Places like sweden and germany have had a massive increase in rapes and assaults. Not only that but there are many areas in europe where police will not even go, it's basically claimed Muslim sharia jurisdiction. Women have been dyeing their hair black to avoid harassment from muslims. Two vastly different cultures are mixing and it's starting to become a very tense place to be. What do you think is going to happen to Europe?
Why are you accepting this without evidence? (I'm asking you first because you were the first to respond)
Aren't going to ask for anything to support this claim? Like the official crime statistics that show the majority of rapes in Sweden are committed by immigrants.
Someone on a forum says "ABC is true" and you're just going to blindly accept it? Why?
Why do people just accept such statements as true with no critical thought whatsoever?
I think that if people don't learn to coexist peacefully then problems occur. We all used to think of open and free societies as melting pots. Given time we all slowly began to have more and more in common. But, I'm not certain anyone wants to be a part of a melting pot now.
If that is true, how do you think the indigenous will react to the imminent rise of a minority who represent an immigrant culture radically different from their own? An indigenous peoplewith long history of a free society? I don't see a peaceful passing of the torch.
It's different here. We aren't the same as Europeans. We are an immigrant nation without a long history. We now look toward a changing face in our society to a more hispanic majority. But their history is the same as ours. We aren't looking at the prospect of radical change. Simply a changing face.
I'm not asking about the issue of immigration. I'm asking why you have accepted the comment in the opening post as true without asking for any evidence? Do you know it's true? If so, how?
You will not find where I did accept that. All I pointed out was that women CAN protect themselves, that they need not be raped every day by anyone at all. Muslims were not mentioned - the closest I came to that was a reference to ISIS taking over the continent; something I do think will happen if the people of Europe allow it.
Your first response only makes sense if you assume the opening comment is true. It would make no sense without that assumption. And you certainly didn't challenge the poster in any way. You didn't even ask them a question.
In contrast, Will Apse posted a comment about toddlers and firearms on this thread. Your immediate response was to ask for a breakdown of the statistics that demonstrate his statement.
Why does Will Apse need to support his statement with statistical evidence, but the the person who created the thread gets a pass? Again, how do you know the statements made in the opening comment are true?
First, the question asked wasn't directly referencing the poster, if I remember correctly. I responded to that. But the poster is troubling.
I have googled it. There are plenty of sites discussing it, but I don't know enough about the sites to know if any are trustworthy. There was one with a graph showing rape numbers per country and it did support the poster.
We do know that there was an attempt to cover up a similar problem in Germany, with the media, the police and the government in collusion. The government did own up to that. So it is difficult to assume that simply because mainstream media is not reporting something it isn't true.
But, I don't necessarily see this as a clash with Islam. I think a large percentage of the problem involves immigrants from Somalia. We seem to hear of a larger percentage about Somalian youth here also. I don't know enough about if they are immigrant, first generation,etc to determine what angle we should begin with to try and instead the problem. But I do know it won't help to automatically denigrate the parties claiming there is problem without exacerbating it. It's easy to scream racism and it certainly makes one feel superior, but it doesn't address the reasons why someone feels that way. I think the fair and reasonable approach is attempting to understand both sides. I honestly don't think we understand why these things are happening. I have seen no attempt, by anyone, to interview and share any insights from the young men doing these things. But to attempt to brush it under the carpet is not the approach I would recommend. If I were in charge. Which I'm not.
Somalia is 99.8% Muslim. I don't think this particular practice is tied to Islamic doctrine, but I don't find it a coincidence that the countries with the fewest rights for women and with cultures that foster violence, assault and subjugation against women are Islamic.
Your response to the opening comment about Muslims being the cause of a high rate of rape in Sweden was: "War. It will degrade to war".
That response assumes the comment is true. But you didn't ask the commenter for any evidence to support their comment. You just assumed it was true. Why?
You've now Googled it. Why didn't you ask Sam Wickstrom to support his statements with evidence in the first place? Why is it ok to assume a statement is true, when not a single shred of evidence has been offered to support it? I'm interested to know, because I believe this kind of blind acceptance is what lies at the heart of post-truth politics, and the fake news phenomenon.
I was responding to the question about two cultures clashing and where I thought it would lead.
If that doesn't suit you, you can continue to assume differently. I honestly don't care.
This thread is 7 pages long. You didn't at any point (as far as I can see) challenge the statements made in the opening comment or ask for evidence. I'm wondering why. It's astonishing to me that some people are willing to accept Muslim immigrants are responsible for the high rape rate in Sweden, because someone on the internet said so. It's also astonishing to me that some people do not think it's s worth challenging or questioning in any way.
If you had asked, you would have discovered (surprise) that there is no reliable evidence that supports the assertion being made in the opening comment about Muslim immigrants. You would have also discovered that even the high rape rate itself is partly due to the way rapes are recorded in Sweden, which has an impact on the statistics. I would link to reliable sources that demonstrate that, but why should I have to support my statements with evidence?
I realize this will come as a shock to you but no one is obligated to follow whatever line of questioning you deem appropriate. Nor does your deeming something inappropriate make it so.
And I'm sure as a man it is easy for you to dismiss these events since they don't qualify as rape by your definition. If Sweden defines it as rape, then that is good enough for me. As a woman I can easily sympathize with the fear and degradation a woman might suffer by being abused.
I suppose were we to open a discussion on women having acid thrown on them, or honor killings we'll be honored by another righteous rambling from you on why women aren't really being abused.
It may come as a shock to you, but people are entitled to express an opinion about your actions/comments, including criticism. Just as you are entitled to respond to that criticism (or not) as you wish.
My comments are available for all to see. At no point have I said something doesn't "qualify" as rape, or meet a specific definition. The definition of rape in Sweden is not the issue. The issue is that countries use different legal definitions, and have different ways of compiling crime data which makes it difficult to make meaningful comparisons between different countries. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
The suggestion that I can't easily empathize with victims of rape because I'm a man, is a negative assumption based on my sex. I could be among the minority of rape victims who happen to be male, and therefore have a profound awareness of that experience. You have no idea.
Making negative assumptions about me on the basis of my biological sex is wrong. Just as making (or failing to challenge) negative assumptions about people on the basis of their immigration status (or religion) is wrong. Yes, I deem both of those to be inappropriate behaviour, and I'm entitled to say so. What you do with that opinion is up to you.
I'm laughing. You say at no time you have you said something doesn't meet a specific definition and then immediately say different countries have different legal definitions. I have consistently said I don't care what the definition or how it may differ from one place to the next, if it qualifies as rape in that country that is what it is. I would think there would be nothing to argue on that point.
Your problem is you made an assumption. A wrong one. The funny thing is that calling something the 'anything' capitol isn't always to be taken literally. You choose to take it literally and you've run with it. I didn't initially take it literally, made an effort to determine if it was to be taken literally, decided I couldn't accept it as literal because I don't know enough about the sites I found that were discussing it.
But, literal or not, there is trustworthy evidence that women have been molested. There is trustworthy evidence that the manner in which it happens in different areas is similar. There is trustworthy evidence that the perpetrators are young immigrants from the recent influx of refugees.
You have chosen to jump to the conclusion that anyone accepting this evidence is Islamophobic. You have chosen to assume anyone who comments on it has a problem with Muslims.
I don't think your inability to grasp what I've said about legal definitions is funny, it's just unfortunate for both of us. I was going to break it down simply, but to be honest I don't want to make the effort.
Yes the rate in question could be affected by differences in how countries count crimes, but that's not the main point I was making anyway. The thrust of the opening comment was that Muslim immigrants were responsible for the high rate of rapes in Sweden. My main point is that 1) no evidence was offered for that claim, mainly because there is insufficient evidence to support it, and 2) no evidence was asked for.
Of course there are individual cases, but generalizations about whole swathes of people deserve to be scrutinized and challenged for obvious reasons. There seems to be a pattern of doing so for claims that people consider supportive of their worldview, and not doing so for claims people do not consider supportive. On this occasion I've chosen to call out that double standard as i see it.
I agree that people do attack and demand support for statements counter to their world view. But, I honestly think you've gone off the deep end on this one. Unless I've misinterpreted your complaints. Primarily because your worldview appears to be that inconvenient problems cannot be viewed to exist if discussing them might cause the random person to interpret that discussion as validation for racism.
Me too, sources I mean, but I cannot find many links to stats. Its almost like the information is being suppressed. This stuff on ISIS showed up when I was searching. Hope this stuff doesnt spread.
Sorry its CNN. Kinda fakey imo.
ISIS soldiers told to rape women 'to make them Muslim'
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/middleeas … index.html
'Hundreds' of Yazidi women killing themselves in ISIS captivity
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/middleeas … index.html
I read both of the articles. So very sad.
I guess now we can only wait for Don and Will to explain how these women weren't really raped and we shouldn't talk about any of it or else we'll be called racist.
I get it. You need to hate Muslims for whatever reason. There will always be a reason.
Again, you confuse wanting to resolve a problem with hatred.
I don't hate pedophiles, but I do want to make sure they don't hurt any more children than necessary. I don't hate shoplifters. But, I do want the law to address the problem.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand how being upset that women get raped, with the government and news media covering it up, equates to hatred of a large group of people.
I could just as easily say that you,by your stand, hate all women. Would that be a fair assessment?
"for whatever reason"
Your incessant handwaving profoundly disgusts me, and I am not someone who is easily disgusted.
There are serious problems in the Islamic world, some of which could be seen as cause for hatred - not of Muslims as a whole, but of the Islamic tenets and of the significant minority of Muslims who justify and perpetrate these atrocities. Apparently you have immense difficulty distinguishing between those things.
Personally, I hate the concept of killing apostates. I hate the concept of killing homosexuals. I hate the concept of subjugating women. And I hate people who encourage and participate in these actions. The Islamic world has these things in spades.
Do these things also exist in Western societies? Yes. But to the same degree? With the same encouragement, commandment, and legal acceptance? No, no, and no.
By deflecting genuine criticism as a "need to hate," you prove the point in the OP's image.
Yea itsa stretch that any of that stuff would spill over into any neighboring caliphate, I mean country. Sometimes I just want to be buried up to my head and stoned to death than listen to the pretext. Seriously. Then I watch a readily available video of it. An accusation of infidelity is pretty serious business. Kind of hard to put myself in those women's sandals.
The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention stopped releasing data on rape committed by immigrants. The last release covered years 1985-1989, where immigrants made up 53% of all convictions of rape:
https://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/05/08/ … slighet-1/
It's highly unlikely the trend has reversed. Given that the Swedish authorities actually covered up widespread sexual assault by immigrant gangs because they didn't want to "raise ethnic tensions," and because similar crime rates have increased in Sweden, it's probable that the relative rate has gone up:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … c-festival
And yes, Sweden is the rape capital of the West. This article explains why the definition of rape at least partially accounts for the discrepancy (though unless the definition is standardized, we don't know how much higher or lower the rate in Sweden is compared to other countries):
From the above we can make the following conclusions:
- rapes had been primarily committed by immigrants in the last recorded entry between 1985-1989
- crime rates in Sweden have increased in the last 40 years
- the government stopped recording or releasing details of immigrant crime
- the government has actively covered up widespread sexual assault by immigrant gangs for fear of raising ethnic tensions (perhaps accusations of racism?)
- Sweden is the rape capital of the West in part due to wider definitions of rape
Overall, the OP's image is largely accurate.
As for whether or not rape in Sweden is primarily committed by Muslims, there's no data that suggests this. Ethnicity and religion are not registered by the police in Sweden. And since Muslim immigration prior to the 90s was low, it's unlikely that they made any blip on rape rates for the 1985-1989 data set.
However, the organized sexual assault gangs targetting young women have been primarily made up of Muslim immigrants, not only in Sweden but in other countries like Germany and the UK (where their governments also covered up the scandals for fear of being accused of racism):
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ … s-festival
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year' … in_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham … on_scandal
That's an entirely new phenomenon for Western societies but is somewhat common in certain Arabic and African countries, and suggests a pattern.
I'm interested to know why some people didn't question the veracity of the claim being made about Muslim immigrants in the opening comment. I want to know why some people automatically assumed it's true.
As your summary demonstrates, there is no reliable evidence (available from an internet search) that shows Muslim immigrants are responsible for Sweden having a high rate of rape. Yet people commented as if it's a fact. I want to know why people are so willing to accept things without evidence?
So far, it seems people are willing to forgo any kind of critical thinking if something fits in with their narrative. In contrast, if they are presented with anything that doesn't fit their narrative, then suddenly evidence is becomes very important.
Did they automatically assume it to be true? People respond or don't respond to things for a variety of reasons. I can only speak for my own thought process.
The first claim I challenged was about low birth rates being tied to laziness. I had never heard such a thing, and given what factors I do know that affect birth rates, it sounded too simplistic to be true.
The second claim was about Jonny making misogynistic comments. I didn't interpret his comments in that way and wanted some clarification.
The third claim was about toddlers killing more people than terrorists per year in the US. I responded to that not only because it's a flawed comparison, but because it's false as per the very source provided. It doesn't go against a narrative, it goes against common sense. Armed toddlers are not as dangerous as armed terrorists for obvious reasons.
(I'm surprised you're not criticizing Will Apse on this claim. His post seems to be the closest thing to defending a narrative that I've seen. He's using accidental toddler deaths in an attempt to minimize the intended and directed threat of terrorism, because he doesn't want to offend minority sensibilities. It's wrong on several levels.)
I didn't challenge the OP's post because I already knew it to be largely true. I knew that Sweden is the rape capital of the West and that their media and government do cover up some of the explanations (in fact, they punish dissenting opinions: http://www.friatider.se/sd-politiker-d- … slamkritik). I knew that there'd been spikes in sexual assaults and rapes by Muslims in Sweden and Germany from events like Cologne and Stockholm. And I knew that there were some Muslim-dominated sectors where police were heavily discouraged from entering and have a degree of lawlessness, in Sweden and a few other European countries.
I don't think it's entirely far-fetched to assume that it's basically Sharia jurisdiction (which I know exists in the UK), or that women dye their hair black to avoid harassment, or what the exact demographic rates of rape are. The underlying point of problems with shifting cultures is there and exists in several countries with remarkably similar patterns. Some of those aforementioned details might not be entirely accurate or even determinate, but that to me is engaging in pedantry, especially considering that those nations' own governments are suppressing relevant information and punishing dissenting opinion.
Other than that, were some other claims here which I didn't bother to challenge because they didn't sufficiently interest me, but still did raise my skepticism - Italians not moving out until well in their 40s, for instance. I responded to that comment without challenging that particular claim, but that doesn't mean I accepted it to be true.
I'd also like to mention that people can entertain hypotheticals without verifying the specific claims. One approach I deliberated on the climate change thread was to ask whether or not it matters if climate change is primarily man-made or natural, assuming that rising CO2 levels are catastrophic. Or, regardless of whether rising CO2 levels are catastrophic, if we shouldn't be focusing our efforts on sustainable, renewable, clean or efficient energy and conservation efforts anyway (i.e. efforts that happen to minimize CO2 emissions).
The main suggestion in the opening comment is that Muslim immigrants are responsible for the high rate of rapes in Sweden. It was not a hypothetical.
No evidence was offered to support that suggestion except a meme-type picture. You said: "As for whether or not rape in Sweden is primarily committed by Muslims, there's no data that suggests this." I concur.
Did people automatically assume the suggestion was true? It appears so, which is why I'm asking why that's the case. People are free to explain (or not).
My observation is that the claim about Muslim immigrants made in the opening comment supports the worldview of many people (not all) who lean towards the right of the political spectrum.
It's noticeable that most people in this thread who appear to have either accepted that claim, or failed to challenge it, also tend to lean to the right of the political spectrum (based on my knowledge of their views from this thread and across the forum). I also observed that when someone made a claim that challenged that particular worldview, suddenly evidence became very important, and they were immediately asked for evidence to support their claim.
Based on those observations (and others around the forum) it appears that lack of evidence for a claim is not deemed important by those who share the worldview that claim supports. But if a claim challenges that worldview, suddenly evidence becomes very important, and a lack of sufficient evidence can be cited as a reason a claim isn't accepted.
That's a dreadful way to approach any subject.
People need to decide whether evidence is important or not. If it's not, then anyone (including people with different worldviews) can claim something is true on the grounds that they say it is. If evidence is important, that means applying the same standard to every claim, regardless of whether it supports or challenges a particular worldview. This issue runs to the heart of the post-truth, fake news phenomenon.
If anyone had bothered to challenge the opening comment, they would have found that the main suggestion about Muslim immigrants in the opening comment is not supported by available evidence. Moreover, they would have found evidence (in the form of various studies) that suggests the way official crime statistics are produced at the national level in Sweden may be a factor in the high rate relative to other countries. The statistical routines and legal definitions in different countries vary to such a degree that meaningful comparisons of such rates between countries is difficult, and must be approached with caution (while still of course still addressing the issue within each individual country).
Is a degree of critical thinking too much to expect from people discussing important subjects? I don't think it is.
Thank you both and all for what is turning out to be a much more level-minded discussion.
If anything I have said at the outset of this thread could be interpreted as mysogyistic, then I apologise. It was in no way intended to be. I am not in any way anti-female, since we are all equal members of the human society. Most here know of my sexual orientation, but that has nothing to do with it, except that I have never had any sexual interested in women. Is that mysogyistic? I don't think so. If it is, then there must be millions of mysogyistic in this world!
No, my main worry at the start of this thread, with full respect to Sam, his contributions to HP being very much valued and usually very well written, was with the perception of and potential for scandal-mongering . The immediacy of our WWW and the Internet allows for nice juicy stories, full of sensationalist talk and innuendos, to spread dislike, dissension and ultimately hatred for people. There are individuals/groups, on all sides of political spectra, who will twist and misrepresent "reports" about anything which promotes sensation. This is why I initially questioned what had been reported about statistics coming out of Sweden. I do not suggest those reports are true or untrue; there is no way I can be sure, even after having used the search engine to find more informaton. I did see some Wikipedia info which indicated a much more complex and understandable picture of what is really happening in Sweden.
Thus, my initial scepticism was, I feel, vindicated. Yet those who do have biased opinions were very quick to jump on the band wagon and read into my words anything that appealed to their leanings.
So, once again, thank you everyone for bringing the discussion back to a sensible level, better than I was able to do personally.
Wishing you a happy and meaningful Festive Season, however you find that appropriate. Personally, I join with the wonders of nature, tending the chicken and their needs, the earth worms and theirs, the plants that feed us and the friends who feed my sense of oneness with this planet.
The OP did not suggest it as a hypothetical, but readers can choose to respond to it as such. My climate change example entertained several claims without checking or making assumptions about their veracity. It's certainly a welcome habit to request information and analyse it objectively, but it's a difficult and time-consuming practice which I would not expect from the majority of people here, who are looking to have discussions in a more casual and less methodical manner.
Even without ascertaining the veracity of information it's possible to engage in productive discussion. I've seen it in these threads from both left-leaning and right-leaning individuals.
What was the claim that challenged their worldview, and how did it challenge their worldview? The claim that toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists does not seem to be going against any narrative other than common sense. It does not seem to be tied to right or left-wing worldviews.
More importantly, neither toddlers nor terrorists are mentioned in the OP's claims. The "toddlers kill more than terrorists" claim has nothing to do with Muslims being implicated in increasing rape rates. This is a subtle giveaway as to how Will Apse rationalized the discussion. He conflated Muslims with terrorists but castigated others for supposedly doing so, in a thread which was not actually talking about terrorism (Islamic or otherwise) until he brought it up. This suggests his challenge was not based on an earnest seeking of truth, but an attempt to defend his preconceived notions.
