Slightly tangential on Swedish society, there are similarities between USA and Sweden. There's a large segment of society that is white and very blond, and there's a largish segment which is not. Along that same line there are all kinds of divisions: economic, education, religious, sets of values, and of access to things and possibilities. What pisses me off is that the cast of "CEOs of successful companies" live in an sphere of privilege where they really are not bothered at all by the brown people. They in fact have plenty of places to go, a vast archipelago, out of reach for anybody who can't afford a boat. Though they get all the benefits, including cheap qualified labor from people who had to leave their homelands displaced by poverty, conflict and war. I'll switch VPN provider too.
One of these days we will elect somebody who is corrupt and morally corrupt, incompetent and poorly educated and who'll promise to screw us over many times and in many positions, and we will let him just do so so that there are concentration camps for the brown people.
What's the relationship between race and immigration status?
It's not entirely clear what the argument which unites them is supposed to be. This unification is always in the mind of the white matry not the person opposing immigration. In the UK polish immigration was opposed, en mass, poles are white.
SUPPOSE there are large numbers of poorly assimilated people in a country, whose culture of origin is very different than that of the host country. What does the minor coincidence of their common lack of european ancestry show, other than to prove the point, they lack such ancestry?
White skin evolved in europe, with the peoples of europe, as with european culture -- that whiteness tracks this culture is a conincidence. (There's less-and-less european diaspora in america -- which, if imported en mass, might also enrange europeans).
The refusal to treat large scale immigration as a cultural and economic phenomneon, to try and insult opponents of this position with a slander of racism -- this tactic doesnt work any more.
All you are doing is driving those people to say, "OK, so its racism. We'll vote for that then." And the result is real racists are elected.
Do you have any analysis of the issues people opposed to large scale immigartion, from non-western cultures, and who would reverse at least some of it -- do you have any arguments that engage the issues they actually raise?
I don't think you understand very much about race theory if you think "I'm prejudiced against poles, but they are white" is any sort of gotcha.
More importantly, you show no signs of actually wanting to understand what people mean when using the term "racism" so there's no point in elaborating further.
So suppose there's a large group of people arriving into your country en mass, you poll them about eg., women's rights and you find that 80%+ of them hold highly regressive views that were rare and fringe in even in the last 100+ years of your own country. Indeed, women would be warned about them even in the antebellum south. Now suppose they're a different colour than the present inhabitants.
Which fact is most salient in your analysis of whether to retain their presence, or admit more?
If its the latter, then I think there's racism in play here, but not of the kind you imagine. Namely, it seems you'd think feminism is only for white people. Or perhaps that human rights are a white things. Others, of course, disagree.
I lived in Stockholm for seven years. One of the biggest mistakes was not buying a boat. They‘re not as expensive as people make you believe; you can get a really nice day cruiser for around $10k, which you can sell again for $9k after a few years. Used boats have very little depreciation. Yes, you can go fancier; a nice weekender like a Nimbus 250 sets you back $60-70k, but that’s just like cars. You can get an Audi or BMW, or you start with a Kia.
The problem with boats isn’t that they’re expensive - the Stockholm archipelago can largely be considered like a lake, not like the sea. It’s education. And I don’t mean university.
I mean: which boat is appropriate? How do I navigate? On which cliffs can I stop, and how? How do I prepare for a nice day out? Which insurance do I choose, which parts need repair and when, what Mai tweets must I do myself vs pay someone, how much should I expect in upkeep costs, etc
These are all very manageable things to learn, but if you’re not used and not exposed to boat culture you won’t do it.
But the problem isn’t money. $10k isn’t free, but it’s less than most used cars, and annual upkeep is less than a car, too.
With all the complaints that I see in Sweden, I see that, just like the parliament, Swedish people also lack accountability, both on the left and the right. I am yet to see an anti-immigration person to have an intellectually honest take on why on earth Sweden has so many Somalians or Syrians. Same goes for left wing: Herregud, how did we end up like this?
[dead]
[flagged]
If you think about what you said for just a second, you'll realize that, even ignoring how off-putting it is, it makes absolutely no logical sense.
Most pro-remigration opinions make no logical sense. They are completely driven by emotions. The person who said it also knows this, since they made a throwaway account.
Why do 'pro-remigration opinions' make no logical sense? They very much do for those people who:
- categorically refuse to assimilate or integrate into the host country's culture
- refuse to learn the language(s) of the host country
- ...which makes these people unemployable other than in government services dealing with other people from their own cultural and linguistic area
- ...which makes them a burden on their host societies
- ...not to mention the group of people who just refuse to accept employment because they get so much welfare from the state and local council that they don't see the need to do so (which goes against the culture of working when you can so that those who really can not work can be supported by those who can and do, the original concept of generous welfare states like Sweden)
When I moved to Sweden I did a few things, on my own accord and at my own cost. I bought a box of second-hand books (dirt cheap at Red Cross shops) including an encyclopedia, I started listening to Swedish radio and I enrolled myself in a Swedish language course at the open university. Within a few months I understood most of what I heard on the radio, I could speak well enough Swedish to not have to switch to English every third sentence and I had finished the box of books including the encyclopedia. I volunteered at the 'vägförening' (private road community, something you get to deal with when living in the countryside where the communal road network has not penetrated), volunteered as a swimming instructor at the local swimming school, help my neighbours fixing their tractors and other agricultural implements while borrowing some of theirs, etc. I still do things differently from the average Swede, e.g. I'm more likely to speak my mind and less wont to avoid conflicts. If I had moved to Canada as I originally planned I'd have done the same (i.e. I'd have learned better French than I currently speak) and I'd have assimilated mostly into that culture while keeping some of my specific cultural traits. Had I moved to, say, Hungary or Finland I'd probably have had a bit more trouble learning the language but that'd only have added a few months to the process. When in Rome, act as the Romans. When in Sweden, act as the Swedes. If you insist on antagonising them by acting very much unlike them, by refusing to learn their language while abusing the overly generous welfare system for years it should not surprise anyone that people start calling your bluff.
[flagged]
Please make an effort to engage with this forum in good faith, instead of posting flame bait.
[dead]
[flagged]