concede that I'm trolling when I characterise SD's electorate as consisting mostly of angry, ugly unemployed alcoholic misogynists, here you go:

http://www.interasistmen.se/

The influence of IS and Muslim extremism is and has always been vanishingly small in Sweden, and, if that is changing, then perhaps SD should take a moment to consider all possible reasons and solutions. The harmful influence of nazism and racism on the other hand cannot be denied.

How appropriate, we have this lying around too

[Enoch the Red]

Hang on, recognising someone as being human does not require you to believe in equality of human worth. It is central to this party's ideology that not all humans are equal in worth, and that human worth is not absolute and infinite.

You keep talking about this political party as though the political tenets it advocates somehow plays a role in what you believe. Why?

The contention, in the case of capital punishment, is not simply the question of human worth. It is about whether or not human life is inviolate, whether or not we can take a person's right to live away from them. And those who support capital punishment must at some point arrive at the conclusion that there are some lives that, in some situations, are okay to extinguish. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the typical example of such a life and such a situation is the case of a heinous murderer, and one common justification is that the murderer, by violating another person's right to life, has willingly surrendered his own right to the same.

I don't think the central question in capital punishment centers around whether or not human life is inviolate - the general Western premise is that it is not - rather it revolves around the situations in which it is lawful to take another's life. An unarmed prisoner who has been convicted of a crime by a jury of his/her peers may present one set of conditions. An armed attacker in your home may present another. Rational and well-meaning individuals can disagree on where the line is drawn, how it is enforced, and what constitutes an acceptable trade-off of personal liberty and social order. What should not be up for debate is whether or not the person being killed, regardless of the situation, is a human.

It is by the same reasoning I've arrived at my conclusion about who would have the least human worth, were to abandon the notion of equality of human worth: it is those who already wish to treat others as being worth less. I wouldn't wish to live in such a future, but perhaps I need to start preparing for it.

I think it's important to distinguish between relative and absolute worth. My family and friends have more relative worth to me by virtue of my relationships with them. I value them and their lives more than I would the life of a stranger, and I don't think it is wrong to expect my thoughts and actions to follow from that. Neither of which has any bearing on the absolute worth of an individual. When we make individual judgments, it is one thing, when we make judgments about the value and worth of people as a society it carries an altogether different set of obligations and ramifications.

Fortunately I still have the strength required to not let that urge turn into action. I've had nazi and racist patients. Those who were honest with me or at least agreed to be treated by a brown doctor with a dodgy surname received the best care I could give them. It's the right thing to do for me, but it's hard for me to disregard the fact that these same patients who benefited from my care and everyone else's money--not to mention tolerance and patience--would, if they had been able, tried to stop me from caring for the refugees and undocumented migrants that are in a far greater need for help. That grates against my sense of rightness, even though I do not wish to let the conflict influence my actions.

I don't doubt your sincerity, or willingness to do what you believe is right, and I admire your wherewithal and dedication to your principals to do so. Doing what is right is not always, or often, easy.

[Aimless]

How appropriate, we have this lying around too

*shrugs* It's a very large repository of documented statements and actions by SD:s representatives and voters that unfortunately speak for themselves. Flixy's remark about blooper reels can just as easily be applied to these geniuses

[Nessus]

*shrugs* It's a very large repository of documented statements and actions by SD:s representatives and voters that unfortunately speak for themselves. Flixy's remark about blooper reels can just as easily be applied to these geniuses

Agaa, but then we get into the discussion about which geniuses cost the taxpayer what

[Aimless]

Considering the number of criminals, tax-dodgers, jobless, boozers etc. among SD I dunno if talking about burdening public finances is the right approach to take. The vast majority of refugees end up becoming productive law-abiding members of Society, esp. if they and their children aren't met with too much racism, hate and exclusion. If we wish to question their right to burden public finances then we should question everyone's right to do the same.

[Nessus]

Considering the number of criminals, tax-dodgers, jobless, boozers etc. among SD

Citation needed

The vast majority of refugees end up becoming productive law-abiding members of Society

Citation needed

[Aimless]

Criminals, tax-dodgers, jobless, boozers and politicians. There's no way this cost-benefit calculation will come out in SD's favour

[Aimless]

Citation needed

Citation needed

Come on, everyone knows this, don't be so naïve

[Enoch the Red]

...then we should question everyone's right to do the same.

Now you are talking!