There is truth to your observation about cognitive bias, but it's not a right-wing or left-wing issue, it's a human issue, and one that's been around for a while.
As already mentioned, Will Apse, who appears to be left-leaning, has not actually tried to approach these subjects objectively. He incorrectly made a blunt comparison of accidental toddler shootings with terrorist deaths in the US in an attempt to minimize terrorism as a worldwide threat. He later made an anecdotal comparison to the relatively inactive IRA and conflated the group's religious makeup with their republicanism motivations. He then attempted to assassinate the character of the OP by comparing his "aggressive secularism" to the hatred found in "pure racism." His constant whataboutisms are thinly-veiled deflections of any criticism targeted at Islamic issues.
In his mind, criticism of Islam is equal to a "hysterical fear of foreigners all over the world." In his mind, the only people who are afraid of this religion are white people because, as he says it, "white people, when scared, cannot be reasoned with." In his mind, criticism of Islam is a "need to hate Muslims, for whatever reason." As a pardo foreigner who would be punished or even killed for my criticisms of religion were I born into Islamic theocracy, his comments are ignorant, to put it mildly. They are reminiscent of far left-wing narratives and actually validate the image of the OP. Would he make the same comments to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Lalo Dagach or Maajid Nawaz? Or would he simply dismiss them as "aggressive secularists"?
He's not the only one that failed to objectively analyse claims. Credence, who is progressive, also believed the toddler statistics without question and continued the same fallacious type of comparison.
Apse conflated criticism of Islam or of a subset of Muslims (i.e. the ones committing sexual assault) to criticism of all Muslims. Similarly, Jonny, who also appears to be progressive, dismissed threats like terrorism because the people who commit those atrocities are a minority.
There's also Judi Bee, who corrected the claim that Sweden was revoking their EU application (at least I think she did - I didn't check this claim. It's not relevant to the underlying point of the thread). Given that she characterized navigating this thread as "spitting in the wind whilst wading through bullshit," I'd guess she is left-leaning. Either way, despite supposedly knowing that this thread was comprised of bovine fecal matter, she opted to challenge the largely irrelevant claim about Sweden revoking their EU application, and left the OP's main claim untouched.
Much like their ring-wing counterparts, none of these left-leaning folks actually challenged the OP's claims or requested a source - though to give credit where it's due, Credence did speculate on the cultural implications, Judi Bee at least did (supposedly) correct one minor topic within the thread and Jonny had always been skeptical of the original claim. As the latter noted, with a few exceptions only right-winged people seem to be actually addressing this issue - though he, again, tried to minimize the issue by stating they only do so to feel a sense of superiority.
What does that leave us with? If you're right about their assumptions (which I don't know that you are), most right-leaning people accepted the claim as truthful and then expanded on its implications. Most left-leaning people ignored the claim altogether. Hardly any better - actually, objectively worse. I can imagine that this is in part to avoid cognitive dissonance, because even without having the specific facts and stats, observation heuristics implicate the claim as at least partially truthful. Three different European countries with thousands of cases of widespread sexual assault by Muslim gangs is damning as is, exacerbated by the fact that these governments attempted to suppress that information.
The final bias comes from you. You chose to single out right-leaning Hubbers for not challenging the original claim, but you neglected the series of missteps by the left-leaning Hubbers who did not challenge the original claim and danced around it by bringing up irrelevant or inconsequential points.
To the left-leaning people who I've named, I hope you don't take my criticisms too personally. Even you Mr. Apse, who I've gone on for more than I feel comfortable doing. I know that none of you come from a place of ill-will. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's the exact opposite; all of you come from places of compassion. But that in itself is something you ought to carefully temper. The compassion you feel for those you deem to be oppressed is the same compassion that allows a mother bear to mercilessly rip apart any entity that she deems a threat to her cubs. Be very careful not to weaponize it on those you disagree with.
Happy Holidays to you all.
Happy holidays to you too, Professor. I appreciate being given credit when it is due.
"..dismissed threats like terrorism because the people who commit those atrocities are a minority." Did I?! It seems you have a way of misinterpreting what I and others write here.
All I am questioning is the media hype that might or might not convey the real truth of a situation. It's easy to raise anger in the community and then let the perhaps semi-true story gain weight all by itself, rather like a snow ball....start it small then let it roll down hill.
If anyone just wants to air feelings about a person or group he/she does not like, then look for a link to support those feelings. This is what I am skeptical about. In recent weeks we have seen this pattern recurr, in various hubs and discussions.
I say let's clean up our acts in order to present the facts, not heresay.
By all means, clarify. What did you mean when you wrote this?
Maybe the exaggerated fear of premature death is driving the nonsensical drift of this thread. Get logical, get real, get a life everyone.
A minority of young Muslim people become fanatics. A minority of persons wielding firearms are out to kill a fellow human. A minority (very very small one) of young children get hold of or accidentally discharge a firearm. A minority of male humans perform unwanted uninvited sexual assaults on females or males; likewise females upon males or females.
Most persons of any religious persuasion are peaceable, law-abiding citizens - yet they don't make a good case for spurious arguments on HP, or give us high blood pressure and anxiety. They (I, we) get on with leading enjoyable, active, productive, community-minded lives. Boring, isn't it?
If you did not mean to dismiss or minimize the above threats, then why did you call them "exaggerated fears" and part of the "nonsensical drift" of the thread? Why did you conclude that seeing these things through your "real" and "logical" lens is "boring"? I do not find it unreasonable to assume that someone who thinks these fears are exaggerated, nonsensical and boring is attempting to dismiss them as non-issues.
You also claim I've misinterpreted others. Can you point me in the right direction? Show me who and what I've misinterpreted.
Ok, thanks for this pointer. I did leave a lot of room for misunderstanding, so I will try to clarify.
I don't for one moment try to minimise the seriousness and evil nature of of what the reports are claiming. All this has been stated before.
My difficulty is with this medium we are using for communication. It promotes fear and anxiety in our fertile minds; even when a minority of individuals perpetrate evil things, as gross and shocking they might be, those reports/stories rely on our human tendency to almost enjoy the sharing of the story, exaggerating it along the way, being the town crier, getting all the attention because of the news we carry.
I emphasise that in many case just a few people are involved and guilty of the crime, yet the tendency is to imply that many more are involved, not just the few. When we can put a name or a nationality or a culture out there as being inherently guilty, it's easier to focus anger and condemnation.
I repeat, in trying to get things into perspective, this is not to diminish the gravity. Just to show that exaggeration can bring discrimination upon those who do not deserve it. When it is any branch of the mass media putting out a story, primarily to sell the story and get financial reward from the sales, I feel we must be wary and question what is being put before us. We must try to recognise our individual reactions to stories which might be designed to lead us on, building up fears and reactionary responded which only serve to divide.
Please forgive me if this is still ambiguous and not explained clearly. Previously, I was writing my posts into a Samsung smartphone, during a busy day of driving upwards of 200km (160 miles), so I was not able to go into explanatory details to explain my points of view.
Let me ask you this. You say exaggeration can bring on discrimination. Exaggeration is difficult to pin on someone. I honestly believe Don, Will and you are exaggerating the problems associated with discussing this. I think the three of you have had exaggerated responses to comments that are not racist in nature.
You complain about the medium used. I think you are misusing the medium and attempting to make false accusations against participants on the opposite side of the discussion.
Am I correct? Or am I reading things into your intent? If I am reading things into your intent could you step back and consider that you, too, could be making the same mistake?
Yes, I can and it's possible. Can you? Can you ever be mistaken? Perception for each of us is loaded with preceptions so judgements are easily distorted.
By the way, it's 3.40am on Christmas day here. I could not get to sleep because of the still, warm air. This brings with it anxiety and caution, because of bush fire risk at this time of the year. It puts any arguments of a philosophical nature into true perspective.
So, wishing you happy times everyone.
Of course I can be mistaken. However, I simply think that on this issue you guys have jumped on a wagon of denial; as if that is somehow the charitable thing to do. All parties involved deserve charity and consideration. Not simply one you think cannot defend themselves.
I will say I watched a video of the family of the guy who rammed a truck through the market in Germany. No one said they wished it hadn't happened. No one said they were sorry for any of the carnage their relative had caused. All they were asking is that the body be given back to them.
People standing on both sides of the issue have an obligation to care about the other.
So here I do agree with you: those families of the perpetrator would seem to have little regard for families of the victims.
What if all the families were to drop the barriers of any religious/faith/cultural precepts and came together, sharing their sorrows, learning about each other's emotional and social needs? What if we all, regardless of gender, regardless of orientation, regardless of perhaps hurtful histories, were to meet for a chat around a meal table and just -- listened, caringly to each others needs?
Is this too idealistic?
I'm afraid it is too idealistic. It would be nice though. To have a chance to understand where some of these people are coming from. From both far ends.
Isaiah 9:6-7 New King James Version (NKJV)
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
Fear not, if the Lord is with you, but do repent if your sins convict you.
I don't think she meant harm. It was simply pointing out the reason for the season.
Lol@- ....listened, caringly to each others needs...
There was the "lets all get along" speech. Then color posts some typically xmas verse. Then the dismissive attitude along with almost an apology for it. So listen caringly is just ludicrous.
I suppose you are accusing me of an almost apology. I'd point out that you obviously weren't looking for a 'let's all get along' angle to view the exchange but you never suggested you wanted to, so why should you?
Yes, I take your point, Phoenix. If the biblical texts bring meaning and purpose into Colorfulone's life, who am I to object?
Color posted this at me mihi mea Aemili: "but do repent if your sins convict you." Who should have taken exception. Who is my champion. I think you are someone to object.Why should you not be? Seasons greetings to you Johnny and all those you care about.
Greetings to you and your's also.
That matter of repenting for an action of mine that caused harm in any way to another person, is important. Something that is occupying my mind right now. Must do something about it today.
But it's now gone 6.00am and there's lots to do outside, so leaving you all to continue chatting, for now.
On Christmas Eve and Christmas Day the FBI is warning people that ISIS has called for attacks on Christian Churches apparently along with the specific addresses or locations of those targets. I believe it involves The US and Canada as well as other countries. Idky they are mad at Canada.
The gratuitous ISIS hijacked islam.
Meanwhile in countries like iran, yemen, saudi arabia etc etc. for example saudi arabia if a Christian group are simply praying in their own home the religion police very well might bust down your door and beat everyone. So are these entire countries hijacking islam? Hogwash. Furthermore regarding aforementioned orientation, one might want to keep that little tidbit under their hat too.
So, what would a safer, more accepting, tolerant and caring world look like for you, PhoenixV? What changes do you envisage and how much effort are you personally willing to put into that New World?
If I was being attacked for my orientation, where would you and Color fit into that scene. Could I count on your support and protection? What does your bible say you should do?
It would depend on the situation of course. If I had the courage of course. If some group was surrounding a house trying to harm those inside based on w/e reason, perhaps a supranatural blindness would prevent them from doing so.Perhaps a conventional smoke canister would suffice.
Are you in the habit of carrying a conventional smoke canister on your person?
The point is, rattling a saber is easy. Going in gung ho spells disaster. Finding a solution where noone gets injured is judicious and everyone including the guilty lives to repent another day.
You sound like a preacher man I know. He told me about an incident where a guy drove up to the store across the street and started beating a man with a chain. He watched the whole thing. The judge asked him why he didn't do anything and he said he told the judge he was trying to mind his own business. What he did didn't surprise me as much as his repeating the story as if it was a joke
Thats a nice misrepresentation. As I wrote I recalled you were asking WWJD. The solution was everyone was safely rescued with no injuries. Maybe your Jesus was more radical and would have everyone go over the cliff and let the spiritual chips fall where they may. The suggestion of chivalry is admirable however and would make for an interesting and anecdotal story for the ER.
I mean what would you have do. Cross my fingers and use the car as a plow and hope for the best. If I were of the persuasion, so to speak, should I jump into the mix swinging my purse wildly? Nah I'm a man and Id have to rescue the victim along with the added complication of rescuing the impetous lady with the purse.
Many times, the situation is diffused simply by someone not over emotionally attached simply stepping in. Although you are right. Many times it will just make the altercation worse.
But I don't think Jesus would sit idly by.
Remind me to never. Ever. Take you anywhere again. Lol
Ok by me. I'd probably be scared to go anywhere with you. What with your fascination with smoke canisters.
If you managed to get close enough, perhaps a swift kick in the proverbials...totally non-violent solution.
So you know, I'm a Christian and your sexual orientation is none of my damned business. If you were being physically attacked you would be like any other human. I would come to your aid.
Sure readers can choose to respond to a post as they wish. Just as readers can choose to make observations about those responses and express their opinions on them, as I'm doing.
Lack of time is always a problem, but even in a casual discussion, people can ask someone to cite a source for the information they are presenting.
Anything related to firearms that can be perceived as negative (doesn't matter what it is) tends to be criticized by many people (not necessarily all) who lean to the right of the political spectrum. You would have to ask those people why that's the case, but that's an observation I have made. I can guess at the reason, but it would be just a guess.
I don't know Will's intention, so I stand to be corrected by him, but my reading of the exchange is that he thinks this thread is a cynical attempt to use the issue of sexual violence against women, to spread Islamophobia. That seems clear from: "The topic is about spreading Islamophobia with nonsense about women dying their hair black, sharia law etc." Over the course of several comments, he then lays out several arguments to support that conclusion.
He seems to be citing the toddlers/firearms stats to suggest there are dangers closer to home which represent more of a risk than Muslim immigrants. The implication being that if this is about risk, then there are plenty of things (like the risk of firearms) that represent more of a danger to people posting here than Muslim immigrants in Sweden.
He also refers to the President-elect's boasts about grabbing "pussy". The implication being that it's hypocritical to criticize other groups for misogyny, then electing someone who has made misogynistic comments. Then he highlights the flawed logic of condemning whole groups on the basis of individuals, by saying: "If you're going to condemn Islam as a whole because some Muslims are vile, you need to condemn the US as a whole because some Americans are vile".
But I'm not here to defend or argue for Will, because 1) he can speak for himself, and 2) the details of that exchange are not what I'm interested in.
While I have no doubt cognitive bias is not unique to those who lean to the right, I repeat that "it's noticeable that most people in this thread who appear to have either accepted that claim, or failed to challenge it, also tend to lean to the right of the political spectrum" (emphasis added).
By my observations, the majority of commenters in this thread who lean towards the left (based on their comments here and around the forum) have either recommended caution towards the message (jonnycomelately), challenged something related to the message (Judi Bee), challenged the motivations behind the message (Will Apse), or challenged the main premise of the message (me). Other commenters were either relatively neutral, or I did not have enough information to determine if they lean to the left or the right.
As far as I can see, outside of responding to my comments, no one who leans to the right, has advised caution, questioned the motivation of, or challenged the main premise of the message in any way. In contrast jonnycomelately, Will Apse, and I have all been challenged on our responses, and all of those challenges have been from people who lean to the right.
Based on these observations, there is a clear tendency towards acceptance of the opening message in this thread, from those commenters who lean towards the right. Those commenters also show a clear bias against comments that challenge the opening message. Those in this thread who have either defended the opening message, or challenged those who have challenged it, have been people who lean towards the right.
The facts of the matter are: no one knows whether or not Muslim immigrants are responsible for the high rate of rape in Sweden. There is no available data that allows that conclusion to be drawn. There is also doubt about whether the rate of rape in Sweden is the result of an actual higher likelihood of rape, or simply the differences in the way national crime statistics are compiled between different countries.
In other words, the claim made in the opening message, is factually wrong. But instead of criticizing the opening commenter for stating a false claim as a fact, people have criticized those of us who have challenged that false claim. Therein lies the problem.
I believe political discourse has become so tribalized that people no longer accept claims based on how factual they are. They accept them based on whether they fit the narrative of their particular "tribe". That tribalism can be seen in the fact that people are increasingly referring to "the left" and "the right" as identities rather than indicators of political opinion. So much so that I deliberate use "people who lean to the left/right" because I'm explicitly referring to people's political opinions, not their identities.
I believe this tribalism is at the heart of post-truth politics and the fake news phenomenon. If a story or a claim "sounds" right (fits the narrative) then it's either promoted or at the very least not criticized. When that claim is then challenged, the challenger is then criticized because the criticism is perceived (consciously or not) as an attack on the entire worldview/ tribe rather than on the specific claim. That is the dynamic I believe has just played out in real time on this particular thread. But I think the outcome here is repeatable on any of the politics threads in this forum, or any other forum or comment section around the web.
Of course there has always been fake news. From Bigfoot to hillary lying about landing under sniper fire in bosnia and benghazi was a youtube video.
The current fake news "phenomenon" is propaganda being put out by the professional fake news media aka msm including the major search engine and leading social site and parroted by the naive or dishonest.
You seem to think the central claim is that Muslim immigrants are responsible for Sweden's high rate of rape. Where is this central claim stated? I can see how it might be implied, but would an implied claim be central to the discussion?
Either way, I don't see why you're focusing only on this implied claim out of all of the other directly stated claims by the OP. As I mentioned earlier, the claims made by the OP are more or less accurate:
- Is Sweden the rape capital of the West? Yes. Whether or not this is a pertinent point is another matter. We know that this inflation is partially due to the Swedish definitions of rape. We don't know how much of the statistic is influenced by the Muslim demographic. I can forgive the opening statement of a meme for not being established as relevant, as it still catches the attention of the reader (as memes are typically meant to do).
- Are the media or the government covering up incidents of rape and sexual assault? Yes. See Rotherham, Cologne and Stockholm.
- Are people who tell the truth about this called racist? Yes. This is why the aforementioned events were covered up in the first place.
- Have places like Sweden and Germany seen massive increase in rapes and sexual assaults? Yes. Refer to the aforementioned cases for large spikes in rape and sexual assault
- Are there places in Europe where police will not even go? Yes. Here's one example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ1_6s5OFmM
- Is it basically Muslim Sharia jurisdiction? Unlikely. All we know is that the governments have lost control of these areas.
- Are women dyeing their hair black to avoid harassment from Muslims? Not in any significant scale. For what it's worth, I've seen a few anecdotes like this one: http://www.thelocal.at/20160506/attack- … o-dye-hair
- Are two vastly different cultures mixing? Yes. There is a culture clash between Islam and the West which has led communities like those in Molenbeek to be isolated from larger society.
- Is Europe becoming a very tense place to be? Yes. Though this is slightly subjective, there are a number of metrics that we can use to prove that claim.
Of his 9 claims, 6 have strong evidence to support it, 1 is true but its relevance to the underlying theme is undetermined, and 2 are unfounded or have weak evidence.
Why do you ignore the preponderance of truths in his statements to focus on one implied interpretation (one that isn't necessarily wrong, but indeterminate)?
The opening comment claimed Sweden is the "rape capital of the west" and associated that idea with Muslim immigrants, which implies a causal link. The comment is written as if it is repeating statements of fact.
