7 ms·

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 ther

by dsign 3mo ago

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.

hottakeoftoday 3mo ago
[flagged]
- InsideOutSanta 3mo ago
  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.
  - microgpt 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - hagbard_c 3mo ago
      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.
      - peterfirefly 3mo ago
        > 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. Probably a lot more than just a few months. You underestimate how similar Indo-European languages are to each other -- and that you already have a background in English and French. Maybe a year or two. I don't doubt you would have learned Hungarian/Finnish but it would not have been as easy as you seem to think. In the mid 2000's, before the Big Crash, we suddenly had lots of work immigrants from Africa in Denmark. They were such a breath of fresh air in comparison to our Somalis. They actually spoke English before they came, they behaved civilized, and a lot of them managed to learn some Danish -- on their own, similarly to what you did with Swedish but without the Open University enrollment, so they did it even more on their own than you did. That's what proper immigrants do, even if they are only here temporarily.
        hagbard_c 3mo ago
        > Probably a lot more than just a few months Maybe, haven't tried so it is hard to say. I do have a background in Greek and Latin as well but I suspect those won't be of much help either nor does the fact that I speak Dutch, German, English, Swedish and French and know some rudimentary Russian get me anywhere. Spelling and grammar in both Finnish as well as Hungarian seem to be quite regular so it would come down to learning a new dictionary, a bunch of suffixes and the rules when to use which. The dictionary would probably be the hardest since it won't be related to anything I know.
        peterfirefly 3mo ago
        Spelling won't be a problem with either language, pronunciation will (likely) not be an issue with Finnish (depends on how well you handle phonemic vowel length). Vocabulary will be tough. There are surprisingly many Germanic loanwords in Finnish, both new and very(!) old, but most of them are not obvious until you've studied the language for some time. Grammar will also be tough. It's not just "a bunch of suffixes". Some people can communicate really well without being good at the language they are using. I bet you are one of them!
    - ihsw 3mo ago
      They make perfect sense, here is a short explanation: the origin country of said immigrants was unpleasant specifically because of the people there (eg: rapes, murders, criminality, etc), and if you import the people from there then your country will similarly become unpleasant (eg: more rapes, more murders, more criminality, etc.) The civilizing process occurred in Sweden with Swedish people and it has been observed that a similar civilizing process is not occurring in the same country (Sweden) with different people (MENA immigrants) even over N number of generations. Ergo: to make Sweden more pleasant, uncivilized immigrants must leave by crook or hook.
mjburgess 3mo ago
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?
- SiempreViernes 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mjburgess 3mo ago
    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.
TheSmoke 3mo ago
[flagged]
- microgpt 3mo ago
  If it's a nice country, you should expect people to want to go there.
  - Herring 3mo ago
    Yeah. This discussion is hilarious. Some people just can’t wrap their heads around generosity. “Why don’t you just let them die in the wars?”
    - ihsw 3mo ago
      It is preferable for me that you provide your own home for them to live in instead of the community's. It is preferable for me that you provide your own money for them to live on instead of the community's. Your small and personal crusade is not mine and there is a majority of voters that share this sentiment.
      - TheSmoke 3mo ago
        I do not have a horse in this race. I am the exact opposite of what you have in mind. I simply suggest that instead of being hypocrites or cry babies, you guys maybe choose not sponsor a civil war that ends up displacing millions of people. If you take one step into it someone is going to pull the other leg which is what happened. I do not think it's bad or evil that people want to protect what they have or protect even the idea of what they used to have. It's just that you need to have some level of intellectual honesty. That's hard, as you can see from your reaction.
GardenLetter27 3mo ago
[flagged]
- solid_fuel 3mo ago
  Please make an effort to engage with this forum in good faith, instead of posting flame bait.
  - redsocksfan45 3mo ago
    [dead]
- w4yai 3mo ago
  [flagged]
fleroviumna 3mo ago
[dead]
earthnail 3mo ago
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.
- kruxigt 3mo ago
  [dead]
- jamesblonde 3mo ago
  It took me 5 years to get the boat - a 22ft daycruiser with toilet. That was 15 years ago, haven't looked back. Got a daycruiser from the UK. Drove there, bought a trailer there, drove it home. Arbitrage during the financial crisis - half the price of the same boat in Sweden at the time.
rwyinuse 3mo ago
Sweden wasn't like USA until politicians decided to make Sweden a "humanitarian superpower" by establishing the most liberal refugee policy in the world, without thinking of how they can actually integrate and offer a better future for all those refugees. I guess the real motivation may have been getting cheap labor, rest of the society be damned. In any case, Sweden's policies on humanitarian migration have been an utter failure, and I can't really blame Swedes for wanting to make it stricter. Obviously refugees are not the ones to be blamed here, but politicians who took in more than they could successfully integrate.
bjelkeman-again 3mo ago
> a vast archipelago, out of reach for anybody who can't afford a boat No. That is just false. There is a very well developed ferry/commuter boat network. [1] The cost on some lines are included in the Stockholm public transport pass. A five day ticket is €12/day. No need to buy a boat. [1] https://images.ctfassets.net/4l7cjdaypzcu/UrqsczDUUVXP3wS6rUTqF/ac7bc1c231f6cf541b84d72e855eaabf/611f79c0-77f0-4597-b9ec-a4f6fec45f58.png https://images.ctfassets.net/4l7cjdaypzcu/UrqsczDUUVXP3wS6rU...
optionalsquid 3mo ago
> 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. Do you have a source for that? I tried searching, but didn't find anything supporting this notion. I can find numerous sources pointing to the high prevalence of blonde hair in Sweden and other Nordic counties, but the US rarely even makes an appearance in those rankings. If anything, it seems like a point of difference rather than a similarity
throwawaypath 3mo ago
>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. There are no similarities at play here. Swedes are the native, indigenous people to Sweden. "White people" in the US are not native nor indigenous to the US.
- josh2600 3mo ago
  Only if you pretend the Sami's don't exist, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1mi_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1mi_people
  - throwawaypath 3mo ago
    The existence of the Sami does not falsify the following fact: Swedes are the native, indigenous people to Sweden.
    - fc417fc802 3mo ago
      Your confident claim here piqued my curiosity. It seems there's at least some amount of controversy about it. At least in finland it has been suggested that the sami may have been pushed north by colonization around the 14th century. In any case your statement clearly doesn't hold for the northern part of sweden.
      - throwawaypath 3mo ago
        "Some amount of controversy" does not falsify the following fact: Swedes are the native, indigenous people to Sweden.
        fc417fc802 3mo ago
        "Some amount of controversy" means that your confident portrayal is a form of intellectual dishonesty. Not everyone would agree with your statement as written.

