This has been especially common in my home country Sweden,
where these labels were used by the political and media elite to put down the grass roots movement trying to stop mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.
You can be opposed to mass migration from under developed countries without being a xenophobe(fascist or otherwise) , with vastly different cultural norms.
The last 2-3 decades of migration to Sweden has been disastrous and was done against the majority’s will, with gang violence extreme segregation and a diminished social cohesion.
Funny, I remember the days when swedish biker gangs pillaged the cold war era reservist weapon depots to wage their gang wars, using weapons of war. No immigartion was needed back then.
But thanks for confirming that most right wing ideology is simply rooted in peoples incapability to cope with change.
“Strommer said Sweden's sixty shooting deaths this year compared to four in Norway, four in Denmark and two in Finland. The deaths are the tip of an iceberg of violence and organised crime that have put down deep roots in parts of society, Strommer said.
Last year, 45 people were shot dead in Sweden. In 2012, the total was 17, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.”
I cope well with change.
I no longer live in Sweden but I still mourn what happened to my country and what could have been. So much wasted opportunity
Qualified 'yes' - it's more due to recent changes in culture, Sweden has had immigrants for a long time.
Mostly by younger (18 and under) swedes with no prospects thanks to increased economic kettling (segregation) being used by more established swedish criminal gangs as young hitters serve reduced time and are seen as disposable people.
Driven by an increase in black market weapon availability and a criminal culture change away from shooting others in the leg and now shooting to kill.
So, a problem of integration, and not necessarily one of, how did you put it, "mass migration from arab countries and africa".
And those social problems, integration of new citizens and migrants, are much more complex than "stop migration". Because even if you did, what's next? Throwing all those people out that are already there? Also those born there (not just Sweden, in Germany it is the same, not to start with France), or just those without proper passports? Everyone, regardless of passport?
Or, radical idea, just find a way to successfully integrate everyone in society, even if it means the existing society will have to change.
Another radical idea: don’t try to fit a square peg in a round hole.
In which country has importing millions of uneducated people with a diametrically different culture actually worked out?
I have lived in two highly functional multi cultural societies:
Dubai(UAE) for two years, although predominantly muslim people from all over the planet seem to get more or less along.
The Emiratis rule with an iron fist, and that seems to do the trick. You even think about joining a violent gang, you’re sent to some prison dungeon for years before being kicked out.
Although I’m sure the same deal would work out well in Sweden which is in general also an authoritarian nation(although they prentend otherwise), I doubt this is what most proponents of multi culturalism envision.
Now I live in Switzerland, a nation that has three distinct cultures for hundreds of years and seem to integrate foreigners from all over the world very well(though not without problems). The difference between Switzerland and Sweden/Germany/France is the system of direct democracy (where every poor decision can be quickly reverted), in general a bottom up decentralized approach and just as important, you have to QUALIFY YOURSELF to gain residence, and to gain citizenship is difficult(and can be revoked).
Wow, you bring up the UAE as good example? You are aware that they basically enslaving their non-domestic, unskilled workforce? If that is your understanding, or view, on human rights and diversity, well, we can stop here.
Also, all rigjt wing people always bring up Switzerland and direct democracy up. Until, that is, the majority opposses whatever those right wingers want. Good luck in Switzerland so.
Please try not to misinterpret what my views are - I’m not your enemy.
Yes, _Dubai_(not UAE) is a good example of a functioning multi cultural society - bear in mind UAE consists of 7 different Emirates, all very different places, independently governed.
Hardly perfect, but it’s one of the best examples of multi cultural societies I’ve witnessed.
And you hardly have to be a right winger to like Switzerland - and I find it interesting you think direct democracy is a right wing virtue - wasn’t power to the people what the left used to fight for?
And what’s your best example of a multi cultural country?
Well, not one that has actuap slave labour, like Dubai. Among a ton of other human rights violations. Switzerland gets close enough, and my point was the fact in Germany swiss direct democracy is constantly brought up by, e.g., the AfD. Until, that is, a majority actually supports stuff like gay marriage, then all.of a sudden democracy is a lot less interesting.
