Sweden Riots

malinheader

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

You are now inventing fictitious details and applying them to her situation.
Other posters have said "but what about riots, what about no go areas", how does that apply to her?
What about an Irish person being interviewed and people said " But! But! IRA!"
Same thing.

YOU are the one being disingenuous here. My standpoint is, and always will be, it's a fcuking handshake, untwist your knickers everyone.
You had earlier said what if religion wasn't involved.
Well, then YOU wouldn't be posting here, because clearly to you this is just an excuse to bash members of a certain religion.
And you certainly wouldn't come out and say that. You have an agenda, I don't.
I have been nothing but straightforward. And you can't handle that.
Unlike you, I write what I believe in.

If we in Europe now want to persecute people over a bloody fcuking handshake, we are no better than some of the countries some of us like to sneer at.
AH has certainly become an anti Muslim **** fest sometimes. Some people should put stop waving their dick about and start thinking critically.

Totally agree with you. It's only a fcuking hand shake so she should of just obliged and shook his hand. Nice wee bonus she got though.

dr.fuzzenstein

Corb_lund wrote: »

How is it persecuting someone to expect them to confirm to a certain way or life? I wouldn't go to Germany and demand that they change a quirk of their culture, and I really really don't think its unreasonable to shake someone's hand.

If we're going to pussy foot over something so small, then there's A LOT more things coming down the path our way.

At some point there has to be a red line as resentment and confusion will rein.

(P.s why not look at it from her side, is it reasonable not to shake the hand of someone offering me a job??)

Well, we're back to "it's only a fcuking handshake".
Would you refuse to hire someone because they would refuse to wear a hat?
In the UK you would have to as Sikhs have the right to wear a turban.

malinheader

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, we're back to "it's only a fcuking handshake".
Would you refuse to hire someone because they would refuse to wear a hat?
In the UK you would have to as Sikhs have the right to wear a turban.

We don't want to end up like the UK.thats my point.
Anyhow if she had of got the job what was next. Any crucifixs or religious objects removed. At Christmas everything must read happy holidays.All work parties must be hal al. Etc er.when in Rome.

SnakePlissken

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

it's a fcuking handshake, untwist your knickers.

You'd obviously convey this same sentiment to a lady who dare not shake your hand when offered as a friendly greeting, then subsequently bring you to court for discrimination, or are you oblivious to your hypocrisy.

It's only a fcuking handshake, when in Sweden, as a handshake is customary, just shake the man's hand, if in your head, or the heads of your male relatives, this now somehow makes you unclean and less of a Muslim, I got news for you; you're the problem, not the poor bastard who extended his hand.

RandomName2

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

You are now inventing fictitious details and applying them to her situation.

These things don't happen in interviews?

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

YOU are the one being disingenuous here. My standpoint is, and always will be, it's a fcuking handshake, untwist your knickers everyone.
You had earlier said what if religion wasn't involved.
Well, then YOU wouldn't be posting here, because clearly to you this is just an excuse to bash members of a certain religion.

I am willing to bash members of any religion. I have no truck with organised religion. People should be perfectly free to believe whatever they like, but they should keep that belief to themselves, and to similarly disposed people.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Unlike you, I write what I believe in.

But you don't seem to know what a job interview is.

Tip number 4 will shock you.
https://theundercoverrecruiter.com/5-essential-interview-techniques-you-should-know/

Also your faux outrage amuses me.

RandomName2

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, we're back to "it's only a fcuking handshake".
Would you refuse to hire someone because they would refuse to wear a hat?
In the UK you would have to as Sikhs have the right to wear a turban.

You are now inventing fictitious details and applying them to her situation. :pac:

Sorry, but you make it so easy.

RandomName2

end of the road wrote: »

the interviewer shouldn't be entitled to not offer her the job for this reason, as it could potentially be a way to not offer her the job because of her religion if it was allowed.