by dsign 3mo ago

hottakeoftoday 3mo ago

[flagged]

InsideOutSanta 3mo ago
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.
- microgpt 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - hagbard_c 3mo ago
    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.
    - peterfirefly 3mo ago
      > 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. Probably a lot more than just a few months. You underestimate how similar Indo-European languages are to each other -- and that you already have a background in English and French. Maybe a year or two. I don't doubt you would have learned Hungarian/Finnish but it would not have been as easy as you seem to think. In the mid 2000's, before the Big Crash, we suddenly had lots of work immigrants from Africa in Denmark. They were such a breath of fresh air in comparison to our Somalis. They actually spoke English before they came, they behaved civilized, and a lot of them managed to learn some Danish -- on their own, similarly to what you did with Swedish but without the Open University enrollment, so they did it even more on their own than you did. That's what proper immigrants do, even if they are only here temporarily.
      - hagbard_c 3mo ago
        > Probably a lot more than just a few months Maybe, haven't tried so it is hard to say. I do have a background in Greek and Latin as well but I suspect those won't be of much help either nor does the fact that I speak Dutch, German, English, Swedish and French and know some rudimentary Russian get me anywhere. Spelling and grammar in both Finnish as well as Hungarian seem to be quite regular so it would come down to learning a new dictionary, a bunch of suffixes and the rules when to use which. The dictionary would probably be the hardest since it won't be related to anything I know.
        peterfirefly 3mo ago
        Spelling won't be a problem with either language, pronunciation will (likely) not be an issue with Finnish (depends on how well you handle phonemic vowel length). Vocabulary will be tough. There are surprisingly many Germanic loanwords in Finnish, both new and very(!) old, but most of them are not obvious until you've studied the language for some time. Grammar will also be tough. It's not just "a bunch of suffixes". Some people can communicate really well without being good at the language they are using. I bet you are one of them!
  - ihsw 3mo ago
    They make perfect sense, here is a short explanation: the origin country of said immigrants was unpleasant specifically because of the people there (eg: rapes, murders, criminality, etc), and if you import the people from there then your country will similarly become unpleasant (eg: more rapes, more murders, more criminality, etc.) The civilizing process occurred in Sweden with Swedish people and it has been observed that a similar civilizing process is not occurring in the same country (Sweden) with different people (MENA immigrants) even over N number of generations. Ergo: to make Sweden more pleasant, uncivilized immigrants must leave by crook or hook.

mjburgess 3mo ago

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?