That you did not see how low skilled labour in Dubai is treated, housed in ghettos, passports withheld and labor contracts sold, is a pitty. And advocating for Dubai style enforcement against "violant gangs", your point, is hardly something that is compatible with western democracy and freedom as written (in spirit it is getting erroded on a daily basis lately).
Germany is another example, e.g. Berlin, despute what media would make you believe.
Switzerland is, like most European countries, a nice place for qualified folks, preferably white. Poor non-whites, well, all.of a sudden things are less rosey. Still better then elsewhere, but place for improvement.
Mass migration from the middle east and africa so is not necessarily an unsolvable problem, Germany took loads of refugees, up to the point it anbaled the AfD and extreme right, but there were hardly any problems with it. Integration is lacking, but that is, as I said, a point for both, newcomers and those already there. If newcomers are basically marginalized, one doesn't have to wonder crime is a result. Or frustration (France shows this with their problems integrating 2-4 th generation people in their banlieues).
And power to the people, I am all for it. One has to be vigilant so that the means of handing power to the people are not abused by populists and extremists, and ultimately abolished. History has examples of how that happens, we should avoid allowing it again.
I believe I understand Dubai a lot better than you do. Have you been there?
I worked closely with the laborers from Bangladesh, Pakistan and India for two years, installing heavy machinery.
In general, they are not badly treated at all. Their living conditions are closer to being in the army. Dubai has done a lot to stamp out bad actors. Taking the passport is now illegal (though it still sometimes happens).
One foreman had saved up 250,000 Dirhams and intended to start and electrical contractor company back home in Pakistan.
People from Western Europe seem to think 99% of these guys are slaves - they are not. They go to Dubai to get some of that sweet oil money.
It if mass migration from the Middle East and Africa is not an unsolvable problem(just really really hard), why bother? What is the advantage?
Further, I don’t agree that there should be any limits what power the people has.
I want 100% direct democracy(naturally with a guiding constitution, that can be changed)
So it's "either you agree with me or you're a bigot".
Calling Swedes hateful is a joke, they are the nicest and most tolerant people you will find. Leaving 0 middle ground and creating a dichotomy of either "on our side or a nazi" is precisely what is causing so much division in western societies.
These words mean nothing anymore, all "racist" means now is just someone who you don't agree with.
Same is happening here in Finland now in full force. It’s scary and fascinating to watch, I hope it gets studied a bit deeper so we know what makes people act like that.
How about "people don't like foreigners and strangers"? Most societies in human history have been that way. Even chimpanzees kill members of other groups by default when they find them alone.
1. Chimps also kill to dominate, is that now an acceptable behavior for people?
We aren't animals.
2. If you don't like foreigners you're a bigot and terrible person.
Hating someone because of where they are from is illogical because not all people from a specific location act and think the same. Therefore your hatred has no specific valid target.
I'm not saying anything about what behavior is "acceptable" or endorsing anything. I'm saying that people and animals have been acting that way for a very long time. Tolerance for strangers is more in need of sociological explanation than the opposite. Certainly, the trend towards tolerance exists and is rising over the course of history, which I very much like. It's about asking what the default state is from which society makes "progress".
Or are you disputing the historical claim that humans on average have never been more tolerant towards strangers than today?
I'm saying that people and animals have been acting that way for a very long time
So?
Just because people have done something for a long time doesn't mean it's right.
Or are you disputing the historical claim that humans on average have never been more tolerant towards strangers than today?
This seems like it is true but what's the evidence for this claim and why are you asking if I dispute it? Where did I say anything about changes in tolerance over time?
Tolerance for strangers is more in need of sociological explanation than the opposite
Why? What if humanity over time grows and learns thanks to our ability to store information, like in books.
More importantly why do we need an explanation and why does it matter?
If you are trying to use the fact that something happened for most of human history then changed recently and that makes it abnormal. Think slavery, rape, woman's right, etc
I'm saying that people and animals have been acting that way for a very long time. Tolerance for strangers is more in need of sociological explanation than the opposite. Certainly, the trend towards tolerance exists and is rising over the course of history, which I very much like. It's about asking what the default state is from which society makes "progress".