- "Rape capital of the west": This suggests Sweden has more rapes than any of the countries that constitute what is traditionally known as "the west". Those making this claim are looking at the incidence of reported rapes, not actual incidence of rape. The former does not reflect the latter (it doesn't even necessarily correlate to it). And the Swedish body that compiles these statistics explicitly cautions against making comparisons between countries in this way:
"Within established research about levels of crime and crime development, people are agreed that it is not possible to evaluate and compare the actual levels of violent crimes (such as rape) between countries by comparing the number of crimes reported to the police. This is because there are significant differences between the judicial systems of countries and systems for creating statistics showing crimes reported to the police." (emphasis mine)
(when jonnycomelately advised caution in relation to these statistics on the very first page of the thread he was called a "misogynist").
So is Sweden the "rape capital of the west"? The factual answer is: we don't know. So anyone who claims to know it definitely is, is at best mistaken, and at worst, a liar.
- "massive increase in rapes and assaults": even if you use the incidence of reported rapes and sexual assaults, there has been no such increase. The incidence of reported rapes in Sweden in 2015 was lower than it has been in the past five years. The incidence of "sexual offences" in general saw a large decline also.
Has there been a massive increase in rapes and assaults? The factual answer is: no. Both reports of rapes and sexual offences are lower.
- The media is "covering up the reasons why": seeing as the main premise of the comment is false, this allegation is redundant. You are now repeating the allegation, without producing any reliable evidence whatsoever (quoting the names of three cities is not evidence).
- The media calls "anyone who tells the truth a racist": As demonstrated, anyone who suggests the claim in the opening comment is true, is mistaken or a liar. So if such people are called racists, it's not because they are telling the truth. It may be related to the fact that some of the groups (not all) who promote claims like this include neo-nazis, racists, xenophobes etc. If people don't want to be associated with those groups, perhaps they should be clearer and louder in their condemnation of them.
- "There are many areas in europe where police will not even go": This allegation (a perfect example of false news) stemmed from comments by Steve Emerson during an interview on Fox where he referenced "no-go areas" in places like Birmingham in the UK. There is no supporting evidence for it (that video you link to showing a camera crew getting a hostile response from people in a car does not demonstrate this claim). Shortly after the interview Emerson issued the following statement:
"I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing this apology and correction for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error".
A week after the interview Fox made four on-air apologies for inaccuracies in their reporting of the Muslim population in relation to England and France.
Are there Muslim no-go areas in Europe where police will not go? The factual answer is: not one person has produced evidence of a single area populated by Muslims, anywhere in Europe, where police will not go.
- "It's basically claimed Muslim sharia jurisdiction": Again, the factual response to this is: no one has produced evidence that any European government has "lost control" of areas to Muslims. You are repeating allegations without any evidence again.
- "Women have been dyeing their hair black to avoid harassment from muslims". Another allegation stated as fact, with no reliable evidence (anecdotes are not reliable evidence).
- "Two vastly different cultures are mixing". Agreed.
- "it's starting to become a very tense place to be": I'm certain the amount of unsupported claims made about Muslim immigrants contributes to any natural tension that might already exist. The fact that some (not all) of the people pushing these claims are neo-nazis, racists, and xenophobes, adds an additional layer of aggravation to an already difficult situation.
So the claims stated in the opening comment as facts are not "more or less accurate". They are largely unsupported allegations.
It's ironic that many who deride the mainstream media for being inaccurate (based on their comments around the forum) are willing to accept (or fail to challenge) largely unsupported claims made through a "meme". Again, for most people in this thread it seems acceptance is based on the narrative the person chooses to believe, rather than the weight of supporting evidence, which in this case was none.
I'm aware that you understood that idea as an implication, you don't need to keep repeating it ad nauseam. Is it the central claim? Is it part of the underlying point or the bigger picture? There has been suppression of sexual assault committed by Muslim migrants in several countries for fear of backlash amid accusations of racism. Do you disagree or do you just not find that problematic?
I am aware that the statement "rape capital of the West" does not reflect the actual incidence of rape. Perhaps my understanding of statistics and definitions (and my relaxed approach towards these type of memes) is why I dismiss this as an attention grabbing statement, because I did not take it as a literal interpretation. If you did, I suppose that'd seem like a false claim. Either way, I did not include this as one of the claims that had strong evidence, only that it's "true" in a certain sense.
"Both reports of rapes and sexual offences are lower." On the contrary, there has been a significant increase in reported incidents of sex crimes. Sweden's National Crime Survey found that the rate of sex crimes went from 0.8% in 2012 to 1.7% in 2015, despite being at a stable 1% or lower the previous 7 years: https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statis … t/ntu.html
The allegation might be redundant to someone who is taking the "capital of x" claim literally, but I can contextualize and look at the bigger picture. No, the media and governments are not covering up the reasons why Sweden is labeled the rape capital of the West, but they are covering up incidents of rape and sexual assault for fear of being called racist. As already mentioned, I have linked you starting places of research in a previous comment (the quoting of the cities was not the evidence, it was to refresh your memory and/or direct your attention to a cognitive blindspot). The reliable evidence is there and is available through cursory research, but obviously I can't force you to read or investigate if you are unable or unwilling to, as these countries' authorities were.
Steve Emerson's claim is one claim about no-go zones. It's not the only claim, it's not even where the term originated, and refuting that claim does nothing to refute the number of other claims made by government officials and police forces about lawless areas in Europe.
The president of the German police union Gewerkschaft der Polizei, stated that some areas in Germany, mostly with a high immigrant population, had become no-go areas where police feared to enter: http://www.derwesten.de/politik/in-prob … 26287.html
In a 2014 report Swedish police mapped 55 areas where "local criminal networks are considered to have a negative impact on the local society" and where the police have once or multiple times felt insecure doing their job. These insecurities include the threat of hand grenades and incendiary explosives: http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/attacke … -i-landet/
According to NRK, the largest media organization in Norway (government owned), these areas are sometimes dubbed "no-go zones": https://www.nrk.no/urix/svensk-politi_- … 1.12920404
The link above is in the same location as the video I linked to you previously, with a video showing immigrant youths getting aggressive with NRK and Swedish police, shoving cameras in a tense situation. The video shows damaged police car windows and police officers wearing bulletproof armor prior to entering these areas.
Speaking of my video, did you watch it in full? After the reporters were attacked, they contacted the police. The officer tells them that it'd be better if they go in without them because police presence would be provocative:
"I think it's better if you go in without us, because I think it'd be -"
"Yeah, if we're going to be honest."
There are further accounts of police officers and researchers referring to these areas as no-go zones or equivalent: http://fof.se/tidning/2015/5/artikel/da … ngens-makt
To me, the fact that police are afraid of entering these areas, that they have to enter these areas in squads and wearing bulletproof attire, and that they're calling these areas "no-go zones," is evidence of no-go zones. It's an interesting approach to dismiss the entire notion as "fake news" because some guy on Fox got it wrong one time about one particular city.
"You are repeating allegations without any evidence again." Did I repeat the allegation affirmatively? No. I repeated the claim as a question to evaluate its veracity (as I did with all other claims - there's a pattern there), and concluded "Unlikely. All we know is that the governments have lost control of these areas." In other words, there's no evidence of that claim and the chances of it being true are slim. I then conclude that claim as one of two claims which are unfounded. Please read more carefully in the future, I am explicitly stating this claim does not have any evidence.
"Another allegation stated as fact, with no reliable evidence (anecdotes are not reliable evidence)." I agree. I posted what little I had found about the claim in an effort to be thorough. That's why I prefaced with "For what it's worth" because I know it's of little value. As I concluded, it's an unfounded claim.
Overall, the 6 claims I said to have strong evidence in their favour, still have strong evidence in their favour. Whether or not you personally choose to look at that evidence doesn't change that for the rest of the world, but it might make your own world a little simpler and a little less dissonant.
So it's not accurate to say Sweden is the rape capital of the west.
Reports of sexual offences went up in 2015 (I was looking at the 2014 figures), but the body that compiles the stats says: ". . .the number of events varied greatly over time, indicating that the annual results should be interpreted with caution". And the "evidence" you are presenting for the other claims consists of:
- a police union boss who's main aim seems to be saving police jobs in Germany after "10,000" have been cut
- a story from an unreliable source (Expressen is a tabloid, the equivalent of the New York Post in the US, Daily Mail in UK, or Bild in Germany)
- a story from NRK about there being high levels of crime in impoverished areas (who would have thought it?)
- and a story involving a police officer who likely had better things to do than babysit a film crew, and found a good way to get get out of it.
This "evidence" is not exactly compelling is it, but that's not the point anyway.
The point is that claims about Muslim immigrants were made in the opening comment without any evidence. Yet people (mostly who lean towards the right of the political spectrum, based on my observations) seem to have either accepted the claims as true, or failed to challenge all, or part of the claims. Worse still, when others (mostly people on the left of the political spectrum from my observations) challenged all, or part of the claims, or advised caution, they were the ones challenged.
That's the issue.
As I said at the beginning of this exchange: "People need to decide whether evidence is important or not. If it's not important, then anyone (including people with different worldviews) can claim something is true on the grounds that they say it is. If evidence is important, that means applying the same standard to every claim, regardless of whether it supports or challenges a particular worldview".
In your case, there's no point saying "There has been suppression of sexual assault committed by Muslim migrants in several countries for fear of backlash amid accusations of racism" Prove it, if you can. If you can't then it's just an unsubstantiated claim. You prove it with evidence. Concrete. Reliable. Evidence. I missed your evidence for this particular claim which you keep repeating, but I strongly suspect it is of a similar reliability and quality as the "evidence" above.
So I'll leave you with:
"Muslim immigrants have made Sweden a better place: every metric used to measure living standards in Sweden has increased in the last five years. Muslim immigrants have increased the labor force, creating a boost to productivity which has raised living standards across the whole country".
What's the source of this information? Is it true? Who knows? Who cares? It's "attention grabbing" and can easily be turned into a meme.
Therein lies the problem.
It's not accurate or inaccurate. It's indeterminate if interpreting "rape" as "rate of rape." It's accurate if interpreting "rape" as "rate of rape reports."
I'm aware you only looked at the 2014 figures. Cognitive bias directs you only to information that supports your own preconceived notions, and ignores the rest. That's why you only looked at the link Kathryn provided, which only goes up to 2014 because it's outdated. That's why you stress the need to advocate caution about these numbers only when they go up, instead of correcting yourself and making an analogous statement like "The factual answer is: yes. The rate of sexual assault in Sweden has gone up."
Incredibly, despite having a wide array of sources from several different countries providing evidence of areas where government services are not able to enter safely, you still spin interpretations and imagine the source's motivations to your advantage.
What does it matter that the boss of a union might be (unsurprisingly) trying to maintain and defend the condition of its employees? Does that somehow make him an unreliable source? Are you suggesting he is inventing this story to attract greater employment for his union members? What evidence do you have of that allegation?
What part of the Expressen story are you suggesting is false? There is pertinent information there corroborated by the NRK and other sources. Is all of that inaccurate because it also comes from a tabloid?
You are under the impression that NRK is merely talking about crime in impoverished areas. Even if that were the central theme of the article (which it isn't), does that disprove the existence of no-go zones?
I'll quote you the relevant information:
A police report the Swedish Rikspolisen announced in 2014, lists 55 of exclusion areas particularly vulnerable neighborhoods where criminal networks have a strong influence. They are called "no go zones".
What part of this information are you having trouble digesting? Is it the part where they say no-go zones exist? Is it the source and its potential motivations for which you have no evidence?
The police had better things to do than defend the lives of journalists who were just attacked within moments of their appearance, and after as well? What evidence do you have of that allegation?
Are you beginning to notice a trend where your cognitive biases lead you away from the truth and towards deflections and unfounded irrelevancies?
Nobody evaluated the original claims, neither left or right. This is not a partisan issue. You're only seeing right-winged individuals not challenging the claim, while ignoring the left-winged individuals who dismissed it out of hand. You spin it as the left challenging "part" of the claims, when objectively they did not challenge any of the OP's claims, partially or otherwise. Instead, they challenged irrelevant claims like whether Sweden is opting out of the EU, or they brought up irrelevant or incorrect facts like terrorists killing fewer people than toddlers in the United States.
You "missed" that evidence? How are you having so much difficulty? Are you not able to click back to previous pages, as you were able to do so with other comments? Furthermore, were you living under a rock the past couple of years?
You "suspect" it's of the same quality as the above evidence that demonstrates the existence of no-go zones. I "suspect" your inability to willing see the readily available evidence is an attempt at avoiding cognitive dissonance.
Here is the original inquiry on Rotherham: http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/f … _rotherham
Here is a followup investigation on the Rotherham Council: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s … am_WEB.pdf
Here are a number of other "uncompelling" sources about Cologne and Stockholm:
http://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-s … e-muslims/
http://time.com/4182186/sweden-feminist … -refugees/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/world … .html?_r=0
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ … um-seekers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ … s-festival
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/world … -says.html
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/k … 70837.html
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/k … 70600.html
You are dismissing available evidence as much as anyone else here. I suggest you listen to your advice and decide whether or not you value evidence as much as you think you do.
"Rape capital of the west" combined with "a massive increase in rapes" (not rape reports) misleadingly suggests that more rapes are committed in Sweden, when in fact it's not possible to make that determination. That demolishes the foundation of the meme, which is the alleged high number of rapes committed in Sweden relative to other countries. If the meme reflected actual facts, then it would read something like:
"Sweden may (or may not) be the rape capital of the west (we don't really know because it's not possible to make a meaningful comparison between different countries). If it is, then Muslim immigrants may (or may not) significantly contribute to that figure (we don't really know because there is no data available that allows us to make that determination either way) . . . " etc.
But that does not make for a good "attention grabbing" meme, and more importantly does not fit the narrative the author is trying to promote.
You are looking at the wrong stats, as was I. The figure you quoted (1.7%) is not the rate of sex crimes, it's the percentage of the population affected by sex crimes (on the official English version of the site that chart only goes up to 2014, which is why I quoted the 2014 figure). This page (5th chart down) shows the number of reported sex offenses (same page on the official English language version of the site).
As you can see, the number of rapes reported is went from 6697 in 2014 to 5918 in 2015 (down 12%), and the number of sexual offenses overall is went from 20,326 in 2014 to 18,057 in 2015 (down 11%). So it's true that both reports of rapes and sexual offences were lower in 2015.
At this point I could suggest you looked at the wrong stats because "cognitive bias directs you only to information that supports your own preconceived notions", but that would be a cheap shot so I won't. Plus I think it's more likely you were confused by a combination of poor site design, and language barrier.
I didn't advise caution, I quoted the Swedish body that compiles the statistics, who did. Their advice still stands.
I don't accept tabloids as a reliable sources of information. They tend to report with extreme bias.
The fact you ask for evidence for my comments, but happily act as if evidence doesn't matter (until prompted) in the case of the opening comment, is exactly the type of behaviour I am criticizing in this thread. Apparently evidence is only important when challenging a view that doesn't fit the desired narrative. Unfortunately the "evidence" you have offered does not demonstrate the claims made in the opening message.
While both reports on Rotherham are an indictment of a UK local authority, neither demonstrates the claim that the media in Sweden are deliberately suppressing information about such cases, as the message in the opening comment alleges. The fact you have cited Swedish media outlets as "evidence" also contradicts the claim that the media there is suppressing such information.
Moreover, neither report suggests a causal link between religion and number of sex offenses which the opening message suggests exists.
Likewise, although I consider the other group of sources to be (relatively) more reliable, they don't demonstrate the claims about the number of rapes committed in Sweden or the claim about no-go areas, and they indicate that the media in general is very willing to report on such matters.
"Nobody evaluated the original claims, neither left or right." Untrue, I did. Last I checked I qualify as somebody. I also happen to lean towards the left in my political opinions, which is consistent with the observations I have made in this thread. Those observations suggest it is a partisan issue. No one in the thread who seems to lean to the right politically, challenged the opening message in any way. Instead they (including you) chose to challenge those of us who questioned it. Most of those who questioned it in part, or in full, or advised caution, were people who lean to the left. The message in the opening comment also happens to be one that is favored mostly by those who lean to the right. These are all observable, verifiable facts.
Your argument, which amounts to "I'm not biased, you are", doesn't change the facts. Neither does it change the fact that you are engaged in exactly the type of behaviour I've observed and outlined in this thread.
Determining that evidence is irrelevant or unreliable after evaluating it, is not the same as simply dismissing it. But the issue is not people dismissing evidence anyway. The issue is people acting as as if evidence is not important, until someone challenges their view. Then suddenly evidence does become important. That leads to someone being able to post a message making sweeping claims about entire groups of people, with those who support that narrative acting as if evidence is not important, while those who challenge that narrative are told to provide evidence for what they say.
That's the question that should have been directed at the original comment, even by people who lean to the right. It wasn't.
That's the issue.
Terms like "rape capital of the West" are not always meant to convey unequivocal statements of truth. For instance, the author of this video uses the term “rape capital of Europe” as a provocative starting point in the discussion, despite knowing its limitations. As he explains in this video:
"I have no idea if Sweden is a rape capital. It’s something I said in rebellious jest, and that wasn’t even my point. My point was that the Swedish debate climate is so incredibly sensitive and so censored that you aren’t even allowed to ask the question: can our high rape statistics partially be explained by immigration?”
The literal veracity of the term “rape capital” was largely separate from the overall discussion. Hopefully you can wrap your head around that possibility to stop beating that dead horse/meme.
No, I have not been using the wrong stats. 1.7% is the percentage of Swedes affected by sex crimes for the year of 2015. These figures are the percentage of the population affected by sex crimes per year. Number of people affected / year is the definition of a rate.
What's interesting are the numbers you opted to highlight, the numbers you now think are the “right” stats. The numbers you are now citing (6697 and 5918 in years 2014 and 2015) are the number of rapes reported to the police per year – the same metric used to make the claim that Sweden is the rape capital of the West.
You already knew this metric doesn't necessarily reflect the actual rate of rape a few comments ago. You even paraphrased the content in Kathleen’s link. It seems you forgot (perhaps from bias-induced memory loss?):
Those making this claim are looking at the incidence of reported rapes, not actual incidence of rape. The former does not reflect the latter (it doesn't even necessarily correlate to it). And the Swedish body that compiles these statistics explicitly cautions against making comparisons between countries in this way
It doesn't matter which metric you find more convenient for your narrative; both show increases. From 2012-2015 the % of sex crime victims went up, and from 2006-2015 the number of reported sex crimes went up.
The number of reported rape offences has increased over the last ten years (2006-2015).
At this point I could suggest that cognitive bias is the least of your cognitive deficiencies, but that would be a cheap shot so I won’t. I’m glad you were gracious enough to restrain yourself, so I’ll respond in kind.
What evidence do you have that I acted as if evidence didn’t matter? If I haven’t made it clear, I had already evaluated the OP’s claims prior to the existence of this thread. I was the first to mention Sweden's lax rape definitions, both in passing and later with a source. How did I know that? Because I had already researched this topic.
Obviously I’m not going to redundantly demand evidence for something I’ve already researched. Assuming that my non-challenging is evidence of bias is specious and unfounded.
The Swedish Police detailing 55 no-go areas is not enough for you? What would it take for you to concede that there is evidence for this claim? Or does this evidence not matter to you?
“and they indicate that the media in general is very willing to report on such matters.” As the NYT stated: “The assaults initially were not highlighted by the police and were largely ignored by the German news media in the days afterward.” Very willing indeed. The trend of European governments and media suppressing information out of fear of political incorrectness should be worrying to any objective person.
You did not evaluate the claims, you challenged them. You are now bumbling your way through this discussion using the wrong stats (which you already knew to be wrong yet somehow forgot), ignoring sources based on imagined motivations and cherry-picking them, all the while focusing on irrelevant minutia.
