This was obvious from the start just looking at their refugee numbers and the fact that they didn't have enough experience with immigration.
This whole thing is a bit of a mindfuck for me because I can't find any logical reason for what Sweden has done. I think the government has actually acted out of pure humanity and accepted so many refugees without thinking through any of it and now they're paying the price.
Compare that with Canada who picks and chooses their immigrants and has a 100-year outlook on the future of their demography.
>This whole thing is a bit of a mindfuck for me because I can't find any logical reason for what Sweden has done. I think the government has actually acted out of pure humanity and accepted so many refugees without thinking through any of it and now they're paying the price.
I hope you don't think they're that stupid.
nobody is, they did it and they keep doing it to make more "liberal Muslims", who are just like most Christians today, atheists who don't care really about anything related to the religion itself, they just keep repeating their prayers because they find peace in it, not because they care about God or his commandments or going to heaven.
One could argue from Finnish immigrant population in Sweden that they had experience with immigration. But it was entirely different type of immigration. Skilled trained workers with outside language near same ethnicity and similar cultural background.
It is just that later groups were different. Not that certain ones like Vietnamese haven't integrated well enough without too many issues.
It was Olof Palme, a famously leftist prime minister that facilitated refugee immigration – but Sweden also had much more “aggressive” integration policies. There was more effort put into training to get immigrants into the labor market, housing was less segregated… a lot of that ended and it will continue to get worse as the country turns right wing.
But it’s going to happen with other staples of Swedish society. Give it just a year or two until there’s a “is Swedish welfare unsustainable?” and the answer will be the same: No, the right is just strangling it.
The country is turning right wing because your precious refugees do grenade attacks on a daily basis.
There is a point where the left needs to wake up, smell the coffee and realize that not all people are alike, not all groups are alike.
The idea that you can absorb any culture into any culture is completely absurd on its face, and now we have a proof of that not just in Sweden but in basically any Western country that tried to do the same thing (and in fact non-Western countries too, although in their cases they rarely welcomed mass immigration of people from different cultures on purpose, it's generally more a series of unfortunate incidents of history, because everyone has known for ages that it was generally a bad thing).
You re not just biased, you re angry. Realize that you 're not the first angry religious person. Europe fought religious wars centuries ago and it was devastating. It fought nationalist wars in the past century and was almost leveled to the ground. It's way beyond the point where it s going to be accepting of theocracies and religious fundamentalism and even nationalism. Individual rights and enlightenement values is what people believe in. LGBT rights are used as a shit test for those values, and they are important despite the fact that LGBT are a small minority. If you can live with your religious beliefs but still tolerate them , then congratulations you have become an individual of the modern world. It's not that hard, all it takes is some control of emotions.
Maybe also read up some history of the ottoman empire and the countries that sprung out from it. Some have managed to escape becoming part of the middle east problems, some are regressing like turkey, some never made it to statehood. The world is more complex than simplistic religious stories. People don't hate you ; they have their own convictions shaped by their own history and their own anxieties.
How exactly could Sweden or any other country destroy Islam by having a minute fraction of its population migrate there? What percentage of Islamic people in the world are actively being ‘oppressed’ in countries they voluntarily fled to? The key word here is voluntarily.
What you’re seeing, the watering-down of Islam, also happens to Christianity and all other religions in Western countries. It’s what happens when there’s a bazaar, rather than a monoculture. Your sentiment is correct, if not slightly unhinged. But there is nobody out to get you, no more than everybody is out to get everybody else. It’s not all a big plot.
In my opinion, refugee intake in Sweden has been more about Swedish white guilt (for whatever reason) and thus self-destruction.
>How exactly could Sweden or any other country destroy Islam by having a minute fraction of its population migrate there
By making this minute fraction the elites, the highly educated, the role models and putting them under the spotlight, the same way they abuse children and females misery to shape a perspective that's filled of hate and mistrust of males in the west, then you have sexual fluidity and gays rights, wanna guess what happens next?
That's how selective sympathy and indirect dictatorships work as far as I have seen.
