There is and never was an open border policy in Sweden. Out of misguided naivete Swedes did accept refugees but it wasn’t a free-for-all.
Dark-skinned economic migrants were coming to Sweden for decades because Sven or Magnus didn’t want to work graveyard shifts in gas stations 7-11s (yes, there are 7-11s in Sweden).
The exact same reasons apply to illegals picking fruits in the US.
In the latest migrant crisis, Sweden decided to accept refugees on humanitarian grounds, people fleeing war, genocide, religious or ethnic persecution. This humanitarian feature was a staple of Swedish foreign policy for decades, accepting civilians fleeing war and persecution.
Swedes whose parents came from Chile fleeing Pinochet’s dictatorship are not an uncommon sight. You’ve got Swedish of Assyrian and Persian ethnicity as well as many refugees fleeing the wars in former Yugoslavia in the 1990ies.
However, something was different this last time - instead of thankful women and children with tearful eyes professing gratitude, they’ve received able-bodied young Afghans who either professed to be minors or were inquiring about the generous social benefits.
They didn’t come to work - they came for the free money and (allegedly) free sexual intercourse.
I read an article or two about how the vast majority of refugees to Europe weren’t even from war zones. There are NGOs that teach them how to tear up their passports and tell them what to say in order to get in.
Yes. Moroccans and Algerians for example. Morocco is a popular tourist destination so it’s pretty disingenous to claim “persecution”
This might have worked in 2014 with the bleeding heart Scandinavians when thirty something men claimed they were “unaccompanied minors” but the attitudes (and actions) have dramatically hardened, which means that the migrants trying to cross into Europe on the eastern flank are beaten up, tortured and pushed back and frankly, no one gives a shit about that since they’re all men in their twenties and thirties.
I’m talking about the law and what it bases the legal definition for hate speech on. Anyone can report anyone anywhere to the the police for anything, it doesn’t mean that that person is guilty of anything.
Who claims they aren’t having this discussion? A lot of European nations have been having this discussion.
Who is Sweden’s best football player…
How many German football players are of Turkish descent?
And none of that works because the people who work with incoming migrants know all the tricks. One trick was to file off your fingerprints.
You can, or you can try and use that data to figure out what’s causing those outcomes. That could improve outcomes all round. I appreciate we’re moving towards a right wing vs left wing argument here, and I’m not siding with either. Just trying to present the other side.
Just spitballing off the top of my head and I haven’t followed the thread much or been on here much as I’ve been crazy busy at work.
I think the US is doing ok here. Maybe not great but ok. We do have a President that has openly attacked free speech and supports laws that limit free speech as well as make someone lots of money when they write something horrible or something along those lines. That ain’t cool.
I think we overreact at least in the US to seemingly everything but it’s part of having media where everyone’s opinions can be collected at once and both sides personal outrage machines flip out over what seems like slight issues. That said some anti-pc people just miss being allowed to be openly racist and homophobic without judgement. And some pc babies will find a way to be outraged over the slightest of things.
And the whole I’m never watching a movie with that dude, not watching the oscars or football because of a knee is just perplexing to me. It seems like some of these people have no entertainment avenues left.
But a lot of this is generated outrage imo. We have it so good and so much free time we fill our lives with being consumed by shit that on the whole just doesn’t matter. And it gets clicks and comments and views and the cycle continues. The money is in bad news and controversy and it’s just easier to have access to that now. I’m as guilty as anyone. We’re probably not clicking on teacher helps students learn with innovative techniques but we’re clicking on teacher under fire for alleged racist rant.
But for the most part at least in the US I don’t see free speech really under attack in an alarming way on the whole. I mean yeah now you might get fired when your company finds out your a Nazi but that’s always been a risk. Unless I’ve missed something you can still say “horrible” things and you aren’t going to jail.
I agree with most of what you said, but boycotting football because of someone taking a knee, etc. is the ultimate embodiment of free speech, and the first amendment. We’re supposed to be adults, we don’t need the government to solve all of our problems. If we don’t like a business for whatever reason, we don’t need the government to come in and punish the bad people for us. We can stop giving them our business, and they can change because they feel the hurt, or go out of business, or keep doing what they’re doing.