As I stated, cognitive biases are a human problem that’s been around for a long time. That means I suffer from them too, even though I try to minimize them as best I can. Can you demonstrate that these cognitive biases have affected my conclusions in this thread? I prefer something more than handwaving and my not challenging the OP out of redundancy.
Promoting unsubstantiated claims about rape, as facts, is deceitful. Wanting a "provocative starting point" isn't a valid excuse for it. Calling such a serious claim "rebellious jest" (a variant of "it was only a joke") isn't a valid excuse either.
Suggesting that the truth of such a claim shouldn't be considered because it was the equivalent of clickbait, or said in "jest" is, I believe, an irresponsible and harmful approach to public discourse.
People should not get a pass for making spurious claims just because they want to be provocative, or rebellious. If someone makes a statement that implies more rapes are committed in Sweden than other western countries, they can expect the truth of that claim to be challenged. They should also expect that if they can't demonstrate the veracity of the claim with reliable evidence, then their motivations will be questioned.
Yes, the fact that these stats don't demonstrate what the opening comment suggests, was established some time ago. The side-discussion about the stats stemmed from my comment that: "even if you use the incidence of reported rapes . . . " In other words, it's purely academic and incidental to the main issue.
It's interesting to see you try to salvage something from the stats by harping on about increases in sexual crimes though, while pointedly ignoring text on the same page advising that changes in the levels of various sexual crimes correlate to changes in legislation made on 1 April 2005, and 2013. Once again, some would call that the type of cognitive bias I'm talking about. Once again, I think that's a cheap shot, so I won't.
Instead I'll recap what was established some time ago: these statistics do not support the suggestion that more rapes are committed in Sweden than other western countries. They do not support the suggestion that the incidence of "rape and assaults" in sweden has "massively increased". They do not support the suggestion that there is a causal link between Muslim immigrants in Sweden and incidence of rape. And any discussion about incidence of reported crimes is purely academic and incidental to the main point, which you seem to have lost.
The narrative constructed in the opening comment is partisan, in that it tends to appeal to those who lean to the right. Most of the people who were skeptical about the opening comment lean to the left. Most of those who appear to accept it lean to the right. So based on the replies seen, there appears to be a correlation in this thread between a commenter's acceptance of the opening comment, and and how well the narrative it constructs fits their their political persuasion. I hypothesize that this is cognitive bias at work, and the same result will be found on other threads, in other forums and on other sites. I believe there should only be correlation between the amount of reliable evidence presented for a claim, and it's acceptance. Political affiliation should be irrelevant. It isn't, and that's the issue.
According to the standard you apparently subscribe to, I don't need to provide any evidence. Apparently if I call a claim a "provocative starting point" or describe it as "rebellious jest" I can say anything as a statement of fact, without concerning myself with the "literal veracity" of it. If you think that's acceptable, why are you applying a different standard to me?
Also, if someone goes out of their way to make unsubstantiated claims that denigrate a specific group of people, why shouldn't their motives for doing so be questioned or challenged?
Why would someone suggest that more rapes are committed in Sweden than any other western country, then imply a causal link between an alleged level of rape and Muslim immigrants, when no such link can be reliably substantiated? I can think of several different reasons, and yes racism is one of them. It's not unreasonable to want to determine whether racism is at the root of such an unsubstantiated claim.
People are very wary of racism. It's a, divisive and destructive belief, so why wouldn't they be? If someone makes an unsubstantiated claim, which happens to further the agenda of neo nazis and other racist groups, then they shouldn't be surprised if their motivation for making such a claim is closely scrutinized. That will hopefully keep neo-nazis and racist from having undue influence on public policy, which is a good thing. Unless it was antithetical, I wouldn't want public policy to be influenced by neo-nazis and racists, would you?
Not a valid excuse because you said so? As according to the Ministry of Don? Most people do not subscribe to your type of thinking, and for good reason. Such literal interpretation of statements regardless of context or intent is anathema to discussion.
When Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos stated that Canadians have "almost third-world access to the Internet" and it's "almost a human rights violation," people like Peter Nowak were initially taken aback, but they were able to look at the bigger picture. Yes, he is exaggerating on several levels, but the language he used had vivid imagery that effectively sparked discussion about Canada's comparatively woeful Internet access and prices. The Canadian government listened, and declared high-speed internet a fundamental right "necessary to the quality of life" for all Canadians, aiming to provide broadband internet to 100% of Canadians and putting pressure on questionable ISP practices.
That discussion and subsequent outcome would never have happened if people like you kept harping about Ted Sarandos' hyperbole, complaining about unsubstantiated claims of third-world Internet access, questioning the potential motivations of Netflix for wanting universal Internet access, and deriding anyone who chose to participate in the discussion as being biased. Sound familiar?
That does not mean you shouldn't clarify the truth of the matter, as Peter Nowak did. Some people do state and interpret "rape capital" literally. Since nobody here has interpreted the claim as literally as you have, and since the truth of the claim has been extensively analyzed over the last 6 pages (12 if you include my passing mention in the first page), I think it's time you got over its literal interpretation, at least for the scope of this thread.
(Now, if you suspect that the author of the meme stated it literally, take it up with them. Go be the official meme scrutinizer of the Interwebs.)
I'm aware that Swedish legislation has an effect on the reported stats (again, I mention Sweden's lax definitions on the very first page of this thread - how many times must I repeat this before it gets through your thick skull?). Those are stats you wanted to bring up in your "side-discussion" of which you were the sole participant. I don't care for those stats, and was never using them, precisely because I knew of their limitations. I only respond about this metric because it's one of two metrics we have regarding sexual assault rates and because you implied that these numbers are decreasing. Your "purely academic" motivation led you to only look at the years 2014-2015, instead of the available data of 2006-2015. Interesting how years 2006-2013 are irrelevant for your "purely academic" pursuits.
You curiously felt the "purely academic" need to bring those numbers up immediately after claiming that my metric was "wrong." Surely that doesn't imply that your metric is the "right" one. Then clarify: which metric is the "right" one? And if both are wrong, why did you feel the urge to sporadically bring up a "purely academic" one-man discussion about the wrong metric, after derision of a supposedly equally wrong metric? Why are you limiting your "purely academic" one-man discussion to this metric and not my supposedly wrong metric?
As for the stats that I am using - the stats you erroneously claim to be "wrong" and which I note you have not yet admitted error - the Swedish legislation has no effect on those. The survey determines whether or not the participant was sexually assaulted in the previous year. It does not tally sexual assaults as Swedish legislation does. That's why I've been using them in the first place. That rate - the rate which you thought wasn't a rate, because like any good "academic" you are ignorant of statistical concepts when dealing with statistical topics - has had a more than 100% increase from 2012-2015. Let's remind ourselves of one of the questions spurred by the OP's claims: did Sweden experience a massive increase in rapes? The answer to that question is yes, according to the best available evidence from the Swedish National Crime Surveys.
But what is your answer? Evidently, you continue to mindlessly repeat that the rate of sexual assault and rape in Sweden has not had a massive increase:
"They do not support the suggestion that the incidence of "rape and assaults" in sweden has "massively increased".
My stats are "right," insofar as they are the best available measure of sexual assault rates in Sweden, and they provide evidence for an increased rate of sexual assault in Sweden from 2012-2015. They support the suggestion that the incidence of rape and assaults in Sweden has massively increased from .8% to 1.7%, a 125% increase.
Will you admit to this error? Only if you care about evidence.
If you meant your statements as provocative jests, then say so. Do what "Angry Foreigner" did and clarify what your provocative jests actually meant. He clarified that he does not believe that Sweden is a rape capital of any sort. Now you must state that you do not believe that any of the sources I provided actually have nefarious motivations, thus you must accept those sources as evidence of the respective claims.
"Also, if someone goes out of their way to make unsubstantiated claims that denigrate a specific group of people, why shouldn't their motives for doing so be questioned or challenged?"
You've been questioning intent of sources of evidence, when you have no reason to suspect that these sources are fabricating the evidence. To you, evidence took a backseat to unfounded motivations. To quote your droning mantra, "that's the issue."
If you wish to question the motivations of people who make such claims, go ahead. I invite you to question the motivations of those who hide the evidence that would prove or disprove the OP's claims. Care to take a guess why Swedish organizations stopped recording ethnicity or immigrant status regarding rate of crime, after having done so for several decades?
I assume you went straight to discussing the validity of excuses, because you agree that promoting unsubstantiated claims about rape, as facts, is deceitful.
We aren't discussing the use of controversy as a discussion tactic in general. We are discussing specific instances where unsubstantiated claims about rape and Muslim immigrants, are being promoted as facts.
While I'm glad the "Netflix chief" and Canadian government were able to have meaningful dialogue, that doesn't make wanting to be "provocative", and "rebellious jest" valid reasons for being deceitful about the issue of rape.
"Most people do not subscribe to your type of thinking. . . " Only if by "your type of thinking" you mean some straw man constructed so you can say most people don't subscribe to it. If you mean that most people don't share my view that provocation and "jest" are not valid reasons to be deceitful about rape, then I'd be happy to consider the substantive, objectively verifiable evidence you have that proves it.
". . . how many times must I repeat this before it gets through your thick skull?" Oh dear. You're verging on being uncivil. If you want to go down that route, I can oblige you, but I'd prefer not to, as it's not very constructive. If you think you're losing the ability to remain civil as you respond, I suggest you take a break and do something else for a while. Maybe come back to it later. [Note: this comment is not an invitation for you to launch into a diatribe where you try to prove that "thick skull" is not "uncivil"]
You seem to be clinging on to that one single statistic for dear life. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but it doesn't demonstrate what is suggested in the opening comment either. For one thing, it says on that page (google translation): "In terms of victimization against the individual, it was 1.9 percent of the population exposed to over half of the events of 2015". I'll leave you to work out why that further weakens the extent to which these stats support the claims made in the opening comment.
"The survey determines whether or not the participant was sexually assaulted in the previous year." No it doesn't. It indicates the number of people who say they experienced sexual crimes the previous year. So has there been a "a massive increase in rapes and assaults"? Current crime survey data indicates that more people said they experienced sexual crimes the previous year. While this is a better indicator of crimes committed than the reported crime stat, again I'll leave you to work out why it needs to be considered with caution in relation to the number of crimes committed.
More importantly, none of the statistic say anything about the race, religion or immigration status of the perpetrators. So in terms of what the opening comment implies, again I'll leave you to work out why that's not supported.
According to your standard, being provocative is a useful tactic that leads to meaningful discussion. Others who have employed that tactic have not declared it as their motivation or walked back their comments, so why are you applying a different standard to me? According to your standard, I can say anything as if it's a fact, under the guise of wanting to be provocative. That means I can say: all of the sources you have presented have racist motivations. Do I have any evidence for that? It's provocative and encourages discussion, so apparently I don't need any.
Again, when someone makes unsubstantiated derogatory claims about whole groups of people, why shouldn't their motives be questioned?
And again, why would someone suggest that more rapes are committed in Sweden than any other western country, then imply a causal link between an alleged level of rape and Muslim immigrants, when no such link can be reliably substantiated?
In the US between 60% and 99% of rapes and sexual assault are committed by men. I have no reason to believe there isn't a similar percentage in Sweden. Why aren't you and others emphasizing the fact that the majority of rapes are committed by men? Why are you focusing on religion and immigration status? Why are they the most important characteristics in relation to rape? Where is the meme about the majority of rapes in Sweden being committed by men? Where is the outrage and concern about that? Where is the call for something to be done about the fact that mostly men rape mostly women?
Questioning the motivations of people who promote unsubstantiated claims about Muslim immigrants, isn't just about political correctness. It's also because it's obvious that some people have an anti-Muslim agenda, and are using the issue of rape, to further that agenda. That's all the more reason to use facts rather clickbait, and why such clickbait is so toxic to public discourse around the subject of rape, immigrations and other social issues.
Hyperboles are not an excuse, they are a valid rhetorical device regularly used for emphasis in human communication. I don't mean to be rude with this particular question, but do you have some sort of mental condition that forces you to interpret everything literally?
As I've already explained to you, the implications that sexual assault rapes have increased in Sweden due to Muslim immigrants has no statistical evidence to either back it up or unequivocally deny it, mainly because it's illegal to collect data based on religion in Sweden. That implication cannot be evaluated from the available data. You can continue bemoaning the fact that there are implied claims that can't be evaluated, or you can be productive and focus on the claims that can be evaluated.
Netflix chief content officer. Not Netflix chief. Why incorrectly put that in quotes? Note that he was never deceitful about the issue of internet access, he was hyperbolic. Contrary to your literalistic interpretation, hyperbole has its uses in communication. Try to understand what that means, and then try to conceive someone being hyperbolic about rape.
Who here has deceived you with unsubstantiated claims about "rape capitals"? The meme? As I said, you can take that up with its author. Most people here did not limit themselves to that interpretation and had no issue navigating through the discussion.
You seem to think that the examples I've given you amount to "being deceitful about the issue of rape." You ignore the fact that there are people, like Angry Foreigner, who were quite open about what they meant when they made hyperboles like "rape capital." They are neither in a delusion nor are trying to delude other people. They quite clearly state what they meant and why they used hyperbole. The underlying points of their hyperbole were explored extensively. You ignore this and continue to double down on the belief that they are trying to deceive people about the issue of rape.
As I stated, most people do not treat hyperbole as an attempt at deceiving people. Most people intuitively understand that the limits of language are not the limits of truth.
No, I agree, thick-skull verges on being uncivil. As does your constant passive aggressive behaviour and twisting of words. As I said, I am responding in kind, though I choose to be more direct and less dishonest. I am, however, hoping that you don't genuinely suffer from any mental disorders that prevent you from non-literal interpretations and civil discussion. Incidentally, civil discussion involves being charitable with interpretation, including possible rhetorical devices and people's motivations for responding to a topic. That's something you have not demonstrated since the beginning of this discussion - in fact, your hypothesis is contingent on assuming the worst of people.
How does the fact that most incidences of all crime in Sweden are suffered by repeat victims weaken the evidence that shows the rate of sexual assault in Sweden has increased?
""The survey determines whether or not the participant was sexually assaulted in the previous year." No it doesn't. It indicates the number of people who say they experienced sexual crimes the previous year." That is identical to what I said. Or are you emphasizing the fact that people in surveys say things and the report uses what they said to make a determination? That is redundant to anyone who has an idea of what surveys are.
Now what is your concern? That the people in these surveys are lying? That the survey methodology is poor? Or that it's not a metric that accurately represents crime rates? Note that these concerns are only considered when you don't like the number, but when you do like the number you have no problem stating it as a "factual answer."
If you have reason to be cautious of these numbers, then state specifically why we should be cautious. A nebulous caution of numbers is redundant to anyone who has an idea of the limitations of statistical inferences.
"While this is a better indicator of crimes committed than the reported crime stat, again I'll leave you to work out why it needs to be considered with caution in relation to the number of crimes committed." No, no. Please clarify. I'm not interested in wild goose chases.
"More importantly, none of the statistic say anything about the race, religion or immigration status of the perpetrators. So in terms of what the opening comment implies, again I'll leave you to work out why that's not supported." You can continue bemoaning the fact that there are implied claims that can't be evaluated, or you can focus on the claims that can be evaluated. But as I mentioned earlier, immigration status and ethnicity were highly correlated to sexual assault rates in the latest statistics that BRA released on the matter, from 85-89 and 97-01. I'm not sure why there'd be reason to suspect that that trend has reversed, or what would cause that trend to reverse.
Who are these "others" who have not declared their motivations or walked back their comments? The inanimate meme? Again, you can contact the author and ask him exactly what he meant with the term "rape capital." Maybe he meant it literally, and maybe he didn't. People who wanted to have a discussion about the underlying point assumed the latter, which was more productive than focusing on the literal interpretation which has been clarified to death over the course of this thread.
"According to your standard, I can say anything as if it's a fact, under the guise of wanting to be provocative." No, that's not what I said. A hyperbole is an exaggerated statement or claim not meant to be taken literally. None of the examples I provided stated these claims as if they are facts. If you can't understand the concept of exaggeration as a figure of speech, I can't help you.
"That means I can say: all of the sources you have presented have racist motivations. Do I have any evidence for that? It's provocative and encourages discussion, so apparently I don't need any." The use of hyperbole does not mean you don't need evidence for a claim. The use of hyperbole means that the literal interpretation of the hyperbole is not what is to be evaluated. It is the underlying point of the hyperbole, the question that it prompts, that is to be evaluated.
Sandaros' hyperbole that "Canada has almost third world internet access and it's almost a human rights violation" is not what is to be evaluated. The underlying question prompted by the hyperbole: "does Canada have comparatively woeful internet access?" is to be evaluated. Angry Foreigner's hyperbole that "Sweden is the rape capital of Europe" is not what is to be evaluated. The underlying question prompted by the hyperbole (and later outright stated by AF): "can Sweden's high rape statistics partially be explained by immigration?" is to be evaluated. And so on. It's involves contextualization, something that can't really be done from a single meme.
With that being said, you haven't been exaggerating; you are dismissing those sources because you don't like what they say. This is why you still haven't made it clear that you have no reason to dismiss those sources, as Angry Foreigner made it clear that he has no reason to believe Sweden is a rape capital of any sort. Contrast his clarification with your twist of "I can say whatever I want and I don't need evidence because it's provocative."
So what exactly is your underlying point? We both know you only recently hide under the guise of exaggeration as an attempt to ignore the possibility of hyperbole because you want to maintain your narrative that anyone who makes the claim "rape capital" must mean it literally, and anyone who responds to that claim must also interpret it literally. Objectively this is not true, but to someone who doesn't care about facts...
"Again, when someone makes unsubstantiated derogatory claims about whole groups of people, why shouldn't their motives be questioned?" I remind you: If you wish to question the motivations of people who make such claims, go ahead.
"Why aren't you and others emphasizing the fact that the majority of rapes are committed by men?" Because this is obvious and not in dispute by any rational person. Most rapes are committed by men, for obvious reasons. And most people do not attempt to shield men from this fact. If you want to dedicate a thread to this incredible revelation, be my guest.
"Why are you focusing on religion and immigration status?" Because if these are factors that can contribute to crimes like sexual assault and rape, they ought to be known for public safety, especially of demographics vulnerable to that particular crime, like women in the case of sexual assault and rape. Why aren't you concerned about these potential factors? If I were to act as you do and speculate motivations about people, I could easily speculate dismissal of these factors as misogyny.
"Where is the meme about the majority of rapes in Sweden being committed by men? Where is the outrage and concern about that? Where is the call for something to be done about the fact that mostly men rape mostly women?" I sincerely hope that these questions are an attempt at playing dumb to serve an equally dumb point, and are not genuine. I'm becoming concerned that you are incapable of grasping the nuances of this discussion, and that it's not simply a result of cognitive bias or you being disingenuous.
On the off-chance that you are sincere: there is no meme because nobody hides the fact that the majority of rapes in Sweden (and worldwide) are committed by men. It's well-known and for obvious reasons. If there were attempts to hide the percentage of rapes committed by men, there would be outrage. If society at large did downplay that the majority of rapes are committed by men, there would be outrage. Neither of these things happen to any significant degree and Western society as a whole prioritizes the safety of women and actively punishes criminal men - except in cases like Rotherham, Cologne, and Stockholm. Those cases are the exception to the rule, but they demonstrate a worrying pattern. That's why we are talking about one and not the other. That's the underlying point of the meme which you are having so much difficulty grasping in lieu of literal interpretation.