He probably was in no doubt about her religion already, due to her name, and almost certainly she was wearing a headscarf. If he didn't want to hire her because of her religion her needn't have offered her an interview at all.

His reaction was one of affront. Employers in future will know to keep their indignation to themselves, kindly accept her belief of sexual segregation outside marriage, and then offer the job to someone else, with no indication that it had anything to do with her valuing her beliefs over those of her host country and potential employer.

Also, I mean if a handshake is beyond her I would imagine that there would be issues with other things. She may refuse to use gender-neutral bathrooms, to work with a transgender woman, or engage in social activities if alcohol is involved.

batgoat

RandomName2 wrote: »

He probably was in no doubt about her religion already, due to her name, and almost certainly she was wearing a headscarf. If he didn't want to hire her because of her religion her needn't have offered her an interview at all.

His reaction was one of affront. Employers in future will know to keep their indignation to themselves, kindly accept her belief of sexual segregation outside marriage, and then offer the job to someone else, with no indication that it had anything to do with her valuing her beliefs over those of her host country and potential employer.

Also, I mean if a handshake is beyond her I would imagine that there would be issues with other things. She may refuse to use gender-neutral bathrooms, to work with a transgender woman, or engage in social activities if alcohol is involved.

Since unisex toilets have existed for decades Eg standard in likes of France, you should be able to show cases of this. Tonnes of people might choose not to go to events if there is alcohol involved, particularly if that's the sole focus... So not unique to a Muslim.

dr.fuzzenstein

RandomName2 wrote: »

These things don't happen in interviews?

I don't know, you brought up something about unwashed and underwear?

I am willing to bash members of any religion. I have no truck with organised religion. People should be perfectly free to believe whatever they like, but they should keep that belief to themselves, and to similarly disposed people.

Do you also make fun of them in person, or just spouting off on internet forums?

But you don't seem to know what a job interview is.

Tip number 4 will shock you.
https://theundercoverrecruiter.com/5-essential-interview-techniques-you-should-know/

Also your faux outrage amuses me.

I even know what a tracker mortgage is.
As for fake outrage, well, you seem to enjoy our little back and forths, would hate to disappoint you.
#itsonlyafcukinghandshake

RandomName2

batgoat wrote: »

Since unisex toilets have existed for decades Eg standard in likes of France, you should be able to show cases of this. Tonnes of people might choose not to go to events if there is alcohol involved, particularly if that's the sole focus... So not unique to a Muslim.

This is true (though handshakes have been around a bit longer than unisex toilets), but essentially all bets are off when such a minor thing (a handshake) couldn't be engaged in in so important a situation (an interview). Not only will that person's religion, but that person's particular adherence to that religion, will take precedence over the job, at any given point.

The fact that I wouldn't hire an Amish person for a job doesn't mean I'm anti-Christian.

RandomName2

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I don't know, you brought up something about unwashed and underwear?


Do you also make fun of them in person, or just spouting off on internet forums?


I even know what a tracker mortgage is.
As for fake outrage, well, you seem to enjoy our little back and forths, would hate to disappoint you.
#itsonlyafcukinghandshake

I'm afraid I am disappointed. You've ignored the points and conceded the argument.

dr.fuzzenstein

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm afraid I am disappointed. You've ignored the points and conceded the argument.

I'm sorry, you're the one who has conceded that you're on a wind up.

Timberrrrrrrr

Bootlegger wrote: »

Do I move to Japan and refuse to bow? No because it's their culture and it's up to me to respect it if I want to live there.

If I offer you my hand and you refuse to shake it then you have insulted me. If you are a fresh off the boat Muslim and you don't understand the culture, fine, but after awhile you need to start integrating.

Amazing how liberals, who preach gender equality and secularism, fold instantly when it comes to Islam.

You're easily insulted so.

malinheader

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You're easily insulted so.

Apparently not as easy insulted as she was.

dr.fuzzenstein

malinheader wrote: »

Apparently not as easy insulted as she was.