Is Islam democratic? it's not, but it makes far sense to me than the pathetic attempts the west does to make Islam look bad.
why? long story short, Islam doesn't make total sense to me still, but I have yet to see a semi-intelligent argument about why Islam is bad beyond fearmongering people from the punishments or taking verses out of context etc.
if you have any, please do offer them and I am willing to change my mind but as far as I have seen, neither lgbtq+ nor nazism makes any sense to sustain a healthy society, nor does lessening the severity of the punishment for the crimes committed by people who sometimes don't even deserve to live.
>The key word here is voluntarily.
I have noticed one thing, that is a lot of people, in a lot of seemingly different cultures where so into the western culture, and that was the moment when I said to myself: well, that is quite weird now.
and long story short, the western culture is massively imported in the Islamic-majority countries it turns out, and it's idealized and romanticised as sort of the "elites traditions / club", why? because the governments there are merely proxy governments, if you have any better reason for this, I would love to hear it.
>What you’re seeing, the watering-down of Islam, also happens to Christianity and all other religions in Western countries.
Yes, that's the problem.
people won't accept that, not me, not the rest of the Muslims, nobody.
Not even me as an agnostic, just a big flat NO.
I would love to be able to mock the western culture and their base beliefs without being taken to jail or called with derogatory slogans such as "fundamentalist", "terrorist", "extremist" etc.
If you don't respect others' core beliefs and values I can't think of any reason for them to respect yours, do you have any good reason for them to do so?
riots where wrong if they started that wildly out of the blue but I wasn't able to find details about how it evolved into rioting last time I checked.
>In my opinion, refugee intake in Sweden has been more about Swedish white guilt (for whatever reason) and thus self-destruction.
Not really, if anything at all it's the white burden imo, not exactly the white guilt.
and I would be very much concerned more about the Swedish political system than the refugees issue if they just act on their whims and sympathy.
Not sure what's with romanticizing the fact that they accepted a lot of refugees, but I guess well each gotta be biased to his own eventually.
I don't see it as a good thing, I don't really support screaming at / hitting your children whatsoever, but do I think it's proper to take one's children and throw them away with a gay family that will abuse and change them eventually and not even allow their parent to have contact with them? to threaten the children and their family if any of them contact each other? to use these cases to gain money? for the government to ignore these issues for years and then give all that support of police and whatnot for a nazi scum to burn the holy book of some people minding their own business? all because that some people might actually scream at their kids or hit them in a non-harming way or if they teach them to live by their religion? Good God if not the Swedish government is pretty good at radicalizing people then pulling the white angel card.
I wonder if we'll ever get over the hump in human development of assuming "bigotry" as the root cause of everything bad in the world. obviously it exists, but the world is more nuanced than "bigots ruin everything for non-bigots" being the core of every issue. by no means is it a mystery as to how we got here, but still, it's disappointing that we seem to have sort of high-centered on this false idea that unlimited tolerance is the only solution to everything and anything short of it is just plain old-fashioned "bigotry", and we seem to lack the means of getting unstuck. it's pretty hard to be optimistic about this—the "bigotry" narrative is very appealing and easy to take at face value without putting any further thought into the issues at play. everyone wants to be a good person (or at least think of themselves as such).
Bigotry is a piece of jargon meaning “those who hate them”. What else do you call somebody burning a religious book for the sole purpose of generating a response? Would you prefer fascist? Nihilistic performance artist?
There is no sane way to defend these actions, so those offended by what I’m writing must be nuts or participants frustrated on being outed.
And it’s quite disappointing the right wing leaning of at least some of hacker news. As there’s anonymity in up and down grades, they might all be trolls. But there’s a lot of fondness for cash here along with much less interest in helping others with it.
> Bigotry is a piece of jargon meaning “those who hate them”. What else do you call somebody burning a religious book for the sole purpose of generating a response? Would you prefer fascist? Nihilistic performance artist?
Regardless of what you wish to call a random guy who feels compelled to mishandle a religious book, why do you feel this warrants massive riots which extend for days and target society as a whole?