"It's also because it's obvious that some people have an anti-Muslim agenda, and are using the issue of rape, to further that agenda." It's obvious that some people have an anti-women agenda, and are minimizing the issue of rape to further that agenda. Maybe you are one such person, and maybe you aren't. I can't know one way or another unless you state it outright. This is typically why I don't care to investigate people's motivations, and instead evaluate the veracity of their claims.
"That's all the more reason to use facts rather clickbait." I agree. I still note that you have yet to admit your error regarding the NTU stats, what a rate means, why you felt the need to bring up the wrong stats after derision of my supposedly "wrong" stats, or that you have no reason to dismiss the sources I provided.
You're making it personal again. We've been down this road in other threads. You know you don't like it when I respond in kind, so I suggest you stop.
As I've said before, if you're frustrated because we can't agree, exit the discussion. That's a perfectly acceptable response. If you can't do that for some reason, let me know and I will end the discussion for you, as I have on previous occasions.
So far your list of excuses for making deceitful claims about rape include what amounts to: "it's okay because it's just provocation", "it's okay because it's just a joke", and now "it's okay because it's just hyperbole". So to save some time, here's a simple template I've prepared for you:
"[insert thing-that-might-be-benign-in-some-situations-but-not-in-this-context], is not a valid reasons for promoting unsubstantiated claims about rape, as facts". Just insert the next excuse you come up with, and you'll have my likely response. Saves you having to wait for it. Saves me having to write it. Win-win!
What I am "bemoaning" is the the effect of cognitive bias. That's why I have repeatedly told you that The Issue™ is people's apparent acceptance of an unsubstantiated claim about rape because it fits the narrative they subscribe to, as observed in this thread.
You have subsequently taken it upon yourself to try to prove the stated claims in the opening comment are true. I have humored that discussion, but I don't agree that the "evidence" you have presented proves any such thing, and you have failed to convince me otherwise. Nothing I can do about that.
You then suggested that promoting unsubstantiated claims about rape, as fact, is a good thing because: "Angry Foreigner" said he promoted unsubstantiated claims about rape to try to be provocative and funny, therefore it's okay to promote unsubstantiated claims about rape, as facts. And because: a Netflix employee exaggerated about the internet and it was ok, therefore promoting unsubstantiated claims about rape as fact, is okay too. I think you already know how much worth I place in both those arguments. If you don't, hazard a guess.
Now you keep telling me to "admit your error" (no need to repeat it ad nauseum) in relation to some statistic that doesn't prove what you want it to prove. If you can't work out the issues with that one statistic you are clinging to, then you need to do some research. And yes I'm fully aware you will try to use that to suggest I'm evading the issue. So have a pre-emptive: no I'm not.
No, I don't need to declare anything. According to your latest standard, I can promote any unsubstantiated claim as fact, if it can be labelled hyperbole. So, according to that standard I can say that all your sources are racists. Any evidence? Don't need it? It's hyperbole. If it's not true, isn't it deceitful to state it as a fact? No, it's hyperbole.
Yes, we know for a fact the majority of rapes are committed by men. So if the concern is public safety, then a risk-based approach dictates that dealing with the issue of men who rape is the top priority, as men are clearly the highest risk factor.
So why doesn't that seem to be the case for the person who created the meme in the opening comment, or the person who posted the opening comment, and "Angry Foreigner". You suggest it's because the link between men and rape is known. That doesn't explain it. If their ultimate concern is women's safety, they would show at least the same level of interest in finding solutions to rape in general, by focusing on the main risk factor: men. Is that reflected in their outputs?
If not, then why should people believe their main motivation is women's safety and not race, religion and immigrations, when the rest of their output features race, religion and immigration? (the name "Angry Foreigner" is indicative also) [no I'm not interested in a 5 page discussion about what the words "Angry" and "Foreigner" denote] So why shouldn't people question others' motivations, when there is good reason to? Because you think people should be given the benefit of the doubt? You mean according to the ministry of you?
And if you are going to cite the public safety of women as your own motivation for being interested in this subject, then I have to ask why you suggested to a woman on this site that failing to explicitly resist unwanted advances from a man, is tantamount to consent? And why you excused Donald Trump grabbing women's crotches without consent? That doesn't indicate concern for women's safety. It indicates a lack of it. This type of discrepancy between claimed motivation and apparent motivation (plus the lack of reliable evidence, the clickbait, hype and "jest") are the reasons people question yours and others' motivations on this subject, not political correctness etc.
If people who share your views don't want that to be the case, they should stop whining about being called racists, be honest about their motivations, stop using rape to try to be funny, stop using rape to try to be "provocative" and create "hyperbole", then get reliable evidence, and lots of it. That's what everyone else has to do to be taken seriously. You, "Angry Foreigner" et al, don't get special treatment.
With my inquiry about your literalistic condition? Not at all. If you are genuinely incapable of contextualizing, it'd be almost impossible to participate in this discussion. It'd be like explaining "purple" to a colour-blind person. That's a perfectly acceptable inquiry.
Your template just about answers that question. You don't care about context, you'll dismiss it even if I walk you through uses of hyperbole, both with the exact expression in question and with analogous examples. It just doesn't matter to you. And no, you cannot derive context of "rape capital" from one sentence in a meme. You can, however, ask the authors for further context.
This is hardly me "making it personal" and I am in no way frustrated with your inability to accept evidence-based reality. I was happy to be civil with you from the beginning, but as you began to throw not-so-subtle hostilities my way, I responded in kind. My mirroring of your behaviour is just that. Unfortunately, I am not the first person you have antagonized in this thread. I am simply more patient/stubborn/lacking in good sense than reasonable people like Wilderness and LtL.
If you were capable of contextualization (to the extent that you want to accurately contextualize things that go against your worldview), you'd notice that this isn't a list of "excuses." Provocation and jest amounts to hyperbole in our current context. They are interchangeable. Ergo, not a list of "excuses."
Hyperbole is one example of a rhetorical device that can result in a meaning different from a literalistic interpretation. We can go further and explore another rhetorical device that you seem to be able to understand, that of a metaphor. Sweden is not literally the capital of a governing entity of "rape." Were you even more literalistic than you already are, you'd also be bemoaning the meme for promoting an unsubstantiated claim about government entities of rape.
As I said, you can ask the author of the meme to determine if he is promoting unsubstantiated claims about rape as fact, if he is promoting unsubstantiated claims about government entities of rape as fact, or if he is simply using figure of speech as an attention grabber. Or you can continue whining about the author's potentially racist intent.
Whatever it may be, it doesn't really matter. At least three different people in this thread have made it clear (after your repeated pestering) that they did not take the OP’s claims as unequivocal truths and have rejected it as such. Your assumption that people only responded because they're biased or that they agree with the literal interpretation of the claims was wrong from the very beginning. What you see as an acceptance of unsubstantiated claims about rape is the effect of your own cognitive bias.
I agree, there is nothing you can do about your inability to accept evidence or your poor interpretation of reality. It's unfortunate, but witnessing your cognitive dissonance after berating people for their supposed partisan biases is karmic entertainment.
No, I did not suggest that promoting unsubstantiated claims about rape is a good thing. I lament that you cannot understand rhetorical devices, but you can hazard a guess as to how much worth I place in your limited understanding of such things.
It's unfortunate that you are incapable of explaining how, "for one," repeat victims of general crimes weaken the evidence of increased sexual assault rates. For someone who demands people provide evidence of their claims, you spend an awful lot of time not providing any for your own.
You don't need to declare anything if you wish to remain logically inconsistent. If you want, you can simultaneously hold the opinion that my sources are both racist and not racist. I personally wouldn't want to be seen as a complete idiot so I'd try to reconcile any blatant inconsistencies, but you can do whatever you want.
We do take such an approach. I should not have to explain to you that the typical rape suspect is not an elderly woman in a retirement home.
We can only begin to solve a problem if we can identify it. Since we (well, most of us, anyway) know that most rapes are committed by young men, we can and have discussed approaches to mitigating and solving potential rapes cases on that basis. On the other hand, the potential link between cultural/religious background and sex crime cannot even be prompted in discussion without people like you clamoring "racist." Even if safety were the only concern (which it isn’t), the lack of open discussion is enough to merit safety considerations.
And yes, that does explain why the author is talking about immigration as a factor, and not men as a whole. Although it might not explain it to someone that can't see the difference between a demographic that is routinely considered, suspected, investigated and punished for sex crimes when found guilty, and a demographic that has been, on several prominent occasions, excused, ignored, and shielded from investigations of sex crimes, simply for being that demographic.
I don't know what the motivations are for people engaging in this subject. It could be safety concerns, or a hatred of immigrants, or a wish for open dialogue, or racism, or backlash against regressivism, or "aggressive secularism," or an earnest inquiry for truth, or any other number of things. Exploring these potential and indeterminate motivations doesn't really interest me. Similarly, I don't know what the name "Angry Foreigner" is indicative of, aside from being an immigrant that is angry at the situation in his adopted country. I’m afraid I also don't share your mindset of questioning people's motivations based on Internet monikers.
I do think that in civil discussion people ought to be given the benefit of the doubt, and I’m not alone in this interpretation. If your interpretation of civil discussion is assuming the worst of people, then I’ll agree to disagree. Likewise, I’ll agree to disagree with your interpretation of “up is down.”
Where did I cite the public safety of women as my primary motivation for being interested in this subject? *crickets*
What I actually said was “not resisting advances from a man is not indicative of lack of consent.” You’ll have to demonstrate that Trump’s advances were unwanted and without consent, as opposed to demonstrating that Trump’s advances were not resisted. Unfortunately, the latter is the extent of the claim in Trump’s quote. Any additional inferences are from what you wanted to see and hear.
There is a fine line between hostility towards opposing ideas, arguments or viewpoints, and personal comments about an individual. Your comments were starting to shift across that line. That's not responding in kind, it's escalating. As I said, I can oblige you in that, but it's not very constructive.
In relation to antagonism, if I consider a comment to be poorly reasoned, distasteful, or otherwise not something I can find much value in, I have no hesitation in indicating that through my comments. I make no apologies for that. I'll always be civil though, unless provoked.
Even so, if you don't like the level of hostility you perceive in a particular comment, then the mature approach would be to point that out to the commenter. If you do and that doesn't resolve the issue, you can either respond in kind, or exit the discussion, but escalating towards increasingly personal comments, is rarely the best option.
I'll leave it at that for now. I'll pick up your other points when I have enough time.
Indeed, which is why I choose not to ponder about people's supposed motivations. You, on the other hand, have accused myself and others of racism - a very strong personal accusation - merely for engaging in this discussion. The hypocrisy of accusing people of racist motivations whilst proclaiming to be under the guise of civility is not lost on me, but as I said you are welcome to hold two contradictory positions as you see fit. Readers will judge accordingly.
What did you think I have been trying to do for the last 7 pages of discussion? When I posited the question: "Did people automatically assume the claims to be true?" it was an invitation for introspection of your faulty assumption. The mature approach would be to rescind your assumption and admit error. Instead, you've doubled down, continuing to assume the worst of people and altogether stifled discussion.
Ironically, that was the underlying point of the meme.
The beating the horse thing is typical. Usually, almost always really, it has the effect of raising awareness.. Awareness of where theres smoke, and the deceptively omitting of pertinent information, its safest to infer there are problems in Europe. I dont want to hurt a groups feelings but I dont want anyone raped or honor killed or what have you, either.
As you're here, I'll take the opportunity to ask. Why didn't you question the stated claims, and the implicit claim made in the opening comment that there are more rapes committed in Sweden than other western countries, and that Muslim immigrants are the cause of them? Is it because you think it's true? If not, why didn't you ask for evidence or challenge it? I'm genuinely interested.
But just to avoid any confusion:
Disclaimer - No person or entity associated with this comment is being accused of racism. Any resemblance to an accusation of racism towards any person living or dead is purely coincidental - End of Disclaimer
Thanks for asking don. Because of the practice of honor killing which takes 5000 to 20000 womens lives each year, by stoning, stabbing, beating, burning, beheading, hanging, throat slashing, lethal acid attacks, shooting and strangulation. for in cases, becoming the victim of rape - wiki, it obviously would be difficult for the victim to report the rape because they are dead [ we cant assume no m.e. heritage of the victim of rape] or out of fear.Then we have what looks to be the suppression of the information ie statistic, demographic break down because of pc or whatever reason by official sources making it difficult to falsify one way or another. Ie you do not have a leg to stand any more than anyone else. Next we have the practice of taqiyya where, even if we did have statistics we couldnt trust them. As I have stated previously it is better to err on the side of caution. Look at personal accounts and news stories etc. I doubt with all the commotion going on its just a conspiracy to make islam look bad, when it does the job so well on its own merits.
First, all unsubstantiated claims about your sources (and your reaction to those claims) illustrate the idiocy of making unsubstantiated claims, as intended. Apparently you failed to pick up on this, even though I made it clear that those comments were not what I think, but merely an example of your own standard:
"According to your standard, I can say anything as if it's a fact, under the guise of wanting to be provocative. That means I can say: all of the sources you have presented have racist motivations. Do I have any evidence for that? It's provocative and encourages discussion, so apparently I don't need any."
"According to your latest standard, I can promote any unsubstantiated claim as fact, if it can be labelled hyperbole. So, according to that standard I can say that all your sources are racists. Any evidence? Don't need it? It's hyperbole."
But I'm glad you have reacted the way you have. It perfectly demonstrates the problem with using serious allegations about sensitive subjects to provoke people, try to be funny, or whip up hype.
Secondly, I reject the characterization that I accused you of racism. I have done no such thing. In reference to motivations, I have asked questions relevant to the claims. I also made it clear that I believe there are several reasons why someone would make such claims, but given the serious nature of the claims, it's reasonable to establish whether racism is one of them:
"Why would someone suggest that more rapes are committed in Sweden than any other western country, then imply a causal link between an alleged level of rape and Muslim immigrants, when no such link can be reliably substantiated? I can think of several different reasons, and yes racism is one of them. It's not unreasonable to want to determine whether racism is at the root of such an unsubstantiated claim".
I also explained why such questions are relevant; not always about "political correctness", but instead sadly reflect a current social reality that racists do exist. I then explicitly stated this fact as a reason why sensationalism should be avoided, again taking care not to make any unsubstantiated claims myself against any group or individual:
"Questioning the motivations of people who promote unsubstantiated claims about Muslim immigrants, isn't just about political correctness. It's also because it's obvious that some people have an anti-Muslim agenda, and are using the issue of rape, to further that agenda. That's all the more reason to use facts rather clickbait, and why such clickbait is so toxic to public discourse around the subject of rape, immigrations and other social issues".
Despite all the signposting, you apparently interpreted this as calling you and your sources racist.
Then I asked about the apparent discrepancy between concern about women's safety expressed by the relevant sources. I explained that their visible outputs, i.e. videos, forum comments, hubs, memes, twitter feeds etc. do not seem to reflect the highest risk factor to women's safety in terms of sexual crimes: men. Instead there outputs only seem to reflect an interest in Muslims, immigration, religion and race.
"If their ultimate concern is women's safety, they would show at least the same level of interest in finding solutions to rape in general, by focusing on the main risk factor: men. Is that reflected in their outputs?"
I drew no conclusions, and made no allegations.
When you suggested certain incidents represent "a worrying pattern" in relation to women's safety, I then asked about the discrepancy between your own apparent concern for women's safety, and comments that I believe do not align with that concern:
"And if you are going to cite the public safety of women as your own motivation for being interested in this subject, then I have to ask why you suggested to a woman on this site that failing to explicitly resist unwanted advances from a man, is tantamount to consent?"
Again I drew no conclusion, and made no allegation.
The reason I asked these questions without drawing a conclusion or making allegations is exactly because I did not know the answers, and am not willing to promote unsubstantiated claims as facts. You have managed to take the opposite meaning.
Because of the sensitivity of the issue, I also made a point of explaining the importance of, and my reasoning for, examining motive in this context. I did that specifically to give assurance that questions about motivations are part of a genuine effort to explore the issue. You have ignored all of that, and instead concluded some kind of personal accusation.
Had you pointed out the specific comments you perceived as a personal attack at the time, I would have corrected that misperception immediately. And no, disagreeing with you does not constitute hostility, it constitutes disagreeing with you. If you had a problem with something specific I said, you should have immediately pointed it out. Unfortunately you chose a less helpful approach.
At least this demonstrated something: you didn't like it when you thought I was making an unsubstantiated derogatory claim about you, and rightly so. If it were true it would be unacceptable. Even more unacceptable if I had started promoting that claim on the internet and encouraging others to promote it also. Well here's the thing, if it's unacceptable for people to make and promote unsubstantiated claims about you, then it's also unacceptable for people to make and promote unsubstantiated claims about Muslim immigrants (whatever you choose to call those claims). And it's even worse for others to apparently accept, or fail to challenge such claims.
Haven't forgotten the rest of your comments, but I have some other things to attend to.
If it’s true that you were making unsubstantiated claims to illustrate a point about the idiocy of unsubstantiated claims or provocative/jesting hyperboles, then logically you accept my sources as pieces of evidence and should clarify as such if you are interested in open discussion. As I invited you earlier:
If you meant your statements as provocative jests, then say so. Do what "Angry Foreigner" did and clarify what your provocative jests actually meant. He clarified that he does not believe that Sweden is a rape capital of any sort. Now you must state that you do not believe that any of the sources I provided actually have nefarious motivations, thus you must accept those sources as evidence of the respective claims.
Instead, you complained that “others” who have employed that tactic have not walked back their comments and that I have not been holding this standard to them. There are two “others” I can think of:
1) The OP Sam Wickstrom
2) The inanimate meme image
Did Sam walk back his comments? Yes, he did:
“Jonny I think your caution is reasonable. However, would you question a hispanic or black motivation group? Thats the thing, anytime white people have a sense of pride then they're considered racist or something like that, or intolerant. I don't entirely agree with the white motivation group, but from the research I've done, european natives are definitely being oppressed, somewhat by their own ignorance and tolerance.”
Did the meme walk back its comments? No. Because it’s a meme. Take it up with the author.
That being said, I don’t believe you when you say that your intent was to demonstrate the idiocy of unsubstantiated claims or to demonstrate the supposed problem of hyperbole, for several reasons:
1) Not all of your claims were hyperbolic or unsubstantiated. Most just missed the point completely. Witthaut did talk about losing 10,000 police jobs and likely has an aim of increasing recruitment, but you failed to mention his reasons for concern (difficulty in recruitment, inability to perform large-scale operations, private security increasingly becoming a first-line of defense). Expressen is a tabloid, but this is irrelevant because I provided several other credible sources that corroborate Expressen’s information. NRK did talk about high levels of crime, but that was not the extent of the information in the article, especially regarding the claim about no-go zones. You also made a point of putting “evidence” in quotation marks on several occasions, highlighting your skepticism. The intent here is not to demonstrate the problems of unsubstantiated or hyperbolic claims; the intent here is to cast doubt on the sources and thus the evidence.
2) When you failed to click back a few pages for information on Rotherham et al, you made a specific request for concrete and reliable evidence:
“In your case, there's no point saying "There has been suppression of sexual assault committed by Muslim migrants in several countries for fear of backlash amid accusations of racism" Prove it, if you can. If you can't then it's just an unsubstantiated claim. You prove it with evidence. Concrete. Reliable. Evidence. I missed your evidence for this particular claim which you keep repeating, but I strongly suspect it is of a similar reliability and quality as the "evidence" above.