40000 Kroner say she was right.

Timberrrrrrrr

malinheader wrote: »

Apparently not as easy insulted as she was.

He said if someone refused to shake your hand you would be insulted, thats a very petty reason to be insulted. Maybe I just have thicker skin than him.

malinheader

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

40000 Kroner say she was right.

Yeah. We all know how that works.

blinding

We expect to shake hands with people .

We expect to see people faces .

Why is our Culture not being respected .

Perhaps people should be told of our social norms before they come here and then if they are not happy with this perhaps they should choose an alternative where they will be happier to fit in .

Greentopia

tuxy wrote: »

What happened here?(starting 4:11 where they had called the police after their camera man was run over by a migrant)

The police were worried about going into an area because their presence would be provocative.
All members of the crew filming ended up getting assaulted.


Do you know anything about that area? Was the story somehow fabricated by the film crew?

Ok well a camera crew rocking up to Rinkeby and filming the locals is not going to be welcomed by some of them and the producers would have known that before going there if they talked to anyone in Sweden. Imagine if RTE went into Southhill in Limerick (which btw looks far FAR worse than Rinkeby and has far higher rates of murder, car burning, joy riding, poverty and general social deprivation and decay and the inhabitants are all or mostly native Irish) and started filming some of the locals. How do you think that would go down?

Yes the police didn't want to go in with a film crew because it would be seen as provocative, is that surprising given the information you learned about the area? you saw there was police there anyway so obviously they have no issues with being there, they just didn't want to be seen with camera crews.

Of course it's not right and there is no excuse for assaults and hostility to anyone, but this area has long been the subject of political discussion in Sweden and has gotten a bad reputation because of the social problems that beset it. The locals are sensitive to this and some will take issue with camera crews that are obviously there to report yet again only the bad things that go on there.

I've never been to Rinkeby by it looks similar to most other suburbs in Sweden with very high immigrant populations. I believe it's one of the million programme areas -a very ambitious building programme undertaken by the Soc Dems in the in the 1960's and 70s where property taxes from a thriving post war economy funded the building of over 1 million apartments and houses in suburban areas to house blue collar workers and students, not originally immigrants-they came later.
They were no Ballymuns- they had a good range of services and amenities-hospitals, play areas, shops, schools, creches etc and were built to a high standard and had a mix of tenants. They look a bit uniform in uninspiring in design but have survived pretty well to today.

Irish Government should take note-this is how you build on a large scale for social housing.

The problems started when white Swedes moved out of these million programme working class areas like Rinkeby and joined the middle classes in the cities. Large scale immigration began to service a growing economy (similar to what happened in Germany) and the powers that be decided to put all these new arrivals into these areas. The economy stagnated, many lost their jobs and the areas turned into ghettos where second and third generations have grown up with high unemployment, lack of opportunities and social marginalisation.

Most of the problems-the looting, burning cars in these areas are actually not done by newly arrived immigrants, they are the second generation of immigrants born in Sweden who feel locked out of the prosperity that white Swedes enjoy.

As to your last question, no I don't think there was a fabrication but the film crew called Rinkeby a no-go area, and as I have shown that is actually not the case. They seemed to go there to get their prejudices confirmed, not with an open mind. They asked the opinion of a Swedish guy that is known to have a far right agenda against immigrants so hardly balanced reporting. I think it was a cynical exercise, they wanted to provoke a reaction there and they got what they wanted.

Why didn't they meet with some local representative in a less public area and ask their opinions of what's going on there and what is being done to address the problems? no, that wouldn't make headline news and be good for their ratings. I'd like to see the rest of the programme- any links to that?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

why shouldn't they?

The problem with equality is that when two opposing cultures meet, either one must submit to the other (which makes a mockery of equality), or, there is conflict, as happened in this case.

jmreire wrote: »

When in Muslim company, be it in their own Country, or your's, when greeting a Muslim woman, you wait for her to offer her hand first. If she doesn't, then don't offer her your's. Some of them will shake hands with you, and some will not. But thats the way it works.