And what reaction do you think these massive riots draws from a whole country regarding the presence of these problematic communities of asylum-seekers-turned-rioters? Do you think a person who grew up embracing the founding principles of a liberal democracy will look at their private and public property being attacked and destroyed and come out thinking that their community benefits from the presence of these newly-arrived rioters?
Watching others burn books you hold sacred is one of the costs of admission to western civilization. Certainly the French have had to watch whole churches burn.
If you're unable to be civilized there are plenty of places where this sort of response is acceptable.
>If you're unable to be civilized there are plenty of places where this sort of response is acceptable.
I think you are misunderstanding what being civilized means.
being civilized or not has literally nothing to have with secularism or religion, you trying to make it equal to atheism is just gaslighting.
and people are going to get out, nobody is fancying your nazi crap under "Freedom of speech".
people have been getting out of france, and soon will be getting out of sweden and to hell with your freedoms.
You can have all the cuckery you want, just keep it inside your borders, and we will die or find a way to live holding to our religion and dignity, and to teach our kids to do so too.
one last thing, Christianity isn't Islam, period.
The Muslims didn't commit war crimes, try to ethnically cleanse people or whatnot.
They lived in peace with other nations and their war ethics are far better than yours. and had peace treaties and were pretty civilized, the only difference was, they were not cucks they would defend their religion and principles and honour and would die for it.
and cuckery != civility
Muslims are commanded to be civilised and well behaved, go to the nearest mosque in your area, make up a reasonable or even unreasonable question about Islam, just to see how people act, do they bark or bite or are they civilised and merely hold their beliefs very dear to their hearts, you have to check for yourself, because who knows, they might actually be savages.
I made no religious requirements for civilization only behavioral.
You can't riot when you perceive insults to you religion or ethnicity and be civilized in the west. It's not tolerated behavior. This is how we manage our multipolar societies with a variety of stakeholders.
This is a feature, just because you don't see or understand the purpose does not mean it serves no purpose.
With out this we could go back to killing catholics for their instance on synergism and semipelagianism instead of sola fide.
> You can't riot when you perceive insults to you religion or ethnicity and be civilized in the west
That...isn't consistent with observed behavior of even the historically dominant religious and ethnic groups in the US, so I guess the US is either non-Western or non-civilized.
> With out this we could go back to killing catholics for their instance on synergism and semipelagianism instead of sola fide.
Many Catholics are very much aware that the disproportionately political powerful evangelical theocrats in the US are aching to do this once they are done playing nice with gullible conservative Catholics to suppress the left, and that it wasn't that long ago that the same faction in the US spent the same energy attacking the Catholic Church as the literal tool of Satan that they now spend on the culture war topic of the day.
Do you have examples of religious or sectarian riots by historically dominant religious groups in the US in the last 50 years?
Also I don't mean to single out catholics, anabaptists and adult baptism may be a better example.
This is why in the modern west there can be no space for this behavior. It's arbitrary and in the eye of the beholder. Even in the US anabaptists have continued to schism, but we don't allow violence against sects that allow buttons on their clothing however prideful or idolatrous they maybe.
>You can't riot when you perceive insults to you religion or ethnicity and be civilized in the west. It's not tolerated behavior. This is how we manage our multipolar societies with a variety of stakeholders.
I am not pro riots if they've been out of the blue like that.
but I don't think any news media have mentioned the details of the escalation and I am not buying into any story the Swedish media / police / government pushes.
>This is a feature, just because you don't see or understand the purpose does not mean it serves no purpose.
I am aware a civil society doesn't work like that, but I would assume the police started the aggressive actions, in such a case I think it's justified.
because that's what people do in a civil society when the police and the government stands against them.
The same way you can get fined or taken to jail if you mock national symbols of some countries like France for example.
the only difference is that the first is done by people and the second is done by the legal system, which is also people, but their actions are absolutely morally justified as being 'lawful'.
I don't condone riots unless they're systematic, don't harm innocents, and are merely done to cost the government for their actions and are a sign of protesting.
That's my personal stand on the subject and I think it's pretty much Islamic as people aren't encouraged to be chaotic or savages in Islam.