If you are looking for concrete and reliable evidence, but suspect it’s of similar quality as my (in quotes) evidence of previous claims, then you must think the sources I provided are not concrete or reliable. In other words, you don’t actually accept my sources as pieces of evidence. If you were trying to make point about hyperbole or unsubstantiated claims, you’d be able to accept these sources as evidence.
3) You only began to hide these claims under the guise of “hyperbole” after I gave you examples of hyperboles that were effective in initiating discussion. Prior to this, you made those statements without qualifying them as unsubstantiated. This suggests you only thought of this angle recently.
4) You still have not made it clear that you accept my sources as pieces of evidence. Since this is a difficult concept for you, I’ve outlined the scenario that happened with Angry Foreigner:
“What is your evidence that Sweden is a rape capital because of third-world immigration?”
“Let me elaborate on what I meant when I said that.
I’m fully aware that you can’t compare rape statistics internationally, and I don’t believe for a second that Sweden is some kind of rape capital that’s worse off than Saudi Arabia, a country where the victims are punished as badly as the perpetrators (no wonder women don’t report as much!).
You can’t compare rape statistics because the legal definition of rape varies amongst countries. For example, in Egypt it’s not illegal to rape your wife, and rape using objects is only classified as assault. When you look at crime statistics, it’s going to appear as if Egypt is more progressive than Sweden, but that’s because they don’t treat rape as rape. Also, the methods for counting crime varies across countries, as well as the citizens’ confidence in the justice system.
I have no idea if Sweden is a rape capital. It’s something I said in rebellious jest, and that wasn’t even my point. My point was that the Swedish debate climate is so incredibly sensitive and so censored that you aren’t even allowed to ask the question: can our high rape statistics partially be explained by immigration?”
Now let’s contrast the above explanation with your own:
“What is your evidence that my sources are unreliable?”
“No, I don't need to declare anything. According to your latest standard, I can promote any unsubstantiated claim as fact, if it can be labelled hyperbole. So, according to that standard I can say that all your sources are racists. Any evidence? Don't need it? It's hyperbole. If it's not true, isn't it deceitful to state it as a fact? No, it's hyperbole.”
Instead of clarifying the intent of your supposed hyperbole and what you actually think about the sources I provided, you deflected to stifle discussion while missing the point of what a hyperbole is supposed to be doing in the first place.
What are we left with?:
- Not all of your claims were unsubstantiated or hyperbolic
- You think my sources are not concrete or reliable
- You only began to deflect to “hyperbole” recently
- You have not made your intent and interpretations clear despite repeated invitation
It’s obvious that your real intent was to call into question the veracity of the available evidence, and not to demonstrate any points about unsubstantiated claims or hyperbole. But keep rationalizing away, it’s very convincing.
I don’t make much distinction between directly accusing myself and others of racism, and repeatedly pondering about our potential racist motivations. I could engage in the same kind of behaviour if I so desired. For example, what could be a reason for your poor record in correctly interpreting my statements? Here’s one:
I believe there are several reasons one could continuously misconstrue my statements, but given the serious nature of the faulty interpretations, it's reasonable to establish whether stupidity is one of them.
Why would someone repeatedly misinterpret my statements, then imply it's my fault, when no such link can be reliably established? I can think of several reasons, and yes, stupidity is one of them. It's not unreasonable to want to determine whether stupidity is at the root of these repeated misconceptions.
I am not accusing you of stupidity. I am only asking questions relevant to the interpretation of my statements.
And here’s another:
I believe there are several reasons one could continuously misconstrue my statements, but given the serious nature of the faulty interpretations, it's reasonable to establish whether hostility and lack of civility is one of them.
Why would someone repeatedly misinterpret my statements, then imply it's my fault, when no such link can be reliably established? I can think of several reasons, and yes, hostility/lack of civility is one of them. It's not unreasonable to want to determine whether hostility is at the root of these repeated misconceptions.
I am not accusing you of hostility. I am only asking questions relevant to the interpretation of my statements.
Either way, I have no problem with these implications, despite being completely unsubstantiated. I don’t particularly enjoy them, but I’ve grown to hold you to very low standards of discourse. Case in point, your failure to understand this simple statement:
“The hypocrisy of accusing people of racist motivations whilst proclaiming to be under the guise of civility is not lost on me.”
As I said, and as I continue to repeat myself, you can ponder the worst of people all you want. It doesn’t really matter to me what behaviour you choose to engage in or whether you question people’s motivations without a shred of evidence. It’s just not civil behaviour, so you'd do well to stop pretending that you have been a paragon of civility. It's not really fooling anyone.
Thank you so much for shutting down a group discussion by doggedly arguing in defense of a technicality, assuming the worst of your fellow man in the process and, effectively, proving that there are times where even the most reasonable and rational of explanations can easily fly over the head of those who make the conscious decision to find offense where none existed.
If you don't like a particular discussion you are free to ignore it, or start a different one with a comment of your own if you choose. Has that freedom been denied you in some way? If not, then what discussion has been shut down?
I am as entitled to respond to comments directed at me, as anyone else is. I can't make anyone comment, or not comment, or discuss whatever you think they should be discussing though. That's not within my control.
I am free to challenge someone's motivations if I choose to, and they are free to respond or not, challenge mine, or not, as they choose. Again has that freedom been denied anyone?
Who has taken offense? Highlighting what I believe to be the effect of cognitive bias, and criticizing what I see as a lack of reliable evidence, is not taking offense. It's just having a view that's different to yours.
I would encourage anyone to challenge a narrative if they believe it is not supported by evidence, and to highlight cognitive bias. I believe such skepticism is part of a healthy public discourse, which I believe is very sadly lacking at the moment.
With all due respect, Sam, I feel we need to be very cautious about the real motives of that obscure body which calls itself "White Motivation." Even the suggestions about what is happening socially in Sweden raise my skepticism.
The people who so far have responded to your post are mostly (but not all) noted for their right-leaning, anti-socialist bias. It needs more research to find the truths and who is seeding the stories. I am not making judgement here, just advocating caution.
Do you think that 'right leaning anti-socialist' people have more respect for a woman's right to control of her own body or is yours simply a misogynistic statement which should be disregarded as such?
Am I missing something? What statement of his was misogynistic?
I think his first was. Brushing aside women being misused (notice I'm, again, avoiding the word rape) as if only biased and right leaning people would believe it was happening. It shows, to me, a complete lack of concern for the safety of women or, at the least, putting their safety far below political correctness on his list of priorities.
Maybe I'm being too generous but I don't think that was the intent. I think he was skeptical because of the source - the obscure "White Motivation" group, as he put it. I don't find that entirely unreasonable.
I did find it unreasonable to suggest that only right-leaning people are drawn to these 'stories.' Not only does he state that right-leaning people seek out these stories to feel superior, but it implies that left-leaning people simply don't bother to investigate these claims if they're perpetrated by minorities.
Sadly there might be some truth to the latter, given the reactions to Cologne and other similar events. Women were indeed lower in the oppression rankings than the perpetrators.
You are probably right but I still hold placing women low on a list of priorities as misogynistic. I doubt young boys being treated the same would elicit such a ho hum response.
How do I figure what? That it's misogyny? What other than an ingrained prejudice would accept behavior patterns against one human while not against another when the only difference is that one is female and one male?
Or are you asking why I think men would be more offended if a boy was attacked than a woman? Probably because they would feel more threatened by such a scenario.
That might be true but I'm not sure why you're comparing a young boy being assaulted to a woman being assaulted. In my mind, that's a comparison of a child being assaulted vs. an adult being assaulted. People might feel more offended if a child were assaulted compared to an adult, but that'd have nothing to do with misogyny.
Most men have an extremely vitriolic reaction to seeing any woman being beaten or harassed. I'm not sure whether it causes more offense if it's a young boy or an adult woman, but even if there's any difference it would be minimal.
I do know that seeing another man being beaten elicits the least amount of sympathy, however.
I'm sorry. Young boy was just to compare it to young women. Women my age would, I'm sure, be safe from the roaming hordes.
I understand it was a comparison, I'm just failing to see how it's an apt comparison given that one is a child and the other is an adult.
I'm not sure if that was meant to be sarcastic, but there's been cases of elderly women being raped by migrants as well. Young boys too, now that I think about it.
Whoa there. I didn't say I was elderly. Just old enough not to be the object of young boys, or young adult males, attention.
I suppose I'm either a bit of an ass or it could be simply my aversion to calling women of any age girls and my habit of calling young men boys.
I didn't say you were elderly either. But if even elderly women are a target, then I don't think age is a limitation.
Well, I'd have to know the details of any attack on the elderly. They are certainly in danger of the random act of violence. But, are they in more jeopardy, statistically, from an immigrant refugee than from any other person. I haven't heard anything about elderly women being targeted in the kind of group and planned attacks I've read about in Europe.
Merry Chrstmas Mr Popo. When debating do you ever feel your adversary is trying you sell you a used horse? They are inclined to guile?
This question is not related to your response but in debating in general.
I mean you bring direct sharp logical argument and the opposition possibly brings argument but its a little distorted. Whereas you do not like to engage in that.
That body is a Twitter page: https://twitter.com/WhiteMotivation
I'm curious, what do you think are its real motives? I see it as a natural backlash against this sort of thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4syEMiYsgE
As far as I'm aware, the claim about Sweden being the rape capital of the West is correct, though it's partially attributable to lax definitions of rape. If you find this information to be incorrect, please, don't leave us in the dark.
It is interesting to note that the only ones who do address these issues are right-leaning, with a few exceptions. Is that because the right are seeding stories? Or is it because the left turns a blind eye to these issues?
Rape is an inexcusable offence against any person, young, old, male or female. It's not a matter I argue about.
But it's also an emotive topic, the sort that will be used by those with ulterior motives, who wish to stir up anti- feelings and gain cudos for their dubious causes. Such tactics are the tools for victimisation, hatred and branding. You people love those juicy stories that enable you to feel superior. Such stories are designed to be devisive and they can twist and distort the truth to suit their motives.
Live to learn, can you please elaborate on what is offending you? I'm just confused because you're expressing your feelings without directly relating them to a quote of what he's saying
Certainly. I think he has been quite clear. Concerning your poster about rape, he seems to think since rape is an emotional subject it shouldn't be pointed out what the poster saysand if one does one should assume discussing that fact is somehow wrong. I've googled it and from what I can find the statement is true. I'm afraid if those are the facts then it is open for discussion without being labeled far right or anti socialist, as if those labels somehow imply the person labeled such is going to be racist or biased.
I've read of women in Germany being molested and the government attempting to cover it up. Why? All muslims are not rapists. Pointing out that groups of muslims are creating problems is not anti Muslim. It's simply anti putting up with anti social behavior and condoning it in order to create the illusion of being accepting of other cultures. Many cultures can live side by side, in harmony, but only if all cultures respect the others.
I have read several detailed articles (with photos) about Germany's wide spread animal brothels...as if things can't get anymore sickening. Sounds like raping animals is trending. They can show animals that have been raped in photos (so sad to see) but its illegal porn if photos show the act of raping animals. I have never seen such emotionally painful expressions on dogs faces before (I won't go in more detail). Very, very sad state of affairs if true to any degree.
Of course their government run media won't report it.
I'm afraid that's a topic I honestly don't want to discuss.
I was just putting it out there, info. Its not something I want to discus either.
That is at least something you and I can agree upon.
I got to thinking about it. I spent time in Korea years ago. I got highly offended by a disgusting poster some vendor was attempting to sell me. Then I thought about it and realized he couldn't have had a clue. By the ways the GI's acted he had every reason to assume I would not be offended.
This could explain some of what we are flabbergasted at. If they are exposed to that and it is explained to them as acceptable within the culture an immigrant might not understand that these gangs harassing women aren't acceptable. One would seem worse than the other and that one wouldn't be men forcing themselves on an unwelcoming woman.
Quite safe. Although I have no idea what my home town has to do with young European women being groped or molested by youths who don't respect the law of the land they inhabit.
Was that comment in another thread? I don't see it anywhere here.
What comment? About women being groped and molested? Honestly, it's referencing his poster at the beginning of the thread. Rape is defined so differently everywhere I figured 'groped or molested' would tone it down some since Johnny thinks using the word rape implies ulterior motives.
The one Jonny wrote starting with "Get a life!" which you quoted. I can't seem to find it.
Also, I'm pretty sure he thinks there are ulterior motives because of the "White Motivation" tag in the image, not because of the word rape. I could be wrong.
He may have deleted it.
I was put off by the white motivation written at the bottom of the poster, too.
Likewise, but that seems to be the entire point of the Twitter page.
I didn't check out the Twitter page but, I'm not surprised they are having some problems now. Many European countries have been asked to deal with a whole lot more than they bargained for. It's bound to cause hard feelings when the immigrant community has elements within it that don't play well with others.
I think what's causing hard feelings is when their own government and their own politicians say and do things like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4F-bv9zTpo
I had saw that before....the message is clear, down with those right wingers. Man made evolution is almost complete, there will be a superculture society of radicals.
“No man survives when freedom fails,
the best men rot in filthy jails,
And those who cry ‘appease, appease’
Are hanged by those they tried to please.”
~ Hiram Mann
Quite safe. Although I have no idea what my home town has to do with young European women being groped or molested by youths who don't respect the law of the land they inhabit.
Edit I clicked on your link which said there is no article on wikipedia by that name. Did you have a point?
You are right, sorry about that. I google "Sexual assault statistics Sweden" and the Wiki site came up.
I have calmed down a bit now, so let's get an even playing ground here. Let's try to unite the world of people, not divide.
Yes, Sam, we all need to respect fair play: white/brown/coffee/pink skin; caucasian, African, Pakistani, Arab, Asian, indiginous. All human.
Yes, rape is inexcusable against any living creature. Why are you under the impression that we're arguing about the morality (or lack thereof) of rape? It's a terrible thing. Aren't we all in agreement?
I thought your raised skepticism was about the claim in OP's image - which is perfectly fine to be skeptical about, but you should know that there is evidence to support the claim. In other words, it's not a made-up story.
I'm aware that this trope has been fabricated in the past for nefarious purposes (lynchings come to mind, though we don't need to look that far back, either). So far, you haven't provided evidence of any nefarious purpose coming from the "White Motivation" Twitter page. Either way, the particular claim of the OP does not seem to be largely fabricated.
I'm not sure how the situation in Sweden and Europe at large is a juicy story to feel superior about. It's a sad state of affairs that needs open and honest discussion (hopefully from everyone, not just right-winged, anti-socialists).
If you have any evidence that this or similar stories have been distortions of the truth, I'm more than willing to hear it.
Jonny I think your caution is reasonable. However, would you question a hispanic or black motivation group? Thats the thing, anytime white people have a sense of pride then they're considered racist or something like that, or intolerant. I don't entirely agree with the white motivation group, but from the research I've done, european natives are definitely being oppressed, somewhat by their own ignorance and tolerance. - And I think the leaning to the right is only going to become more common as people begin to realize that there are many parasites to europe who are not even refugees, but rather going to europe just because they're guaranteed free shit. Thanks for commmenting
Jupiter is the rape capital of the solar system. Anyone who asks why is called a racist.
Without facts from reliable sources to back them up, the statements you have made are as meaningless as the one above. Only a fool or someone with an agenda would believe such statements without reliable evidence.
Which are you?
What makes the fake news narrative so bad is the liberal media is not reporting or under-reporting mass rapes by Muslim migrants, so any reporting of it by other groups gets censored as "fake" because CNN and Snopes don't address it.
It’s not only Germany that covers up mass sex attacks by migrant men... Sweden’s record is shameful
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its- … -shameful/
Professionals blamed Oxfordshire girls for their sexual abuse (by Muslim rape gangs), report finds
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 … port-finds
Why Did British Police Ignore Muslim Gangs Abusing 1,400 Rotherham Children? Political Correctness
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruto … 77812f5a7c
German State Media Defends Not Reporting Girl Raped and Murdered by ‘Refugee’
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12 … pe-murder/
Rape prevalence among women in the U.S?
The percentage of women who experienced rape at least once in their lifetime:
National Violence against Women survey, 1995, found 17.6% prevalence rate
A 2007 national study for the Department of Justice on rape found 18% prevalence rate
21.8% of American rapes of female victims are gang rapes
No one can condone violence against woman but how you use the instances of rape and assault will often have political motivation.
I reckon I could 'prove' that America is 'evil' with the above stats, (or maybe that Christians are evil) but why would I want to? That ugly side of humanity is widespread.
If people can avoid dumping their own evils on others, evil can be addressed.
The problem with your argument is that you are attempting to accuse people of thoughts they have not expressed.
No one has said, or implied, that all Muslims rape women. And that is the crux of your problem.
You obviously did not wade through that garbage above. I can hardly blame you. lol.
Going to give myself a break for Xmas before I start loathing my fellow humans.
Are there any instances where the US government and media suppressed rapes because the rapes were committed by American citizens or Christians? Go ahead, I'll wait.
Progressive thinking is dependent on educated reasoning. The move toward one world government is riddled with several ideological and religious stumbling blocks. The cultural divide is what comes into play as well. I suggest we are not ready for this melting pot euphoria many claim will be the result of open borders and open arms. If we are to make any progress we should first educate the world with truthful history for the masses and then maybe negotiate a peaceful orderly commingling of societies to a degree we can all agree with..
This is the heart of the matter for me as well. I think there should be some test cases to determine viability. I propose that some Rosie Odonnell type spend a few years with the Letin Clan or Korowai people.
Unfortunately, educated reasoning is in short supply. Our institutions are rife with postmodernist gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE-Hbd5FHzw
Yea I gotta say that's the most likely scenario, or maybe europeans will just go quietly into the night, as they have been thus far... What are your thoughts on Canada, it's not as severe of a situation, but somewhat similar.
A 9mm in a shoulder holster makes a great equalizer. Will Europeans figure out that they, not some faceless bureaucrat giving instructions to a cop somewhere, are ultimately responsible for their own safety? Will they figure out that allowing their government to disarm them and then refuse to protect them was not a wise thing to do? Will they expand on Switzerland's stand, where nearly every male adult is required to own a gun, and give one to women too (wonder what the rape rate is in Switzerland)?
Or will ISIS gain a continent?
I agree that its definitely a smart move to allow people to be armed, or AT LEAST capable of defending themselves in the case of immediate threats or danger. So yea, armed. I'm glad to hear that at least one nation in the EU isn't fucking up. Thanks for your response, very good point, quite informative!
So Wilderness, on another thread, you not only wanted evidence that climate change is caused mostly by humans, but you even want to know the exact amount that's being caused by humans.
Now someone posts claims Muslim immigrants are responsible for Sweden's high rate of rapes, and suddenly you automatically assume that claim is true with no evidence at all.
How does that work?
How come one claim and all the important details of it need evidence, but the claim in this thread needs none for you to assume it's true?
Why are you thinking critically about certain claims, but not about the claims being made here?
That post is about self protection, self reliance and responsibility for self. Although it does mention Islamic takeover (which is absolutely being seen with extreme numbers of immigrants) the whole thrust is about responsibility rather than nanny government.
To twist is into something else is disingenuous, and to equate a general attitude of governmental style to requiring numbers rather than gross generalizations from scientific reports is just as bad.