So, basically, you're saying we have to change our method of greeting, to accomodate people visiting our Country.


Not only that, but we have to learn their customs, and adhere to them, because they wont adhere to ours.


Where's the equality in that?


Do you see predominantly Muslim Countries adapting their way of life to accomodate Western visitors? No?
So, where does equality fit in, then?


The next issue is Womens equality. How do we manage to ensure women are treated equally, where their religious beliefs ensure they are not treated equally?


The whole thing is a minefield, and will eventually prove to be unworkable, I'm afraid.

Greentopia

Kivaro wrote: »

So here's the deal with Sweden.
Since 2015, 18% of the current population was born outside the country. They have accepted 600,000 "refugees" in the last 5 years. This is unsustainable and there is now push back. Many in the country now believe that such immigration numbers is a danger to their welfare state e.g. Swedes have to wait longer to get access to welfare staples like hospital care.

The Social Democrats caused this to happen, and as a result, their 100 year dominance of the political establishment will end in September if Swedes vote for the Nationalist party. It makes complete sense e.g. why would you surrender your access to the services that you were use to; irrespective of your good nature of welcoming all who want to come to the country. I will not mention the drastic increase in assaults against the female population of the country and crime in general since the recent change of the demographic.

There is a tiny vocal minority in Ireland who want to replicate the Swedish experiment of open borders. It will not work.
If the Swedish Democrats succeed in September then this will be a major blow to Sinn Fein's open border policy, but it is also verifies the natural order of things ..... sense eventually prevails.

Do you live there? have you lived there? can you provide sources for your information please.

Drastic increase in assaults on females? I go there several times a year and have never in all the years I've lived there and visited-over twenty years now, have I EVER felt unsafe there. Yes there are problems in some of the suburbs but they are still nothing like you find some other countries in Europe like France for example. I would be cautious of going to places like Rinkeby, Angered, Biskopsgården on my own, but Swedes don't generally go to these areas tbh and neither did I when I lived there or when I visit as they are all out in the suburbs and I have no reason to go there.

Of course you might find trouble if you go looking for it but in general problems are confined to these suburban areas. The city centres are very safe for me as a woman to walk around. I feel far safer in Gothenburg or Stockholm than Dublin, I can tell you that.

Also- the police there state most of the anti-social problems are caused not by newly arrived refugees and immigrants but by second and third generation immigrants that are growing up disaffected and marginalised.

Greentopia

Bootlegger wrote: »

Amazing how liberals, who preach gender equality and secularism, fold instantly when it comes to Islam.

Nice that you have decided you know what our political beliefs are. I'm not a supporter of any so-called liberal (and that's an American misnomer btw) political party.

blinding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txk-CZRFEoQ&t=8s&frags=pl%2Cwn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3GIfdxe5fY&frags=pl%2Cwn

Interesting watch / listen . Its a two part-er . The second part is probably the best .

Why would you willingly bring all these problems to your country ?

blinding

Bootlegger wrote: »

The Swedes have censored their crime stats since 2005 as they found migrants were overrepresented in the crime stats. They covered up sexual assaults on young girls at music festival. Can you explain this to me?

Why would a country that boasts of its commitment to feminism want to censor the crime stats?

The People wouldn’t like the truth and might expect changes to be made .

Timberrrrrrrr

Bootlegger wrote: »

I don't believe for one second you wouldn't be insulted if someone refused to shake your hand.

Why would i be? I have had a handshake refused and have refused to shake hands with some people. As i said before you must be very easily insulted if having a handshake refused makes you feel insulted.

blinding

I can’t understand why anyone would not want to shake the hand that shakes my Cock .

Timberrrrrrrr

Bootlegger wrote: »

A handshake is a basic sign of respect between between two people. Refuse to shake hands and I think you are rude and ignorant. But you know that. You are giving the woman in Sweden a free pass just because she is a Muslim.

