5 ms·

Most people know exactly what kind of people are talking about a taboo, censorship etc while it's not nearly true - and even if one would say it exists, it woul

by jahaja 8y ago

Most people know exactly what kind of people are talking about a taboo, censorship etc while it's not nearly true - and even if one would say it exists, it would be well distributed. Unfortunately it consistently seem to be an exercise in futility to try to get through to people like yourself. That's why it's extra frustrating when the derailing begins. "proof in several areas in Sweden" This is so obviously alternative anti-immigration media - and that's being nice - rhetoric, as most of your posts reeks of. There is no nuance like: "The police has identified certain areas where segregation and economic hardship have made these areas extra vulnerable to furthering their hardship to crime, gang formation etc. and thus needs a multi-agency approach to stop this happening". In your alt-media view this is turned into a cocksure "proof of no-go zones" and more falsehoods (I've read your comments you know).

Yetanfou 8y ago
You sure do like to place all sorts of stamps on people, don't you? 'alt-media', 'anti-immigration', 'cocksure ....', 'I know that the Netherlands have a lot of people like yourself'? You do realise that this is not a way to engender civilised discussion I assume, you may also notice that I have not lowered myself to that level. Also, I tend to provide links which stave the things I discuss. You do not, instead you just claim that said things are not true - we just have to take your word for it as there is nothing else to follow. In this you do fit in quite well in that segment of the political discourse in Sweden which is often accused of 'fact-resistance', things are the way you state them to be no matter what they seem to be. Come down from that ivory tower and discuss on equal terms, stave your claims with proof other than a raised voice and a collection of epithets and maybe people will actually listen instead of wearily nod their heads.
- jahaja 8y ago
  You are stating the extra-ordinary claims, not me.
- eesmith 8y ago
  "I tend to provide links which [state] the things I discuss" As an example of the anti-immigration rhetoric you use, I point to my reply at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17123963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17123963 which highlighted out the information you linked to didn't actually say what you thought it did. What was particularly annoying was that your reply linked to a BRÅ report which is often cited in the xenophobic English press as indicating an increase in the number of rapes, when I had already linked to a Snopes article pointing out how those exact same BRÅ statistics weren't about rapes but about the broader range of sexual crimes, and how they could not be used to infer a spike in rape reports caused by the recent refugee crises. What's the point of stating "claims with proof other than a raised voice" if you don't bother to consider them before re-stating claims which have long since been dismissed as unfounded?

by jahaja 8y ago

Yetanfou 8y ago

You sure do like to place all sorts of stamps on people, don't you? 'alt-media', 'anti-immigration', 'cocksure ....', 'I know that the Netherlands have a lot of people like yourself'? You do realise that this is not a way to engender civilised discussion I assume, you may also notice that I have not lowered myself to that level. Also, I tend to provide links which stave the things I discuss. You do not, instead you just claim that said things are not true - we just have to take your word for it as there is nothing else to follow. In this you do fit in quite well in that segment of the political discourse in Sweden which is often accused of 'fact-resistance', things are the way you state them to be no matter what they seem to be. Come down from that ivory tower and discuss on equal terms, stave your claims with proof other than a raised voice and a collection of epithets and maybe people will actually listen instead of wearily nod their heads.

jahaja 8y ago
You are stating the extra-ordinary claims, not me.
eesmith 8y ago
"I tend to provide links which [state] the things I discuss" As an example of the anti-immigration rhetoric you use, I point to my reply at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17123963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17123963 which highlighted out the information you linked to didn't actually say what you thought it did. What was particularly annoying was that your reply linked to a BRÅ report which is often cited in the xenophobic English press as indicating an increase in the number of rapes, when I had already linked to a Snopes article pointing out how those exact same BRÅ statistics weren't about rapes but about the broader range of sexual crimes, and how they could not be used to infer a spike in rape reports caused by the recent refugee crises. What's the point of stating "claims with proof other than a raised voice" if you don't bother to consider them before re-stating claims which have long since been dismissed as unfounded?