[Nessus]

Come on, everyone knows this, don't be so naïve

Show me statistics, please

[Aimless]

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article18563649.ab

Violent criminals in parliament representing a party that tries to cultivate a "tough on crime" image, esp. when the criminals are brown.

http://www.interasistmen.se/brott-oc...okrat-ar-domd/

http://www.interasistmen.se/dumheter...nnomisshandel/

Violent assault on a woman isn't serious if it only happens once. What's a little hair-grabbing and banging heads into walls between white friends?

http://www.interasistmen.se/dumheter...ar-nysvenskar/

Found guilty of tax fraud--blames immigrants for persuading him to break the law

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/va...cle19475971.ab
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/leda...erar-fangelse/

Fraud

This is the cream of the crop among SD, the paid representatives that should be able to meet some basic standards of credibility and integrity as opposed to the disenchanted and disenfranchised gangbangers that make up the violent fringes of all groups.

[Aimless]

Show me statistics, please

http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/17468

Happy reading

[Nessus]

Could you show me statistics showing immigrants are a richness?

[Nessus]

It would also be helpful if you refrained from using the language that the violent oppressors of my forefathers had to face, hope this helps

[Aimless]

Could you show me statistics showing immigrants are a richness?

You can find that in the link to the government's website, but let's try to remember that it doesn't matter whether or not "immigrants are a richness" because if we're going to take that tack then we should probably also exile a large portion of the ethnic Swedish population as well. There's no shortage of people in that group that may in various ways be viewed as being net burdens on society. We can accept that burden, but not if we tolerate attacks on the very values that enable their continued existence at the expense of decent productive law-abiding citizens.

[Nessus]

You can find that in the link to the government's website, but let's try to remember that it doesn't matter whether or not "immigrants are a richness" because if we're going to take that tack then we should probably also exile a large portion of the ethnic Swedish population as well. There's no shortage of people in that group that may in various ways be viewed as being net burdens on society. We can accept that burden, but not if we tolerate attacks on the very values that enable their continued existence at the expense of decent productive law-abiding citizens.

This does not take into account the silliness that importing lebensunwertes Leben carries compared to the "usual" fallout, hope this helps

[Aimless]

It doesn't help, it sounds like nonsense

[Nessus]

It doesn't help, it sounds like nonsense

I hope your skin colour doesn't influence this decision

Do you agree that basic arithmetic a) exists 2) holds any value?

[Aimless]

I do, on both counts. Please continue

[Nessus]

I do, on both counts. Please continue

If we then agree with, say, the casual statistic from the university of Oulu http://jultika.oulu.fi/Record/nbnfioulu-201306011421, immigration in Finland is a net loss to the tax payer.

[Flixy]

Considering the number of criminals, tax-dodgers, jobless, boozers etc. among SD I dunno if talking about burdening public finances is the right approach to take. The vast majority of refugees end up becoming productive law-abiding members of Society, esp. if they and their children aren't met with too much racism, hate and exclusion. If we wish to question their right to burden public finances then we should question everyone's right to do the same.

And the vast majority (possibly even vaster) of SD supporters are also productive law abiding citizens, and also not violent angry drunks. Stereotypes go both ways..

Btw, almost all supporters of our freedom party that I've spoken are not racist, or angry drunks for that matter. Feeling immigration policies are lax, problem youth are not being dealt with, and worries about rising extremism and terrorist threats does not make one a racist. And most don't support the more radical positions either, but figure that (as do voters of other parties) the final result will be more nuanced, which is likely true in a system like ours where no party ever gets an absolute majority. Besides, is there any party where the supporters are in favour of everything they say?

[Aimless]

If we then agree with, say, the casual statistic from the university of Oulu http://jultika.oulu.fi/Record/nbnfioulu-201306011421, immigration in Finland is a net loss to the tax payer.

Sure, I guess it's possible that this person's master's thesis isn't completely wrong. Finland is even more exclusionary and racist than is Sweden, and has a weird-ass language to boot, while Somalis be crazy. But, like I said, if we're going to talk about net losses to the taxpayer, I have no doubt we can find a large number of Fins who should also be quietly removed from society.

[Nessus]

Sure, I guess it's possible that this person's master's thesis isn't completely wrong. Finland is even more exclusionary and racist than is Sweden, and has a weird-ass language to boot, while Somalis be crazy. But, like I said, if we're going to talk about net losses to the taxpayer, I have no doubt we can find a large number of Fins who should also be quietly removed from society.

It seems you're trying to be edgy and cute, but oh my how depraved you appear

[Aimless]

And the vast majority (possibly even vaster) of SD supporters are also productive law abiding citizens, and also not violent angry drunks. Stereotypes go both ways..

