4 ms·

Just to show that 'the left' really means it when they state that it is 'racist' to relate criminality with ethnicity and religion here's a quote from the lates

Just to show that 'the left' really means it when they state that it is 'racist' to relate criminality with ethnicity and religion here's a quote from the latest congress of the Swedish 'Vänster' (communist in all but name) party, published today in the Swedish media [1]: Kritikerna menar att det finns de som vill ha brottsstatistik över etnicitet, det är en helt annan debatt. Det är rasism att koppla ihop brott med etnicitet eller religion. Den debatten är bortspelad för länge sedan, förutom hos vissa moderater som vill värva röster från Sverigedemokraterna, säger Daniel Riazat. This translates to: Critics state there are those who want to collect statistics on ethnicity related to criminality but that is an entirely different debate. ___It is racist to connect crime with ethnicity or religion___. This debate has played out a long time ago apart from some 'Moderates' (neo-liberals) who want to gather votes for the Sweden Democrats (nationalists) says Daniel Riazat. This is a literal quote from a congress which finished today, "It is racist to connect crime with ethnicity or religion". [1] https://www.svd.se/v-vill-samla-in-info-om-etnicitet-och-religion https://www.svd.se/v-vill-samla-in-info-om-etnicitet-och-rel...

pron 9y ago
Again, it is unfortunate that you confuse this with the statements I was talking about. I identify with this assertion, while still maintaining all I said above. It is possible for fact/claim X to not be racist at all in itself, and for the discourse of claim X to be extremely racist. I thought the story about the madman -- due to Kierkegaard -- clarified this point. So, it is very racist to connect crime with ethnicity; the fact that blacks are overrepresented among violent criminals does not, however, do that (indeed, this fact only reflects the racism towards blacks in the US), and is not in itself racist, although bringing it up may well be, depending on context.
- Yetanfou 9y ago
  Again, just to get back to the statement which launched this thread: Studies like this are hard, because they're usually labeled 'racist', or it turns into an ad hominem attack on the authors, or struck down in the media for singling out some minority group. You stated this was not true, upon which many reactions - mine amongst them - came with citations to prove that the original claim was, indeed, true. I presented a few examples to prove this point but you keep on talking around the issue - "studies are labelled racist, authors are attacked verbally" (and sometimes physically, see the actions of Antifa/AFA and several islamist groups). The result of this is yet again shown by a study published by the Swedish defence academy ("Försvarshögskolan") which was recently published. To quote from an article published today on SVT (Sweden's national broadcaster) about the fact that Sweden has become a recruiting ground for islamic terrorism due to the fact that this activity was close to risk-free in this country [1]: Vilken roll kan det ha spelat? – Jag tror att den aktivism som fanns mot både Säkerhetspolisen och de som försökte lyfta allvaret i de här frågorna. Det gjorde att tröskeln blev högre för både politiker och andra att ge sig in i det här området, säger han. – Man riskerade att bli utpekad som rasist på ett sätt som man inte såg i andra europeiska länder. Där var den här frågan lika okontroversiell som vikten av att bekämpa nazism och högerextremism. Men i Sverige tog det lång tid innan det gick att diskutera jihadismen på samma sätt som vi under lång tid diskuterat nazism, säger Hyllengren. Translated: What role can this have played? – I think that the activism against both the security services and those who tried to point out the seriousness of the situation [played a role]. This made that the bar was raised both for politicians and other who would dare to speak out on these subjects, he said. – You ran the risk of being pointed out as racist in a way which was not seen in other European countries. There this question was as uncontroversial as the importance of fighting nazism and right-wing extremism. In Sweden on the other hand it took a long time before it was possible to discuss jihadism in the same way we've been discussing nazism for a long time, says Hyllengren. This is, yet again, a literal quote proving the point of the original statement which launched this thread. While it is possible to discuss the finer details of what and why and how the extreme-left wants to put a racist label on this but no that, the fact stands and the effects it has on society are chilling. Where freedom of expression was once a stalwart talking point for the traditional 'left' the current stance taken by many of those identifying themselves as 'left-wing' is an anathema to this foundation of the enlightened society. [1] https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sverige-16 https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sverige-16
  - pron 9y ago
    > I presented a few examples to prove this point but you keep on talking around the issue No, you most certainly have not. Study A that mentions claim X may be not racist, while study B that claims X may be racist. I said that A is not racist, and your examples of B being labeled racist do not disprove it. My whole point about the unfortunate misunderstanding is that people think that since B is racist (due to context) then X is "unfairly labeled as racist" when, in fact, it is not X which is racist, but B. > This is, yet again, a literal quote proving the point of the original statement which launched this thread. I don't know about the situation in Sweden so I can't comment on it. It's possible that what I said is not the case in Sweden. On the other hand, it is also possible that the person quoted, like you, misunderstands what it is that is labeled racist. I do know that claims like yours about X being labeled racist when it is, in fact, B which is called racist because it is racist, are made in the US as well, despite being generally false. It's like someone complaining about being laughed at while talking about, say, bed bugs, then saying that bed bugs are ridiculed, but neglects to mention that he was wearing a bug-shaped hat while talking about bed-bugs, and it is the delivery that was ridiculed. Context matters.