You're asking what the default state is? I assume you mean instincts right?
Oh yes... Sweden. Political party initiated by a literal SS soldier, keeps having to kick out members for nazi salutes and similar stuff, but calling them fascists makes you offended...
The same government that wants to revoke citizenships and permanent residence permits. Yup, calling them fascists is an abuse of the word. Hahahaha.
I intentionally didn’t mention the Sweden Democrats.
You were branded a fascist, racist, etc. if you spoke up, no matter your political allegiance.
You’re just making my point for me.
A majority of Swedes have been opposed to this insanity, not just the Sweden Democrats.
Sadly voting for them is the only option for anyone who understands what a disaster this is(unless you do like me, decide to move out).
You seem out of touch with what the government in sweden has been doing so far.
I agree that there are big social problems in Sweden. But I don't see how sending Kurds to die in Turkey; and generally blaming every problem that exist on immigrants while doing nothing to address said problems, will solve anything.
No need for ad hominem attacks - I’ve followed Swedish politics all my life.
I’ve never argued for sending Kurds to turkey, and I’m not blaming Swedens problems on any immigrants - they are completely self made by self centered so called leaders and a gullible populace who has had little exposure to the outside world.
>Since 2020, the ADL had described racism as “the marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges White people.”
It's a powerful word that can be used to shut people down, so it is liberally used to do so, and its definition is changing to suit the policies and objectives of politicians and organizations.
One example: during the pandemic it was considered "racist" to suggest that the virus might have come from a lab, if you don't believe me I can find you a million reddit threads, Twitter threads, and articles saying as much. NOW it is openly talked about by government institutions and those same institutions that were writing articles decrying it as racist.
I fail to see how talking about the definitions of words and their power makes me a fascist. If anything you are the fascist for misusing the power of certain words to stifle discussion and the free exchange of ideas.
They don't claim that the words don't have a meaning. They just changed the meaning so that now they are "offending". And offence is a crime for which you can go to jail. So calling someone a nazi can land you in jail.
This is very out of touch with the current zeitgeist. You have real politicians (not Randoms on the internet) in the US who are hinting that fascism is not bad or may even be the answer.
Additionally, you have elected federal politicians in the US calling people communists.
Can you still use that as saber rattling when your favorite guy is a Putin bootlicker?
God. If my grandparents saw what being a republican would become in thirty short years I don’t know if they’d be able to take it. Reagan republicans would probably shoot the lot of them.
There seems to be no level of hypocrisy to which they will not rise and claim excuses and conspiratorial reasons for. I have heard from those sorts, among other things that "Putin is a great capitalist".
I heard the term 'commie pinko sympathizers' a number of times (not at home, in media and public) as a child and only a couple of them were being ironic.
Both Sweden and Finland joined NATO with the goal of increasing army spending and reducing it on the social programs.
Better to give money to USA to buy one F22 and to complain about darkies being criminals, than to put money to education so that criminality isn't the only route out of poverty right? /s
And of course in Sweden the schools where the residents are poor get less money, aren't as good, and it's much more difficult for their students to be accepted into a university.
What? There's generally an adjustment to the funding for schools in Sweden depending on socio-economic factors, so if anything schools where more residents are poor get more money.
Visceral violent hate of 'heretics' and 'pagans' has less to do with Western civilization and more to do with human nature's propension to identify with a tribe and consider everyone outside the tribe as a threat until proven otherwise.
That propension didn't appear randomly either, it is the result of millenias of hard lessons learned where those outside tribes were indeed threats.
That learned behavior still dictates our actions today, except for some of us, the notion of "tribe" has been enlarged to include a vast number of people, or, for the most idealistic, the entire planet.
> except for some of us, the notion of "tribe" has been enlarged to include a vast number of people
By "some of us", do you mean people of European heritage? China, Russia, Israel, and most of Africa are incredibly xenophobic.
> Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to.
Using a throwaway account to make a needlessly incendiary comment is unproductive. If you're not willing to put your main identity behind a comment, maybe consider if it needs to be rephrased rather than hiding behind a throwaway.