The opening post suggests that Muslim immigrants are causing the high rate of rapes in Sweden?
Why aren't you questioning that suggestion? Why aren't you asking for evidence? Why are you accepting it as fact?
Do you know the assertion is true? If so, how exactly?
A 1996 Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention noted that Muslim immigrants from North Africa were 23 times more likely to commit rape than Swedish men.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/23/swede … z4TfqFr1Bm
And their government has stopped collecting statistics on the racial / religious aspect of rapist vs victim because it made migrant groups look bad. In the past two years, since Merkel invited many "Syrian refugees" to Europe, Sweden's rape rate has gone up 5x over what it was before this influx of young Muslim men.
The issue is that someone claimed Muslim immigrants are responsible for the high rate of rapes in Sweden, but no reliable evidence was offered (or asked for) in support of that claim.
Despite that, most people responded in a way that suggests they assume the claim to be true. Yet when someone made a claim intending to challenge the narrative being put forward, they were immediately asked to provide evidence, which was then scrutinized (and criticized) in detail.
So where was the request for evidence about the main claim of the thread? Where was the scrutiny of that evidence? Where was the critical appraisal of that evidence?
More to the point, where is your scrutiny of that evidence?
1. What proportion of rapes in Sweden over the last 5 years have been committed by immigrants?
2. What proportion of those immigrants were Muslim?
3. What recent data (last 5 years) exists to support the claim made about Muslim immigrants in 2016?
4. If there is no recent data that supports the claim, how do you know it's true?
5. If methods used for the collection and collation of crime data varies between different countries, can the data used to calculate the rate of rape in Sweden be normalized to account for such variation? If so, has it been?
6. If it can't be normalized, how can you be confident the comparison between different countries is not the result of those variations in methodology?
Why aren't you asking the above questions?
And if you have, but don't have the answers, then what evidence (other than a 20 year old report) is your acceptance of the claim based on? A quote from "dailycaller.com" is not sufficient to condemn a large swathe of people as being more likely to be rapists. Where is the evidence?
The real problem in many European countries is that the native population has simply stopped breeding. Luring third world immigrants from broken countries in Asia and Africa with the promise of a better life is touted as an altruistic humanitarian effort, but the real reason Germany and other countries take in so many of these people is keep the population numbers stable. Young native Europeans are lazy, spoiled, smug and don't want to give up their lifestyles and middle class comforts (or move out of their parents' house (men in Italy don't move out until their 40s!)) to raise families. The immigrants on the other hand still have the normal human instincts to grow up and raise families. They will inherit Europe.
Do you have any evidence that the main reason Europeans don't have children is because they are lazy and spoiled? That sounds like an oversimplification to me.
I agree mrpopo, it's a far more complex issue than just lazy and spoiled kids. Personally I'd say that feminism has given a bit of a shake to traditional family structures and the nuclear family. A bit of a shake is obviously an understatement, but what do you think??
That's a very interesting response. I've heard of the decline in birth rates but I was unaware of the somewhat malevolent plan to just replace a fragile populace rather than dealing with the issues surrounding marriage and so on. You say that unlike the young europeans, the refugees and immigrants will inherit europe. But are they leaving anything to inherit??
I understand that Sweden withdrew their application to join the EU sometime after the Brexit, as well as other countries. They are fighting for nationalism and sovereignty.
Thanks for correcting me on that. Of course the issue is more general in terms of geography. Are they really fighting for sovereignty? I saw a video that showed policemen hitting someone for basically saying they dont want anymore immigrants, and then the fact that people can be fired or imprisoned for disagreeing with the state's immigration policies
The over-throw has gotten that bad, huh. Its like a war going on between tyranny and the protection of individual human's freedom, liberty and justice. The future is not looking pretty in Sweden. Submit!
It is only rape when the one who is being raped fights against being raped, or has a gun for personal protection. If, the victim submits, doesn't fight it, its not rape.
Sick it is! Its demonic...its right from the pits of hell.
I've been more focused on the crap like the attempt to over-throw the Electoral College, the election and all that before it for the past year +.
People need to be praying, wake up, and stand up against the tyranny.
Sweden hasn't withdrawn application to the EU as it is already a member.
Wasting your time pointing out stuff like that. White people, when scared, cannot be reasoned with.
Yep, I know you're right. Spitting in the wind whilst wading through bullshit.
Am I hearing this right...because it sounds like you are trying to insight prejudice toward white people, and insult their intelligence?
Are you miserable, and want company? Needy of attention?
One thing I am not is scared or afraid, I am not a coward.
I know who my God is.
Thanks Judi. I was going by headlines on Google News. I should know better than to do that with all the crap news.
I was listening to a talk show a couple days ago and one of the speakers mentioned Sweden and said that "Sweden has become basically a total Muslim conclave now". Do you know if that is true?
Did the speaker mean "enclave" rather than "conclave"? Either way, I don't know. I do know that an "expert" made similar claims about Birmingham in the UK (as well as other British and European cities, including Sweden) and ended up looking rather foolish.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … uslim.html
I took notes, he used "conclave". That's what happens when experts or honest people speak out, they are made out to look like fools, and called bogus names, etc.
* Statistics from 2011 Census show more Muslim children than Christian growing up in Birmingham
* Of 278,623 youngsters, 97,099 were registered as Muslim compared with 93,828 as Christian
* A similar trend has emerged in the cities of Bradford and Leicester
* Experts said more must be done to ensure that society does not become polarized along religious lines
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z4TaO1JEUL
2011 Census - six years have gone by...
The Daily Mail seems to pretty good at reporting real news.
I listen to Stefan Molyneux and Paul Joseph Watson across the pond in Britain on YouTube. Both are honest and very, very intelligent investigative reporters, they are superior IMHO. They get death threats all the time and are smeared by brainwash ideology idiots. You can judge a person by the company they keep, and by their enemies. The world needs more of these guys.
So, 278,623 (total) minus 190,927 Muslims and Christian, = 87,696. If the Muslim God and the Christian God can get into the ring and have a punch up, to see which one is the greater, there are enough non-aligned children to cheer on the God of their choice.
May the best God win! Could make headlines across the world!
I think I know why you are confused. I think I recall hearing the same show on radio. Tuneup or Iheatt. There was a commercial about a buick enclave see: photo. Its an all wheel drive, great for taking the kids to school or going to Christmas gatherings or Christmas Markets in inclement weather.To be clear: to and from, as opposed to through or over.
And oh yea, the speaker got the commercial/stories mixed up because he was rattled over some breaking international news
Choose your talk shows more carefully. Choose your news sources with more discernment. Clear your mind of preconceptions. Open up to the beautiful things of this world and discard the ugly, negative, depressing things that the mass media and political biases would have you believe.
There are so many lovely, intelligent, worthwhile friends to be made amongst Afro Americans, Arabs, Muslims, Atheists, Gays, Tranies, Russians, Vietnamese, Sharmans, Gipsies, Pagans.....as well as a few in the Christian camp. All open to being good friendly neighbours, willing to say a genuine How Are You Today? And lend a hand of help when needed.
Happy Festive Season, everyone.
So, it begins....
I spent time in Europe during the late 1970's most of which was quite culturally diverse then,
particularely the urban areas. The issue is not race, but culture. The Islam radicals and such are incompatible with progressive European government and its democratic traditions and as such they should be be punished or removed for any infraction of the laws. One must be aggressive and prosecute those that break the law and,if newly arrived immigrants, they should be deported. I am saddened to hear of such events among such nice people, as I remember them. Exigent circumstances will force them to embrace the concepts of race prejudice, which when compared to the States was far less encompassing and prevalent. For that, I mourn and have great regret.
The idea that concern for a country's cultural stability is racist is ridiculous. It's really a cultural problem, race has practically nothing to do with it. Well.. that's not true, race and IQ, and it gets complex. but the point is that it's not racist to fear cultural incompatibilities and the consequences of that.
I agree that if they're going to have a government which is supposed to enforce the rule of law, then they need to do that. If not, then they don't even really have a nation anymore.
And yes, it begins. Yet another failure of humankind to be aware of problems before they arise, and when those problems become blatant, act surprised. Then that surprise, or that fear, can easily be used to ignite war. Well, thanks for posting. Very comprehensive and cogent
Do you honestly believe race prejudice was less in Europe. Don't forget they set the stage for one of the most notorious genocides in history. I don't think 60-70 years completely erases such deep seated prejudice and beliefs in entitlement and superiority. I think one doesn't notice prejudice when it doesn't adversely affect them.
I think Europe's primary reason (especially Germany) for attempting to display inclusiveness is to try and prove their past has been overcome. But with governments turning a blind eye to these types of atrocities they may find they are setting the stage, again, for their indigenous population to if not support, at least ignore draconian measures to bring the problem under control.
It think that is insightful - draconian measures. It seems so ancient in its culture / nature. In modern times I believe its the NWO's, Marxist / Lenenist / Communist agenda...and Islam is a part of that.
Indonesia is about to introduce Draconian Islamic Certification Law. Indonesia is about 87% Muslim. Obama recently re-visited Indonesia, where he spend most of his younger years.
Your points are well taken, as a young man during the time of the visit that question was foremost on my mind during 1978. I needed to come away with an accurate assessment.
I found that more attention was paid to my attitude regarding language and desire to accept their local customs and assimilate. In others words, I had more trouble being 'American' than being Black. The 'Ugly American' phrase was quite real. In the face of that, my skin color was far less relevant. So, while I can't change the color of my skin, I could apply myself in acquiring the language and customs. That was a far fairer way to judge me.
Racism in Europe always seem more like aberrations, while it the U.S such concerns has been part of this culture's DNA since its founding. When, I visited Germany, I did not get the impression that racial harmony was just on the surface, neither overtly nor subconsciously. Before the Nazis, Black culture and performances were welcome, particularly in Berlin, while in American there was Jim Crow.
Are there problems? Yes. The Brits complained to me about the Pakistanis and their ubiquitous, extortionist markets and stores. The Germans complained about the Turks only from the standpoint of their culture and maintaining its integrity. When there are groups being complained about, it had something to do with cultural assimilation, something they either did or failed to do, rather than castigating them just because their skin is the wrong color. I enjoyed a psychological freedom, that I really never knew of at home. So, PART of it was, for once, that I was not the target. What is it like to be TRULY treated and evaluated like anyone else? This is as close as I got to finding out. Hawaii was a close second....
Those are my observations, have you ever had the pleasure of paying a visit?
I trust that the Germans and other European cultures can deal with this scourge while not changing their basic nature, diverse and tolerant.
I just want to make sure you are aware that blacks are not the only minority ever discriminated against in the world because, honestly, I get the impression that this fact is lost on you.
You can be most opinionated and fail to really listen when information is revealed with which you disagree.
I am not making universal declarations about the nature of racism. But, it does manifests itself in different ways, and at the time of my visit, the difference between how it applied in Europe and my experience in the states were quite real despite your endless attempts to discredit something that you neither understand nor have experienced.
I do understand it. I have lived it here but we have to either move forward or live in the past. I prefer to move forward.
Either way. As you said it was your desire to immerse yourself in the culture which allowed you to feel accepted. That's probably good advice for current immigrants
European leaders must realize their wrong decision to accommodate refugees from the middle east. But, they are seems don't realize
This thread offers Osama bin Laden one more little triumph.
The weak-minded are working themselves into a hysterical fear of foreigners all over the world.
It's interesting that you see it as such. Not all immigrants are averse to the idea of coexisting peacefully. I would think the topic here is those who choose not to.
The topic is about spreading Islamophobia with nonsense about women dying their hair black, sharia law etc.
A little stat to perhaps allay your fears:
American toddlers routinely kill more people than terrorists of all kinds kill in the US.
So if you want to attack a vulnerable group who cannot fight back, stick it to the under fives.
"American toddlers routinely kill more people than Muslims kill in the US."
What is the average death rate for both for the past 20 years? A breakdown by religious affiliation, please, for all 15,000-20,000 of them each year...along with how that affiliation is known.
You managed to get the uncorrected version of the post. And I only just noticed your reply.
Settle for toddlers being more of a menace to your health than terrorists of all kinds.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won … fc1900e45e
CDC are no longer allowed to collect gun related death stats as far as I know, so you will have to dig for other more recent stats.
Most terror-related deaths are in Muslim countries bearing the brunt of the fight against ISIS et al.
It is a question of intent. You can't blame a toddler for an accident. Not a sane person, anyway. Would you fit that definition?
Actually, according to your source toddlers shoot themselves most of the time. Twice did they manage to kill another person in 2015: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won … ?tid=a_inl
Sorry, terrorists are still more lethal than gun-wielding toddlers. Colour me shocked.
The logic you present is disturbingly common, but rooted in statistical illiteracy. You're comparing a lethal, but infrequent event (terror attacks - every few months, as of late), with a less lethal, but more frequent event (accidental firings of a gun by toddlers - weekly). At a glance it's persuasive, especially when lacking the relevant details.
Intuitively, I hope most people realize it's a false comparison. A simple thought exercise should make that clear: would you rather be in a room with an armed toddler, or an armed terrorist?
Hey, Professor, I think Will's point is spot on. I don't think the stats involve false equivalence at all. I would compare it to being struck with a bolt of lightening versus the national body count due to electrical accidents in the home.
I am going to be more concerned about the circumstance that is statistically far more likely to occur, than that with the frequency of a 'blue moon'.
Why would anyone equate terrorists with children in the first place.
Just recently some jihadist Muslim parents kissed their little girls (seven and nine) goodbye and sent them into a police station in Damascus, Syria, with explosives under their jackets and remotely detonated them.
The seven year old is thought to have been killed in the blast, and three police officers wounded...from what I have read and heard.
Those kind of people are demonic oculists from a religion of death.
But what was the point? That when toddlers pull a trigger no one dies, but when (Islamic) terrorists set out to kill they most often succeed? And that means, somehow, that Islamaphobia is not justified?
I did not say that islamaphobia is not justified, just let us put the levels of hysteria in proper perspective. I have a better chance of being done in by events associated with proliferation of firearms in this culture than by a terrorist attack. Who is denying that?
Perhaps it needs to be looked at a little more closely. I can't quote directly a past post in these forums, but it went something like:
If you are not a gang member, or live where gangs roam the streets, if you aren't a cop, if you don't use illegal drugs...then you are in more danger from terrorists than you are from being murdered by Americans.
The point being that if you don't engage in dangerous activities, whether by your own action or merely by being in the close vicinity, then your chances of being murdered in this country are very, very small.
"If you are not a gang member, or live where gangs roam the streets, if you aren't a cop, if you don't use illegal drugs...then you are in more danger from terrorists than you are from being murdered by Americans"
I would like to find the source of a such a quote. Even when compensating for the identity and cause of homicides as you mention, is the risk of violent death for a typical American, even in the ideal circumstance less than that risk of death with Islamic terrorism as the cause? Really?
Maybe the exaggerated fear of premature death is driving the nonsensical drift of this thread. Get logical, get real, get a life everyone.
A minority of young Muslim people become fanatics. A minority of persons wielding firearms are out to kill a fellow human. A minority (very very small one) of young children get hold of or accidentally discharge a firearm. A minority of male humans perform unwanted uninvited sexual assaults on females or males; likewise females upon males or females.
Most persons of any religious persuasion are peaceable, law-abiding citizens - yet they don't make a good case for spurious arguments on HP, or give us high blood pressure and anxiety. They (I, we) get on with leading enjoyable, active, productive, community-minded lives. Boring, isn't it?
What argument do you think is being made? Nobody said any of these demographics were a majority, just that there is a significant element within a particular demographic that is an issue.
Did you know that only 10% of Germans were Nazis? Or that, of the 7000 chemicals in a cigarette, only 1% cause cancer?
The fact that these are minor elements does nothing to disprove the danger of the entity as a whole.
Search threads on gun control in these forums. That's what it was about; the nonsensical idea that guns somehow cause deaths was rather thoroughly taken apart, to the point that even the very low probability of terorrist death was more likely than being killed with a gun unless one participated in certain dangerous acitivites (like doing drugs, being a gang member, etc.).
Comparing toddlers to terrorist is spot on?
I love the contortions some go through to create the illusion of logic in madness.
His point is spot on despite being factually incorrect? Terrorists DON'T kill more people than toddlers (32 is greater than 2), therefore you SHOULD be more concerned about terrorists than toddlers, even ignoring your blatant disregard of the statistical frequencies that make up that number.
As I already explained, comparing an infrequent lethal event to a frequent nonlethal event and concluding that the frequent nonlethal event is more dangerous is disingenuous. Whether you personally think it's an appropriate comparison doesn't make it so.
As another example, dogs are not more dangerous than terrorists despite killing slightly more people per year (34 in 2010). There are more dogs than terrorists and more dog bites than terrorist attacks (4.5 million dog bites per year). A tiny fraction of those dog bites results in death. Hence, the difference in frequency is what causes the difference in fatal outcomes, but the overall lethality of dogs to US citizens is TINY. Terrorists on the other hand, have high lethality rates.
I have no idea why you think deaths by terrorism and deaths by toddlers are comparable to lightning strikes and electrical accidents. Both lightning strikes and electrical accidents are fatal to about 10% of people affected.
Electrical accidents: http://www.ameriburn.org/Preven/Electri … sGuide.pdf (400 deaths, 4400 injuries. 400 / 4800 ~ 10%)
Are you suggesting toddlers are as fatal as terrorists, but also attack more frequently?
Lets remove the concept of toddlers and discuss the idea of Islamaphobia being ratchet up on the list of hysteria, when compared with the more than plentiful DEATHS from firearms that occur here on a daily basis. So with what should I be more concerned?
I don't think calling it Islamaphobia is fair. The average person is not scared of the average Muslim. Call it a phobia of radical Islam, maybe.
If your only concern is the death tally, then sure, be more concerned with firearms.
You should also be more concerned with beds. They kill 15x as many Americans per year as terrorism does.
Personally, I place some amount of weight to the fact that an ideology is encouraging attacks in just about every country on Earth. Sure, they aren't as successful as beds are at killing people. But beds aren't trying to.
(Incidentally, I think nuclear weapons kill something like 0 people per year. We shouldn't be worried about them, right?)
Is my demise more likely to occur by terrorist attack or by any number of frequently occurring causes of death, being the victim of gun violence? So much of the witch hunts, red scares and such are to distract us from the more common and lethal threats that surround everyday that are comparatively just around the corner. Something as simple as 'road rage'.
Real and ever ongoing causes of death trumps fears of bogeymen.
Terrorists, hands down. Not a single gun has ever jumped up and killed someone.
On the other hand, if you engage in dangerous activities (with a gun or not) or if you live (work, play, etc.) in close proximity to those that do then you have a much higher probability of being killed (whether by gun or some other tool) from those activities than you do terrorists.
That's pretty cool, to give links saying toddlers shot 58 people while terrorists killed 32 and therefore toddlers are more of a menace to your health. Is that because after you're dead there is no more menace?
The graph shows 3022 terrorist deaths since 2001 - how many deaths were cause by toddlers shooting people? Don't you think you should be comparing apples to apples if you're going to make silly comparisons?
I'm not certain what makes you think I'm afraid. Maybe your British superiority complex is raising an ugly head?
If you think it is acceptable for groups of men to surround and physically sexually accost women, that would not shock me. And that, from what I understand, is the problem for these young women.
To be honest, those who refuse to discuss the problem, attempt to understand the problem and search for solutions to the problem appear more islamophobic than those open to discussion.