pron 9y ago

Again, it is unfortunate that you confuse this with the statements I was talking about. I identify with this assertion, while still maintaining all I said above. It is possible for fact/claim X to not be racist at all in itself, and for the discourse of claim X to be extremely racist. I thought the story about the madman -- due to Kierkegaard -- clarified this point. So, it is very racist to connect crime with ethnicity; the fact that blacks are overrepresented among violent criminals does not, however, do that (indeed, this fact only reflects the racism towards blacks in the US), and is not in itself racist, although bringing it up may well be, depending on context.

Yetanfou 9y ago
Again, just to get back to the statement which launched this thread: Studies like this are hard, because they're usually labeled 'racist', or it turns into an ad hominem attack on the authors, or struck down in the media for singling out some minority group. You stated this was not true, upon which many reactions - mine amongst them - came with citations to prove that the original claim was, indeed, true. I presented a few examples to prove this point but you keep on talking around the issue - "studies are labelled racist, authors are attacked verbally" (and sometimes physically, see the actions of Antifa/AFA and several islamist groups). The result of this is yet again shown by a study published by the Swedish defence academy ("Försvarshögskolan") which was recently published. To quote from an article published today on SVT (Sweden's national broadcaster) about the fact that Sweden has become a recruiting ground for islamic terrorism due to the fact that this activity was close to risk-free in this country [1]: Vilken roll kan det ha spelat? – Jag tror att den aktivism som fanns mot både Säkerhetspolisen och de som försökte lyfta allvaret i de här frågorna. Det gjorde att tröskeln blev högre för både politiker och andra att ge sig in i det här området, säger han. – Man riskerade att bli utpekad som rasist på ett sätt som man inte såg i andra europeiska länder. Där var den här frågan lika okontroversiell som vikten av att bekämpa nazism och högerextremism. Men i Sverige tog det lång tid innan det gick att diskutera jihadismen på samma sätt som vi under lång tid diskuterat nazism, säger Hyllengren. Translated: What role can this have played? – I think that the activism against both the security services and those who tried to point out the seriousness of the situation [played a role]. This made that the bar was raised both for politicians and other who would dare to speak out on these subjects, he said. – You ran the risk of being pointed out as racist in a way which was not seen in other European countries. There this question was as uncontroversial as the importance of fighting nazism and right-wing extremism. In Sweden on the other hand it took a long time before it was possible to discuss jihadism in the same way we've been discussing nazism for a long time, says Hyllengren. This is, yet again, a literal quote proving the point of the original statement which launched this thread. While it is possible to discuss the finer details of what and why and how the extreme-left wants to put a racist label on this but no that, the fact stands and the effects it has on society are chilling. Where freedom of expression was once a stalwart talking point for the traditional 'left' the current stance taken by many of those identifying themselves as 'left-wing' is an anathema to this foundation of the enlightened society. [1] https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sverige-16 https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sverige-16
- pron 9y ago
  > I presented a few examples to prove this point but you keep on talking around the issue No, you most certainly have not. Study A that mentions claim X may be not racist, while study B that claims X may be racist. I said that A is not racist, and your examples of B being labeled racist do not disprove it. My whole point about the unfortunate misunderstanding is that people think that since B is racist (due to context) then X is "unfairly labeled as racist" when, in fact, it is not X which is racist, but B. > This is, yet again, a literal quote proving the point of the original statement which launched this thread. I don't know about the situation in Sweden so I can't comment on it. It's possible that what I said is not the case in Sweden. On the other hand, it is also possible that the person quoted, like you, misunderstands what it is that is labeled racist. I do know that claims like yours about X being labeled racist when it is, in fact, B which is called racist because it is racist, are made in the US as well, despite being generally false. It's like someone complaining about being laughed at while talking about, say, bed bugs, then saying that bed bugs are ridiculed, but neglects to mention that he was wearing a bug-shaped hat while talking about bed-bugs, and it is the delivery that was ridiculed. Context matters.