5 ms·

'No-go areas' - which you might notice I put between quotes in my reply, the Swedish term 'Utsätt område' does not translate that well to English - is a term fo

'No-go areas' - which you might notice I put between quotes in my reply, the Swedish term 'Utsätt område' does not translate that well to English - is a term for areas where community service can not function as intended. If you fall over the literal term 'no-go area' feel free to use another term, the problem remains. The Reddit link (which you can find by searching for the term) leads to a discussion on the linked video, this being a Reddit discussion common sense should be applied when reading. As to whether the 'no-go areas' - or 'problem areas' or 'challenged areas' or any other term - are a problem or not becomes clear when you listen to those who actually have to go there to do their jobs: police, ambulance, fire department, mail, delivery, etc. There is a Wikipedia article on the subject called 'Vulnerable area' [1], this being Wikipedia it is a good idea to also read the 'Talk' page related to the article [2]. Suffice to say that the problem is real, the areas by any other name are in many ways different from the rest of the country and those differences are not experienced as beneficial by most inhabitants. You do not need to take my word on this (or anything else), if you are truly interested in the subject there are many sources to consult. The discussion on rape statistics in Sweden is wide and varied, just have a look at the 'talk' page to the Wikipedia page on 'Rape in Sweden' [3] for some of these discussions. The actual page is less interesting as it does not state anything which has not been brought up yet and is, like the rest of Wikipedia, susceptible to the bias (in whatever direction) of the editor collective ruling over this area. The last BRÅ-report claims rape (as in 'fullbördad våldtäkt') increased by 10% from 2016 to 2017 and states at the same time that it is likely that 80% of rapes (without further specification so it is unclear whether this is 'anything called rape in Sweden' or 'fullbördad våldtäkt') goes unreported. Something is worth mentioning though: both you as well as jahaja keep on mentioning 'anti-immigration tirades' and similar terms. Please read what I wrote and notice I do not mention immigration anywhere, it was jahaja who brought this up and started off from that base. I'm well-used to this phenomenon as it has been the norm in Sweden for the last decade to apply labels like those on anyone who voiced criticism on developments in society but it is unsettling to find this in a forum like HN where I'd expect a more objective approach to prevail. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerable_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerable_area [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vulnerable_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vulnerable_area [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape_in_Sweden

eesmith 8y ago
The English phrase "no-go area" was the term used in the original Swedish conversation, so I don't know what your point is about bringing in a different Swedish term. For example, https://youtu.be/ta5a02MzWjE?t=83 https://youtu.be/ta5a02MzWjE?t=83 says "so called 'no-go zones'", and the following discussion continues to use the English phrase "no-go zones". I agree that there is are problem areas. I pointed to a Snopes page which agreed there is are problem areas. But there aren't areas where the police don't go, which is what "no-go zone" was originally supposed to mean. Once problem is when you jump in and ignore what I said and the evidence in the references I gave, and make statements which the links I already gave refute - and refute directly! It's as if you didn't even look at the links, much less make even a basic attempt at demonstrating the errors in the references I gave. Instead, you use a term with no nuance - a strategy which I only see associated used in the xenophobic press. This makes it very easy to associate your terms with a xenophobic viewpoint. You could easily have used "problem areas" or "challenged areas", and avoided that loaded term. Since you know the topic well, you are surely aware that these are the more nuanced terms for what the xenophobic press calls "no-go zones." Since you did not, it's more plausible to believe you are engaged in a normalization strategy based on a sympathy with xenophobic viewpoints. Such a strategy works better using dog whistles than outright anti-immigration statements. It can include, for example, highlighting the negative aspects of immigration, Islam, etc. when talking about Sweden. That appears to be what you do, based on my reading of your comment history. Your statement regarding "I'd expect a more objective approach to prevail" is an example of your style. Rather than make a specific statement that you think I am biased or (I know you don't like them) a 'social justice warrior', you instead make an appeal to the vanity of other HN readers, implying that since they are objective, they should obviously agree with you, and that I and jahaja are making emotional, subject arguments that should be ignored.
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  Please read what you just wrote and consider the implications of your statements. First: "The English phrase "no-go area" was the term used in the original Swedish conversation, so I don't know what your point is about bringing in a different Swedish term." ...followed by: "Instead, you use a term with no nuance - a strategy which I only see associated used in the xenophobic press." I used a term from the original video, quoted it to indicate it is a general term (as many such terms are, e.g. 'free trade zone' does not imply you do not need to pay, the 'fire brigade' does not start fires nor do they only extinguish them, 'rednecks' can have many colours in their necks and elsewhere, etc). I tried to make clear to an unwilling reader that the term 'no-go zone' is one which is used for an area where public services like police, fire brigade, ambulance, mail and delivery are hindered by threats of violence. I do suspect you know this term is used this way even though, taken literally, it does mean something else. As I suspected you wanted to use this fact to denounce the actual content of the message I explained that in Sweden, for just those reasons, the term 'utsatt område' is used in preference over 'no-go zone' given the loaded meaning of the latter term. Your reply just goes off on another tangent involving "xenophobic press" and "xenophobic viewpoint[s]", a story about "dog whistles", somehow you also mention islam and then conclude that "That appears to be what you do, based on my reading of your comment history". Or it might be that I just pointed out Sweden has problems which need solving before trying to point the finger at that scary big Russian bear or other external factors... Had you been arguing from a right-wing conspiratorial standpoint I would have suggested to take off your tin foil hat.