If you do wonder: How can we manage these savages? just let them alone in peace, stay respectful ( not even to them just to their religion ) and if you have any reasonable question and by any I mean literally "any" just ask it, nobody is going to attack you or hurt you by any means, quite the opposite, if you are attacked they might come and help to stop it.
What's the secret sauce? you just understand that a holy book is called a holy book for a reason, and the same way you are ready to die for your values, people and nation they are ready to die for their religion.
find that so hard to do, vote to pass a bill for their mass deportation and done.
or sign a petition and show them that the majority refuse them staying in the country and I think people will gladly leave, if they don't, back to the first solution.
then you can do whatever you like in your own country but please don't export your culture by any means, talk about mutual respect or human rights or draw fancy images of the west to these people, respect that end of the deal pretty well, and done. no more savages causing you any troubles.
Happy to hear you consider mass deportation a solution.
No, there is no moral justification in modern western civilization for religious or sectarian violence. We are nations of laws, the moral path is to work in the system to change the law if you feel it's unjust. Again, this is cost of admission to western civilization.
>Happy to hear you consider mass deportation a solution.
Not exactly sure if you're trying to be ironic and consider my comment as fascist of some sort or if you actually agree.
>No, there is no moral justification in modern western civilization for religious or sectarian violence. We are nations of laws, the moral path is to work in the system to change the law
The issue is, you don't have a goddamned chance to change the law if you are a Muslim, unless you're gay or pretty much an ex-Muslim atheist pretending to be a Muslim, otherwise you fall under the "fundamentalist" definition and not a chance in hell you will have ANY important enough political position to be able to change the law.
Sorry, doesn't work like that if you're a Muslim, it only works if you are a woman / gay / black or anything your alternative governments decide to make the norm in the future, but it's definitely not going to be Islam or the Muslims so it's pretty futile to even attempt doing that.
>Again, this is cost of admission to western civilization.
No thanks, people are starting to get aware of this supposed cost and hopefully the majority will leave and the ones who will stay will probably be either the ones who accepted these costs or probably people who are there out of necessity and will shut up or just leave.
I'd vote for mass deportation, cutting ties and also mass deporting anyone who supports the west in any shape or form to the west and closing this deal.
I was agreeing. I think Islam as practiced by many is incompatible with modern western civilization. I think for stability and peace there needs to be seperation, where people can live in a society where there values are reflected.
That said, I'm not pro globohomo and the exportation by the west of degeneracy and sexual perversion needs to be countered. This conflict is not against Swedish police or really even governments, but an unelected cabal that infiltrate and influence civil society through capture of societal institutions.
>I think Islam as practiced by many is incompatible with modern western civilization.
Not sure how you'd define the modern western civilization if you cut off the sexual perversion honestly, I think you have a vision for a christian western civilization? not exactly sure if that would be compatible with "modernity" or "progressiveness" either because as far as I understand if you're not into the sexual perversion and whatnot, you'd fall also under some category of being a hilly billy, a traditionalist or a domestic terrorist. technically as far as I understand, usually the terms modernity / progressiveness are used to describe the people who keep up with the perversions the alternative govts / cabal introduce over time.
but overall speaking about the modern west now or even a christian west answers are going to be the same anyways.
Incompatible with the modern / christian west, yes
Incapable of peacefully co-existing, no
Encourages people to get out and live in the west or any land that isn't ruled by sharia law unless for necessity and a limited time? no I think these three should be distinguished pretty well
>I think for stability and peace there needs to be separation
that's something we can agree on
>where people can live in a society where there values are reflected. That's something your government will never allow not even for you ( probably as a Christian? ) to achieve.
That is also why they infiltrate the Islamic countries with proxy governments and endless social institutions and also with brainwashing media channels.
And it is also why Sweden or the west do allow Muslim immigrants without really checking their ideological attitudes because they want these so called fundamentalists to live in their societies and change and become like them, officially described as "integrate".
I associate the sexual perversion with post-modernism. Many of the christian denominations have been captured by the progressive left or caused a schism. The Methodists are schisming over homosexual issues this year as many Anglican churches have. I'd have to travel some distance to attend a church that holds true to traditional Christian teachings.