Of course not. That’s like an intentionally poorly drawn conclusion or something.
Everyones obviously free to express their free speech. I’d just personally put this example slightly below posting pictures of cats on Instagram if we’re looking at the ultimate embodiment of free speech, considering people are upset free speech isn’t being limited.
When I think ultimate embodiment of free speech, I think Rosa Parks, Jefferson shitting on the crown, that stupid out of context meme of the guy staring down tanks, people in (not America) literally sacrificing their lives for basic free speech.
Fwiw, the concept of professional sports being 1/10th the scale it is today is a joke to me, let alone how big they are now. Every dollar they lose in market cap from ANY boycotts, regardless of the reason, gets a round of applause from me.
You’re asserting that people are upset that “speech isn’t being limited.” I never heard anyone was calling for government imposing anything. They were freely consuming an entertainment product from a business. They didn’t like the way an employee of that business was expressing his political opinions, so they stopped giving that business their money, and views, which are as good as money.
Would you be okay with the fedex driver telling you to vote for Trump while you signed for a package?
Are people not upset that the owners of the NFL and the org itself won’t punish players for exercising free speech?
All perfectly fine, and 100% an exercise of freedom of speech. I merely took issue with the ‘ultimate embodiment.’ Seems kinda hilarious as a concept.
Sure, why wouldn’t I? What kinda sheeple would I have to be to care about the opinion of my local fedex driver? I’m not one of those morons that thinks an employee voicing their opinion while on the clock is a direct reflection of the company’s views. Not directing that at you, as I’m sure you don’t either.
Seems like a weird comparison though. Do you think the message they were sending with kneeling was ‘vote for HRC’?
No, I’m actually not ok with employees voicing their opinions on company time. You can call me a moron and a sheeple and I won’t lose any sleep over it. You can spend your money with those companies, and I cannot, and we’ll see what they do. That’s freedom.
If Kapernick had only shared his views on twitter, some people would have bitched, sure. I doubt any real fans would boycott. I don’t know, there are probably people who boycott movies because some actor tweeted something. I think that’s a bit much, but again they can spend their time and money as they see fit.
I’m a little too anti authoritarian for that, so we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I genuinely hadn’t intended for that to be directed at you when I said it. My apologies.
Oh I don’t spend my money with them either. I think professional sports are a joke at the level they operate at.
I don’t mind some of the ‘skillier’ stuff when I’m bored though. I usually watch a bit of the Olympics and whatnot.
Eh. It’s a general biproduct of today’s new love for outrage/PC/victim/snowflake culture. My dad still won’t eat Papa John’s pizza after they ousted ole Papa. He really just wanted a reason to bitch about something imo.
You’re framing it as authoritarian, but I don’t think it’s authoritarian to not want people to inject their political views into everything. I don’t really want to hear everyone’s religious views either. I think authoritarianism only comes in when people call for the intervention of the government because the government can play the violence card.
One of the reasons I used to like sports was one could spot a hat or jersey from a team, and have an enjoyable shit-talking session that no one got offended by, at least not that I ever experienced. Once politics was injected into sports , Kapernick seemed to always come up, and people actually got mad.
I don’t think it’s authoritarian to not want those things either. I think it’s authoritarian to want someone to be punished because of it.
I disagree. Eg, I think it’s overly authoritarian (in the places where it’s actually happening) for some college campuses to be restricting certain social/etc viewpoints of either students or speakers. The schools aren’t using the threat of violence, but imo that’s not the distinction. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one too.
All hail outrage culture I guess. Both sides seem very intent on beating the other to the bottom.
What do you think about cancel culture and going after the incomes of anyone you don’t like? It isn’t government interference… it’s more people trying to destroy anyone for thinking differently.
In the case of speakers on college campuses, that gets complicated. How much money should a University spend on security so the Milo howeverthefuckhislastnameisspelled can come speak? Also, I could just not send my kids to that school. I could also write to my elected reprentatives and tell them to not give my tax dollars to Wackjob University because they stifle the free expression of ideas. Authoritarianism would be the government forcing that university to do, something. Boycotts are an old tool of pacifist movements and probably one of the least likely to lead to violence. It’s the most people exercising the most freedom.