eesmith 8y ago

The English phrase "no-go area" was the term used in the original Swedish conversation, so I don't know what your point is about bringing in a different Swedish term. For example, https://youtu.be/ta5a02MzWjE?t=83 https://youtu.be/ta5a02MzWjE?t=83 says "so called 'no-go zones'", and the following discussion continues to use the English phrase "no-go zones". I agree that there is are problem areas. I pointed to a Snopes page which agreed there is are problem areas. But there aren't areas where the police don't go, which is what "no-go zone" was originally supposed to mean. Once problem is when you jump in and ignore what I said and the evidence in the references I gave, and make statements which the links I already gave refute - and refute directly! It's as if you didn't even look at the links, much less make even a basic attempt at demonstrating the errors in the references I gave. Instead, you use a term with no nuance - a strategy which I only see associated used in the xenophobic press. This makes it very easy to associate your terms with a xenophobic viewpoint. You could easily have used "problem areas" or "challenged areas", and avoided that loaded term. Since you know the topic well, you are surely aware that these are the more nuanced terms for what the xenophobic press calls "no-go zones." Since you did not, it's more plausible to believe you are engaged in a normalization strategy based on a sympathy with xenophobic viewpoints. Such a strategy works better using dog whistles than outright anti-immigration statements. It can include, for example, highlighting the negative aspects of immigration, Islam, etc. when talking about Sweden. That appears to be what you do, based on my reading of your comment history. Your statement regarding "I'd expect a more objective approach to prevail" is an example of your style. Rather than make a specific statement that you think I am biased or (I know you don't like them) a 'social justice warrior', you instead make an appeal to the vanity of other HN readers, implying that since they are objective, they should obviously agree with you, and that I and jahaja are making emotional, subject arguments that should be ignored.

Yetanfou 8y ago
Please read what you just wrote and consider the implications of your statements. First: "The English phrase "no-go area" was the term used in the original Swedish conversation, so I don't know what your point is about bringing in a different Swedish term." ...followed by: "Instead, you use a term with no nuance - a strategy which I only see associated used in the xenophobic press." I used a term from the original video, quoted it to indicate it is a general term (as many such terms are, e.g. 'free trade zone' does not imply you do not need to pay, the 'fire brigade' does not start fires nor do they only extinguish them, 'rednecks' can have many colours in their necks and elsewhere, etc). I tried to make clear to an unwilling reader that the term 'no-go zone' is one which is used for an area where public services like police, fire brigade, ambulance, mail and delivery are hindered by threats of violence. I do suspect you know this term is used this way even though, taken literally, it does mean something else. As I suspected you wanted to use this fact to denounce the actual content of the message I explained that in Sweden, for just those reasons, the term 'utsatt område' is used in preference over 'no-go zone' given the loaded meaning of the latter term. Your reply just goes off on another tangent involving "xenophobic press" and "xenophobic viewpoint[s]", a story about "dog whistles", somehow you also mention islam and then conclude that "That appears to be what you do, based on my reading of your comment history". Or it might be that I just pointed out Sweden has problems which need solving before trying to point the finger at that scary big Russian bear or other external factors... Had you been arguing from a right-wing conspiratorial standpoint I would have suggested to take off your tin foil hat.