This is not a 'Muslim' problem. You are the one turning it into one.
Its plain nonsense that some choose to believe. You are on to it.
"Manufactured fears of "Islamophobia" has been weaponized to characterize all criticize of Islam"
The Truth About Islamophobia - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAAq2EQLBkY
Islam is not a religion of peace.
Self-confessed 'p**sy grabber' Trump would probably feel right at home with the woman-haters in Muslim culture. The Alt Right who routinely threaten to rape any woman who says something that they do not like, certainly would.
Misogyny is a problem in every corner of the world.
Well, sure Will. That makes it all ok. Let's get the word out to European women to just grin and bear it.
No, misogyny is a problem in every corner of the world. If you going to condemn Islam as a whole because some Muslims are vile, you need to condemn the US as a whole because some Americans are vile.
Anyway, one of our, usually useless, British aristocrats had something usefully superior to say today.
Prince Charles urged people to remember the story of the Nativity this Christmas, which was about "the fleeing of the Holy Family to escape violent persecution."
That kind of propaganda has been spread by the opposition in only the past year and half or so. That's all it is, lies, lies, lies...and you believe it. You call white people weak minded? So impressionable! There is no reasoning with you. I called it before...but I gave you the benefit of the double. Silly me!
I suppose you believe climate change causes terrorist attacks too.
Pediaphobia is a real condition. An irrational fear of children. A deep prejudice against the actual innocent. A condition of the mind that can slip even further out of touch with reality. I think it even possible that kind of mind can become quite insane. A total loss of their touch of reality that even mass doses of psychotropics, insulin shock therapy or electric shock therapy, to the brain cannot awaken them from their nightmarish fears.
But foreigners good russians bad. Or is it foreigners good putin bad. Obama I heard is transferring undocumented gitmo detainees so that good. I hope they eventually find gainful employment in yemen or uk. Bus drivers or maybe something marketable like idk denistry.
Yes, that must be it. It's not that one particular ideology has attacked people in virtually every corner of the globe. It's that the weak-minded, easily scared white people hate foreigners and just can't be reasoned with.
The fact is that if you decide to hate any group or nation, for whatever reason, it is easy to cherry pick some events and stats to justify your hatred.
If you take a look at the OP's profile you will see that he recently rejected Christianity. Like many who reject their religion, he has taken the aggressive secularist route. His page titled 'Islamophobia is Justifiable' is part of that personal process.
I happen to find aggressive secularism a lot more acceptable than pure racism but it ain't pretty and it can lead to just as much hatred of perfectly innocent people.
'Islamophobia is Justifiable' is largely based on the attitudes contained in a 14th Century Islamic text. That is cherry picking of an extreme and rather weird kind, lol.
By Jove, he's an aggressive secularist? The horror. Those passive secularists are bad enough, but the aggressive ones might as well be literally Hitler. I've found an article that accurately encapsulates the tyranny of aggressive secularism, highly recommended reading: https://www.theguardian.com/science/bra … ew-tyranny
And how dare he reference Islamic text when justifying fears of Islam. That's so weird. It's like referencing Nazi text when justifying fears of Nazism. Just absurd.
I wish people didn't fear this poor, non-dangerous, totally peaceful Religion of Peace™ that only occasionally advocates for the death of apostates and homosexuals and the subjugation of women. What they really should be afraid of are those gun-wielding toddlers from Texas.
Terrorists and toddlers. Aka Vulnerable groups that cant fight back
You obviously find it difficult to differentiate between terrorists and Muslims.
I have survived (so far) four terrorist bombing campaigns. Three of those came courtesy of the IRA in London.
Luckily, people in the UK have a little spine and did not start hunting down Catholics.
I suppose what the UK did to the Irish catholics in the not so distant past made them leery of going down that path.
They still burn the Pope in effigy on November the 5th every year. It's a grim business, this hate thing. But actual, live Catholics are more or less safe.
There are less Catholics than muslims if we are equivocating.That makes them even more vulnerable and can"t fight back. You would never talk about Catholic Priests and pedophilia because you would fear being labeled a Catholicphobe. You'd fear being sanctioned. and fined for hate speech. If Catholics came with laws punishable by death if you tried to leave the belief or convert your beliefs and the actual executions were carried out in Ireland, the UK and the USA, you would never look for the definition of dangerous cult on dictionary.com. Youd show that statistically one is more likely to be bitten by a kitten than bitten by a Catholic. Catholics are safer than kittens.
I really should try to bring my satire to your level. I read somewhere it's one of the better tools for persuasion.
I wouldnt change a thing. I admire your posts. Sharp direct and logical. I actually have wished that we could debate opposing views on something. For the worthwhile challenge.
That's kind of you. I'd be up for a debate on something. Could be a fun intellectual challenge.
Im wise enough to know when it is wiser not to play. I have to post from phone and somewhat limited too. Not a spring chicken anymore either. Memory used to be pretty good too. Used to be. Are you a believer? Im remembering no.
I'm not, but am open to the possibility of metaphysical concepts like the soul.
I am a believer. Do you think that either of us could convince the other, otherwise? If no, if you would be so kind as to offer me a draw. If yes, then I offer you the draw in advance.
Believe in a god or the possibility of one? Sure. I'm partial to the Futurama god myself (not a joke, I really like the concept). The more specific the deity, the harder it'll be to convince me though.
Why would they start hunting down Catholics? The IRA is based on Irish republicanism, the clue's in the name. Do you have difficulty distinguishing between Irish republicans and Irish Catholics?
Based on your decades-old anecdote the IRA must be an ever increasing worldwide threat. So let's address it. How many people are they killing on a weekly basis? More than toddlers, perhaps?
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/ … 2draft.htm
Hmm, interesting. 7 deaths in 2016, only 1 of which is confirmed to be related to the conflict. All incidents happening only in the UK.
Please, help divert more attention to the violence caused by the IRA, it's clearly a significant problem affecting people worldwide.
http://www.ooty.taxi/ What and who is going to take further steps to avoid this harrasment
Try these keywords to search, Don ...
"Muslim rape epidemic in Sweden"
"Sweden's Muslim rape problem"
"How did peaceful Sweden go from being a quiet, low-crime country to being the country with the second-highest incidence of rape in the world?"
"Are Migrants Really Raping Swedish Women?"
Its not difficult to do research with keywords.
Thank you for that link, Kathryn. It reinforces my original scepticism and call for caution when making any judgments.
I like the article. It's refreshing to see something that's well-written and researched. But I think I spot a limitation. Namely, this conclusion:
This article will show that according to crime victim surveys, the actual rate of sex crimes has been more or less unchanged in Sweden between 2005 and 2014, despite the fact that immigration has increased during the same time period.
The author doesn't take into account one major factor: the rate of immigration to Sweden and how much that would affect the overall rate of rape and sexual assault in the total population. Or to put it another way: how many people from a demographic with a high % of criminals would be required to significantly change Sweden's rate of crimes?
I know that the proportion of immigrants is a fraction of the total population of Sweden, and I know that in any given population the proportion of sex criminals is (usually) a fraction of a percentage, or at very high rates, one or two percentage units. In other words, you'd need a lot of immigrants before you affect the rate of sex crimes in a way that's measurable as a function of the total Swedish population.
Using available data, I'm going to try and estimate how many immigrants you'd need to change the overall rate of rape and sexual assault from 1 to 2%. (To any mathematicians out there, if I make any glaring math errors or if this entire process is wrong, please correct me.)
I am assuming that immigrants commit more rapes and sexual assaults than the native population. I make this assumption because data released by BRÅ from 1985-1989 had immigrants and immigrant children making for 53% of rape convictions and being overrepresented in other serious crimes (1). Later data from 1997-2001 shows a similar pattern, with 56% of those suspected for sex crimes being immigrants, 65% if you narrow it down to rape. That's 3.2 and 5.5x the native rate, respectively (2). I believe these are the latest data sets from BRÅ on this topic.
How much of the 1997-2001 population was committing sex crimes? 0.15% of the native population, 0.23% of immigrant children and 0.49% of immigrants. I don't have the Swedish population numbers for those specific years, but according to Statistics Sweden in 2002 the makeup of the population was around 7 million native Swedes, 1.1 million foreign born immigrants and 0.3 million immigrant children (3). That translates to 10,500 native Swede suspects, 5,390 immigrants and 690 immigrant children suspected of sex crimes, for a total of 16,580 suspected of sex crimes.
As per your link, in Sweden 1% or less of the total population per year has experienced some sort of sex crime since 2005. The Swedish population in 2001 was 8.9 million, meaning 89,000 people reported being victims of a sex crime that year. That's a ratio of 5.37 victims per recorded suspect, which is more or less in line with what we know of sex criminals having multiple victims.
We can derive this formula from the above:
number of sex crime victims = number of recorded sex crime suspects * 5.37 victims per suspect
How many immigrants would we need to double the rate of reported sexual crime victims from 1 to 2% of the total population? Let's assume the same % of the population suspected of sex crimes as before, 0.49%.
We're setting the number of victims to 2% of the population, and we're increasing the population of immigrants (variable x). We already have a population of 8.9 million, recorded suspect population of 16,500, and the % of the population suspected of sex crimes as 0.49%, which are set as constants:
0.02 (8.9 million + x) = (0.0049x + 16,580) * 5.37
Solve for x:
0.02x + 178,000 = 0.02631x + 89,034
88,965 = 0.00631x
x = 14.1 million
All things being equal, you'd need another 14.1 million immigrants before the rate of sexual assault victims goes from 1 to 2% of the total population, assuming a % sex-criminal population of .49% and an average victimization rate of 5.37 victims per one criminal. Note that Sweden's population has only increased by 717,000 from 2005-2014, an average rate of 80,000 immigrants per year (assuming the entirety of the population change was due to immigration). In about 2 centuries you'd have the 14.1 million immigrants required to change the rate significantly. Obviously I'm not counting the impact of immigrant children for simplicity's sake.
Maybe 2% is too high. Play around with the numbers. For a 1.5% rate you'd need 3.9 million immigrants, or half a century's worth of immigration. For a 1.2% rate you'd need 1.2 million from 15 years' worth of immigration, and at that point the author might dismiss the increase as random fluctuation.
Even if we assume a hypothetical population with a very high percentage of sex-criminals, we'd still need a large number of people to make a significant impact in the overall crime rates. In this fictional population we can bump up the % sex-criminal population to 3% (which is 6x the Swedish immigrant rate and 20x the Swedish native rate) and we'd still need more than 630,000 of that high-risk population to increase the sex crime rates from 1 to 2%:
0.02 (8.9 million + x) = (0.03x + 16,580) * 5.37
Solve for x:
0.02x + 178,000 = 0.1611x + 89,034
88,965 = 0.1411x
x = 630,510
That's a significant population change, about a decade's worth in Sweden's case. As mentioned earlier, from 2005 to 2014 the population of Sweden increased by 717,000. For that population to change the rate of sex crime victimization from 1 to 2% of the total population, the % of sex criminals would need to be 2.75%:
2% of 9.747 million = (717,000y + 16,580) * 5.37
Solve for y, where y is the percentage of the added population that are sex criminals:
194,940 = 3,850,290y + 89,034
y = 0.0275
That rate is 5.6x the immigrant Swedish rate and 18.33x the native Swedish rate.
Obviously this is a simple and limited analysis that makes a number of assumptions (for instance, a static ratio between sex victims and sex criminals). The point remains that you'd still need a large number of people with a very high % of sex criminals immigrating into Sweden to change the overall sex crime rates. While the data suggests that immigrants commit sex crimes at rates of 3.2-5.5x the native Swedish rate, which is significant, they simply can't impact the sex crime rates at their current numbers, assuming a sex crime rate of 0.49%. At most the decade's worth of population increase could increase the sex crime rate by about ~0.1%, which the author dismisses as random fluctuations. You'd need several decades' worth of immigration for the author to acknowledge the increased rate.
One last thing: the author is missing the latest sex survey rates from 2015. In that year the rate of sex crimes went up to 1.7% from 1% in 2014. From 2010-2015 the rate increased from 0.7% to 1.7% (4). That means the annual number of sex victims increased from 65,646 in 2010 to 167,467 in 2015. I doubt that's something that can be dismissed as random fluctuation, and population increase only accounts for 3000 of those victims.
Overall, I like the author's methodology, but I think his rationale for this particular conclusion is lacking.
1) Table 5 under Våldtäkt: https://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/05/08/ … ghet-1.pdf
2) Table 11 under SEXUALBROTT and Våldtäkt: https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f71 … landet.pdf
3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigrati … 2-2011.jpg
4) https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statis … t/ntu.html
My favorite part of that site is : the moral of the story is that you should not get your information about crime statistics from shady blogs ..
Says the worpress blog.
It seems to be the case that information is being suppressed. There seems to be a reason that information is still being supprressed. I base my conclusion on that continued omission. If something has to be hidden, it warrants suspicion. So I gotta choice. Err on the side of caution and hurt the PC feelings of a broad group, or validate the danger women might be in . I gotta stand by the women.
I think the onus is upon the islamic apologists to provide statistical evidence that alleged provocative stories have a detrimental effect on groups or individuals in groups. Game over.
"Klara Selin says the statistics don't represent a major crime epidemic, rather a shift in attitudes. The public debate about this sort of crime in Sweden over the past two decades has had the effect of raising awareness, she says, and encouraging women to go to the police if they have been attacked.
The police have also made efforts to improve their handling of cases, she suggests, though she doesn't deny that there has been some real increase in the number of attacks taking place - a concern also outlined in an Amnesty International report in 2010.
"There might also be some increase in actual crime because of societal changes.
Due to the internet, for example, it's much easier these days to meet somebody, just the same evening if you want to. Also, alcohol consumption has increased quite a lot during this period.
"But the major explanation is partly that people go to the police more often, but also the fact that in 2005 there has been reform in the sex crime legislation, which made the legal definition of rape much wider than before."
The change in law meant that cases where the victim was asleep or intoxicated are now included in the figures. Previously they'd been recorded as another category of crime.
So an on-the-face-of-it international comparison of rape statistics can be misleading"---Article
I intentionally suggested that one of your sources was unreliable without any substantive evidence, fully expecting you to ask for evidence. I did that because I knew it would perfectly illustrate the double standard you are applying. As I predicted, your response to that unsubstantiated claim was:
"What evidence do you have of that allegation?"
I then even highlighted the double-standard:
"The fact you ask for evidence for my comments, but happily act as if evidence doesn't matter (until prompted) in the case of the opening comment, is exactly the type of behaviour I am criticizing in this thread. Apparently evidence is only important when challenging a view that doesn't fit the desired narrative."
This was before you started reeling off your list of excuses.
Once you did that, I seized the opportunity to further highlight how ludicrous your reasoning is, by expanding my unsubstantiated claim to all your sources, and making it as extreme as possible ("they're all racists"). Then it was simply a matter of throwing each of your excuses straight back at you, whenever you added a new one to the list.
Unfortunately all this seems to have gone over your head:
"You only began to hide these claims under the guise of “hyperbole” after I gave you examples of hyperboles that were effective in initiating discussion".
What you fail to understand is that I would have repeated anything you had said. That was entirely the point. If you had said something instead of hyperbole, I would have repeated that back at you also. That was the same type of argument I used in relation to the unacceptability of your excuses. I even signposted that argument by making a template for you. The two aspects of it were:
You : "X (e.g. being provocative, being funny, hype etc) justifies promoting unsubstantiated claims about rape as facts".
Me (via the template): "X, is not a valid reason for promoting unsubstantiated claims about rape, as facts".
You: "X (e.g. being provocative, being funny, hype etc) justifies promoting unsubstantiated claims about Muslim migrants".
Me: (via my own deliberately extreme claim ): "X, justifies promoting unsubstantiated claims about your sources too then".
That simple argument structure forced you into the position where you effectively had to argue that unsubstantiated claims about your sources are not justified, while at the same time argue that unsubstantiated claims about Muslim immigrants is. That was fully the intention.
Unfortunately you failed to pick up on any of that, which is a shame, because it's a beautifully simple argument structure (even if I do say so myself) that essentially had you arguing with yourself.
Unfortunately you now believe that because I intentionally called all your sources racist to highlight your own double-standard, that means I "logically" have to believe your sources are reliable. Wrong again.
It could be my opinion that all your sources are racist. Just as it could be yours, or the meme creator's, or "Angry Foreigner's" opinion that Muslims immigrants are significantly contributing to certain crime statistics in Sweden (and without substantive evidence both these are by definition only opinions). In a free society, people are entitled to hold opinions, and state those opinions. BUT just as I can't reasonably expect to state my opinion about the unreliability of your sources as if it's a fact, and not expect someone to ask me for evidence and challenge my motives. So you, the meme creator, Angry Foreigner and anyone else, can't reasonably expect to state opinions about Muslim immigrants and rape, as facts without expecting to be challenged for evidence, and have your motives questioned also. Now if I had made my claim about your sources exactly equivalent to the one about Muslim immigrants, what would it look like?
I would have created a meme, a forum thread, and a YouTube video (that gathered nearly 2 million views) suggesting, as a matter of fact, that there is a causal link between your sources, and a high rate of murder where they live.
If I did that, then claimed afterwards that I just wanted to build some hype to start a discussion, that wouldn't now suddenly make it okay that I did that. And if I posted another video (a full 7 months after the first) and said my claim was said in "jest", because I wanted to be "provocative". Again that wouldn't suddenly erase the claim that was made, and make it suddenly ok. Once again, those things you listed are not valid justifications. They are merely attempts to justify poor behaviour and lessen blame, i.e. they are excuses.
The second dimension of that (the issue I initially raised) is the fact that with both of these (my deliberately extreme claim, and the real extreme claim about Muslim immigrants) everyone should challenge such claims. It shouldn't matter whether someone is on the left or the right. Claims about serious, complex social issues, which are stated as facts without any evidence, should be challenged by everyone. Instead, I observe that people challenge only things that don't fit the narrative within their own bubble, and give claims that fit within that bubble a pass, even if they know they can't be substantiated. The result is this toxic cesspool that pases for public discourse nowadays, where people feel the need to whip up hype, or try to be funny, or make increasingly provocative claims just to be heard above all the other BS from people who are trying to do the same. And that's the issue.
I would reply to the rest of your comment, but frankly it all just misses the point, which is mostly outlined above. I don't particularly care about what you do and don't believe. Why would I? You're a random stranger on the internet, so your opinion means nothing to me. If I said this discussion was any more than temporary entertainment, I would be lying, as (I hope) would you be.
by CMHypno4 years ago
Can Europe find a way out of this mess?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … rmoil.html
by ifunny3 years ago
Is it best to visit one county for about 12 days. eg. Just France Or Germany Or Netherlands, Germany and France?
by CMHypno4 years ago
Austerity, people committing suicide, 25% unemployment in some parts of the Eurozone, yet these vast sums can always be found to bail out banks? If this kind of money is available, why not inject it directly into local...
by Jerad Maplethorpe6 years ago
What we forget so quickly is our past. Our past leads us to the present and the present is not good.This article isn't posted by me but gives a very good look back through the United States struggle with debt. I'd like...
by karl2 years ago
It seems the rise of the political right in the European elections has started the lefty leaners to question their ability to continue to fool most of the people most of the...
by Emile R3 years ago
I didn't know whether to put this question in religion or politics; so, if it is in the wrong category, I apologize. I've read a lot of comments indicating that Europeans consider Americans somewhat behind on the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.