Peaceful coexistence in the, good fences make good neighbors, sense; that would be my wish.
‘A good fence helpeth to keepe peace between neighbours; but let vs take heed that we make not a high stone wall, to keepe vs from meeting.’
The US and UK and Germany all say they attempt to screen for ideological attitudes, it appears they've a high failure rate. Part of the problem is that often when told directly they discount what they see and hear when it fails to meet their expectation. This leads to poor outcomes.
I suspect you and I would find many areas of agreement. I'm likely a traditionalist.
This reply was rate limited by HN. I'm on reddit, which I hate for all sorts of reasons, with the same username, also Telegram
> I associate the sexual perversion with post-modernism.
Personally I date it back to the time when the cinema was invented and when they started showing slightly stripped women then the snowball rolled all the way down to pornography, legal prostitution, pop / punk culture and to what we have now as the lgbtq+ / feminism etc.
> Peaceful coexistence in the, good fences make good neighbors, sense; that would be my wish.
exactly, same here.
> The US and UK and Germany all say they attempt to screen for ideological attitudes, it appears they've a high failure rate. Part of the problem is that often when told directly they discount what they see and hear when it fails to meet their expectation. This leads to poor outcomes.
I don't buy this tbh, it's a no brainer to ask for ideological attitudes if you want people to be of the same ideologies as yours in the future.
You can just spend some money on posters and local new media to inform the locals who are trying to immigrate that anyone who rejects the western morals ( including the freedom to insult all religions including Islam ) isn't welcome, and that would split people into ones ready to exchange their religion for access to western societies and all the liberties / freedoms associated, and ones who would rather keep their religion and not immigrate.
making immigration about saving human lives etc, is just delusional if one cannot be left at peace without someone disrespecting his most basic beliefs.
But such statements would actually invalidate all of the human rights crap which they need to keep the illusion of, to still be able to pass their atheism as some sort of endless unconditional love for every human being regardless of any other factors including religion.
putting a hard line would take that privilege of grooming and luring people into atheism off them and would make more homogeneous / stronger societies, which is something they'd never allow to happens as far as I can see. they could have just pulled out their proxy governments and left people alone in their home countries really, but nowadays even in SA you can see night clubs / kpop etc has spread.
If one Islamic nation would form and rule with the sharia ps. Islamic law without the influence of the west you would probably see almost all Muslims moving there - at least I hope - not sure if it would be economically viable etc, but I do hope if such a thing actually exists someday people will be willing to flood it.
> I suspect you and I would find many areas of agreement. I'm likely a traditionalist.
I don't pay very much attention to goings-on in Sweden but just to make sure we have our causality straight here: how far into their mass migration did these book-burnings begin, and how was integration doing before that? (seeing as how you're blaming book-burning—which, without examining things further, I assume to be a political stunt distastefully attempting to make a point/draw attention to the issue—for the integration difficulties.)
I don't think people care when you start disrespecting their religion.
I would love to hear any scientific / fruitful / reasonable discussions about why my religion is invalid if you got any, but mere mockery? I am sure that will end well.
> Disrespect these immigrants. Burn their holy book, call them terrorises when they demonstrate legally. Then talk about “integration failure”.
Can you please provide your best example of how any immigrant was "disrespected"?
Keep in mind you're talking about a nation which welcomed them with open arms when they needed the most, and was extremely generous with it's support.
> Burn their holy book, call them terrorises when they demonstrate legally.
Sweden is a liberal democracy, where freedom of speech is one of its founding principles. Mishandling a religious book does not justify aimless riots, specially if what you're directing your protests at the society which welcomed you.
>Keep in mind you're talking about a nation which welcomed them with open arms when they needed the most, and was extremely generous with it's support.