Perhaps, but then again, they have helped place a harmful party in a position of power, so perhaps their involvement in our wonderful free society isn't entirely harmless.

Btw, almost all supporters of our freedom party that I've spoken are not racist, or angry drunks for that matter. Feeling immigration policies are lax, problem youth are not being dealt with, and worries about rising extremism and terrorist threats does not make one a racist. And most don't support the more radical positions either, but figure that (as do voters of other parties) the final result will be more nuanced, which is likely true in a system like ours where no party ever gets an absolute majority. Besides, is there any party where the supporters are in favour of everything they say?

I think that, if you knowingly and deliberately hitch your cart to a group of racists whose ideology is grounded in racism and whose politics rarely amount to more than racism and populism, one might make a case for you endorsing racism. This is especially true if you support these groups even though you know--or should know--that any little good they may do to solve these social ills, to which you may or may not have attached undue importance, will come with a side of steaming crap. Having a general feeling that something is wrong with your society doesn't make you a racist, but willingness to support a racist party with a racist agenda may in fact be a sign of just a teensy weensy hint of racism.

Perhaps there were people in Nazi Germany who only supported the Nazis because they made the trains come on time, but, perhaps, if you think timely trains are so important that they're worth a little Nazism, something is deeply flawed with your worldview. Rather than making deals with the devil, these ostensibly responsible and concerned Dutch humanitarians should either do a better job of influencing the other parties, or start their own less racist party. Helping racists come to power doesn't just "nuance" politics. It gives them a foothold and it helps normalise reprehensible views, making the boundary of what's acceptable and decent inch ever closer to a moral Mordor.

Immigration policies in Sweden aren't lax, but Swedish society's management of immigration is flawed. SD's answer to any and all social ills in Sweden is to reduce or eliminate immigration (okay, that's unfair, they want to turn the clock back wrt gender equality, women's rights and LGBT rights as well), but rarely can that be expected to do anything to address the flaws that cause these social ills in the first place. It is the readiness of SD's voters to cling to this simplistic and demonstrably incorrect view of Sweden that speaks towards their underlying racism, even though I'll concede that some of them may not be overt and dedicated racists.

I've recently heard several people spread Åkesson's baseless remarks about how elderly people in nursing homes are starving because of immigrants. In reality it's because we don't understand geriatric nutrition very well and because no-one really gives enough of a rat's ass about the elderly to improve the situation eg. by employing more carers, and elder-care in Sweden would have collapsed without immigrants (just like the healthcare system as a whole). You know why this myth has been so popular? It's because, for some people, it's very easy to believe that brown people undeservedly benefit from Sweden's amazing welfare system, at the expense of old ethnic Swedes.

[Aimless]

It seems you're trying to be edgy and cute, but oh my how depraved you appear

*shrugs* Do you disagree that there are groups of ethnic Fins that are net burdens on the taxpayers and on public services?

[LittleFuzzy]

I love how clearly you enjoy portraying your perceived political enemies as less human

I wonder if that might not be a forum behavior Minx learned from another Scandinavian poster with a fondness for doing so.

[Aimless]

To be clear, I don't think they're less than human, but I do feel they are less deserving of respect and sympathy, and I find myself drawn sometimes to the "have a taste of your own medicine" brand of justice. If they made an action-movie about it, I think I'd pay to see it.

[Enoch the Red]

I think that, if you knowingly and deliberately hitch your cart to a group of racists whose ideology is grounded in racism and whose politics rarely amount to more than racism and populism, one might make a case for you endorsing racism. This is especially true if you support these groups even though you know--or should know--that any little good they may do to solve these social ills, to which you may or may not have attached undue importance, will come with a side of steaming crap. Having a general feeling that something is wrong with your society doesn't make you a racist, but willingness to support a racist party with a racist agenda may in fact be a sign of just a teensy weensy hint of racism.

Perhaps there were people in Nazi Germany who only supported the Nazis because they made the trains come on time, but, perhaps, if you think timely trains are so important that they're worth a little Nazism, something is deeply flawed with your worldview. Rather than making deals with the devil, these ostensibly responsible and concerned Dutch humanitarians should either do a better job of influencing the other parties, or start their own less racist party. Helping racists come to power doesn't just "nuance" politics. It gives them a foothold and it helps normalise reprehensible views, making the boundary of what's acceptable and decent inch ever closer to a moral Mordor.

Do you understand how this might come across as slightly disingenuous given your opening post, in which you talked about voting tactically for a political party that had goals in their charter that you labeled crazy?