SiempreViernes 3mo ago
[flagged]
- mjburgess 3mo ago
  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.

TheSmoke 3mo ago

[flagged]

microgpt 3mo ago
If it's a nice country, you should expect people to want to go there.
- Herring 3mo ago
  Yeah. This discussion is hilarious. Some people just can’t wrap their heads around generosity. “Why don’t you just let them die in the wars?”
  - ihsw 3mo ago
    It is preferable for me that you provide your own home for them to live in instead of the community's. It is preferable for me that you provide your own money for them to live on instead of the community's. Your small and personal crusade is not mine and there is a majority of voters that share this sentiment.
    - TheSmoke 3mo ago
      I do not have a horse in this race. I am the exact opposite of what you have in mind. I simply suggest that instead of being hypocrites or cry babies, you guys maybe choose not sponsor a civil war that ends up displacing millions of people. If you take one step into it someone is going to pull the other leg which is what happened. I do not think it's bad or evil that people want to protect what they have or protect even the idea of what they used to have. It's just that you need to have some level of intellectual honesty. That's hard, as you can see from your reaction.

GardenLetter27 3mo ago

[flagged]

solid_fuel 3mo ago
Please make an effort to engage with this forum in good faith, instead of posting flame bait.
- redsocksfan45 3mo ago
  [dead]
w4yai 3mo ago
[flagged]

fleroviumna 3mo ago

[dead]

earthnail 3mo ago

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.

kruxigt 3mo ago
[dead]
jamesblonde 3mo ago
It took me 5 years to get the boat - a 22ft daycruiser with toilet. That was 15 years ago, haven't looked back. Got a daycruiser from the UK. Drove there, bought a trailer there, drove it home. Arbitrage during the financial crisis - half the price of the same boat in Sweden at the time.

rwyinuse 3mo ago

Sweden wasn't like USA until politicians decided to make Sweden a "humanitarian superpower" by establishing the most liberal refugee policy in the world, without thinking of how they can actually integrate and offer a better future for all those refugees. I guess the real motivation may have been getting cheap labor, rest of the society be damned. In any case, Sweden's policies on humanitarian migration have been an utter failure, and I can't really blame Swedes for wanting to make it stricter. Obviously refugees are not the ones to be blamed here, but politicians who took in more than they could successfully integrate.

bjelkeman-again 3mo ago

> a vast archipelago, out of reach for anybody who can't afford a boat No. That is just false. There is a very well developed ferry/commuter boat network. [1] The cost on some lines are included in the Stockholm public transport pass. A five day ticket is €12/day. No need to buy a boat. [1] https://images.ctfassets.net/4l7cjdaypzcu/UrqsczDUUVXP3wS6rUTqF/ac7bc1c231f6cf541b84d72e855eaabf/611f79c0-77f0-4597-b9ec-a4f6fec45f58.png https://images.ctfassets.net/4l7cjdaypzcu/UrqsczDUUVXP3wS6rU...

optionalsquid 3mo ago

> 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. Do you have a source for that? I tried searching, but didn't find anything supporting this notion. I can find numerous sources pointing to the high prevalence of blonde hair in Sweden and other Nordic counties, but the US rarely even makes an appearance in those rankings. If anything, it seems like a point of difference rather than a similarity

throwawaypath 3mo ago

>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. There are no similarities at play here. Swedes are the native, indigenous people to Sweden. "White people" in the US are not native nor indigenous to the US.

josh2600 3mo ago
Only if you pretend the Sami's don't exist, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1mi_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1mi_people
- throwawaypath 3mo ago
  The existence of the Sami does not falsify the following fact: Swedes are the native, indigenous people to Sweden.
  - fc417fc802 3mo ago
    Your confident claim here piqued my curiosity. It seems there's at least some amount of controversy about it. At least in finland it has been suggested that the sami may have been pushed north by colonization around the 14th century. In any case your statement clearly doesn't hold for the northern part of sweden.
    - throwawaypath 3mo ago
      "Some amount of controversy" does not falsify the following fact: Swedes are the native, indigenous people to Sweden.
      - fc417fc802 3mo ago
        "Some amount of controversy" means that your confident portrayal is a form of intellectual dishonesty. Not everyone would agree with your statement as written.