Not generous when you exchange food and safety for forcing your principles onto people by insulting their own ideology because you disagree, quite the opposite, it's a very filthy action, not even "extremists" or "fundamentalists" would do that, but as you so preach liberalism, you won't see that.
it's clearly stated and known for each Muslim that one shouldn't force people into Islam ( nobody really can force anyone into Islam unless the person is born muslim I think and even that part was a bit controversial idr honestly ), or provoke people and insult them so they won't pull these sorts of action like depicting God or the prophet, and I think these people who try to follow their religion to their best would be considered by yourself and your people as "fundamentalists" or something I guess.
>Sweden is a liberal democracy, where freedom of speech is one of its founding principles. Mishandling a religious book does not justify aimless riots, specially if what you're directing your protests at the society which welcomed you.
They burned it in the one holy month of the muslims, in the areas where muslims aggregate.
it wasn't mishandling, it was permitted by the city hall, they gave him the permit and the police protection.
I am against the riots but I think they should have burned the flag and the constitution where the far right people aggregate and let them start the violence.
the aimless riots were definitely wrong if it was like that but no media seemed to actually report the exact details of how things got escalated.
It’s not fair to flat-out ban refugees (or ban types of refugees such as men): these are, by definition, people escaping unstable authoritarian governments where they aren’t safe and don’t have fundamental human rights.
But that’s it. And refugees take up land and social services, so they should be required to give back (if only because refugee programs simply won’t work otherwise, and countries will try to block or pass on refugees. Exactly what the US/Europe are doing and have been doing the last few years).
I see no issue in:
- Relocating refugees to another developed country (not Libya, not Turkey, maybe Greece)
- Requiring able-bodied refugees to work (in decent conditions, not back-breaking labor, but still in manufacturing or service or IT if they’re capable. Again, because there’s literally no other alternative to pay for these refugees)
- Swiftly deporting refugees when they commit crimes (with a fair trial and evidence beyond considerable doubt, but given these people are being videotaped that should be pretty easy)
- Cracking down on protests like these and making it very clear that refugees can keep their own religion and culture, but can’t enforce it on others, who also can burn books and say whatever they want.
- Tracking and monitoring refugees, at least for a couple years, for the sake of security and to assure people they aren’t terrorists.
Sweden’s approach of just letting in refugees is too liberal. Nationalism and flat-out anti-refugee rhetoric like Trump and Marine Le Pen is too conservative. The bottom line is: give refugees space, essentials, freedom, and refuge, but require them to behave and give back.
> - Relocating refugees to another developed country (not Libya, not Turkey, maybe Greece)
Refugees fleeing the war in Syria – let's agree they had the right to go somewhere safe, and the rest of the world had a duty to provide them with somewhere safe to go – but does a refugee have a right to refuge in a developed country in particular? Especially when the country from which they came wasn't, prior to the start of the war/conflict, generally counted as "developed"?
The idea that refugees from a conflict should primarily be hosted by neighbouring countries, who are likely to have much greater cultural/linguistic similarity, rather than by substantially more distant countries with far less cultural commonality, doesn't seem unreasonable. If a country is developing/middle income, and so are most of its neighbours – you can understand why refugees might greatly prefer to seek refuge in a much richer country much further away, rather than its economically more similar immediate neighbours – but are we obliged to honour that preference?
Given the majority of Syrian refugees were Muslim – why didn't the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation take the lead in resettling them in Muslim-majority countries? Or similarly – given Syria is part of the Arab world, why didn't the Arab League resettle them in other Arab states?
It's not fair to current citizens to import random people from vastly different societies into their lives and ask them to support them.
> - Relocating refugees to another developed country (not Libya, not Turkey, maybe Greece)
Yes of course -- Greece. Why is it necessary to move these people to certain countries. Why not Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Morocco or any number of other countries.
No of course it has to be Sweden, France, England, etc.
> Nationalism and flat-out anti-refugee rhetoric like Trump and Marine Le Pen is too conservative.
Importing endless amounts of refugees is bad for citizens -- the people the government is supposed to work to protect and serve.
This whole thing is a bit of a mindfuck for me because I can't find any logical reason for what Sweden has done. I think the government has actually acted out of pure humanity and accepted so many refugees without thinking through any of it and now they're paying the price.
Compare that with Canada who picks and chooses their immigrants and has a 100-year outlook on the future of their demography.