No it's not its a form of greeting!

I wonder if a Christian man refused to shake hands with a woman would you be so accomadating?

I wouldn't care!

If a person has so little respect for the customs of their host country, maybe they should move somewhere else?

I hate GAA, rarely drink and dislike drunks hugging me. Should i change this when in Dublin?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why would i be? I have had a handshake refused and have refused to shake hands with some people. As i said before you must be very easily insulted if having a handshake refused makes you feel insulted.

Come on. If somebody refused a handshake without a good excuse (I’m contagious, or even I’m religious) then most people would be insulted.

In fact most business deals wouldn’t happen.

Corb_lund

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I hate GAA, rarely drink and dislike drunks hugging me. Should i change this when in Dublin?

No because the culture or this civilised country is to allow people to get up to what they want to. Its apples and oranges compared to showing a bit of respect and goodwill.

If we met for an interview, I would not expect you to play GAA (even care about it!), be a heavy drinker and certainly not wanting to hug me...

I would expect though as is per normal, that you would shake my hand in a gesture of politeness so I don't think you're going to be a pain in the arsé to deal with...

malinheader

Whenever there getting there citizenship if there legal they should be made shake hands with our president. If refuse to do so taxi straight to airport with spouse and first flight out. One way of getting rid of the ones who have no notion of interaction.

Timberrrrrrrr

Corb_lund wrote: »

No because the culture or this civilised country is to allow people to get up to what they want to. Its apples and oranges compared to showing a bit of respect and goodwill.

If we met for an interview, I would not expect you to play GAA (even care about it!), be a heavy drinker and certainly not wanting to hug me...

I would expect though as is per normal, that you would shake my hand in a gesture of politeness so I don't think you're going to be a pain in the arsé to deal with...

Contradicting yourself there a little.

Corb_lund

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Contradicting yourself there a little.

Sorry pedant should have spelled it out clearer for you...

Playing GAA/getting sloshed/getting hugged/ doing whatever in your own time ...

..is in no way comparable to exchanging a recognised form of respect during an interview..

Timberrrrrrrr

Corb_lund wrote: »

Sorry pedant should have spelled it out clearer for you...

Playing GAA/getting sloshed/getting hugged/ doing whatever in your own time ...

..is in no way comparable to exchanging a recognised form of respect during an interview..

Yet irish people get drunk talk GAA and try to hug me all the time when p1ssed, because it's seen as a social norm and "part of living in Ireland" are you saying i should allow this?

One persons social norm wether its hugging strangers while drunk or a simple handshake is an intrusion into personal space for others.

And please show evidence that a handshake is a "recognised form of respect".

Greentopia

Bootlegger wrote: »

The Swedes have censored their crime stats since 2005 as they found migrants were overrepresented in the crime stats. They covered up sexual assaults on young girls at music festival. Can you explain this to me?

Why would a country that boasts of its commitment to feminism want to censor the crime stats?

Again, show me some official unbiased sources that prove what you're saying about censorship and a cover up.


Feminism is about equality for all, that includes refugees and migrants regardless of religious or ethnic backgrounds. I'm not getting into a discussion about feminism which will drag this thread even further off topic. There is a Feminist party (Feministiskt Initiativs) contesting the upcoming election in Sweden (they already have 13 municipal seats in local government) and I have read nothing in their literature or in the Swedish media that they or the Soc Dems who are in Govt (who also prioritise feminist policies) that they want to censor crime stats.

Granted I don't live there any more so am a bit out of touch with what's happening on the ground, but I still visit, read Swedish newspapers online and chat to friends there.

Roger Hassenforder

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

One persons social norm wether its hugging strangers while drunk or a simple handshake is an intrusion into personal space for others.

If you regard a "simple handshake" as an "intrusion", unless you have serious dermatological or psychological issues, you have, well eh, serious issues.

That's what is the "social norm" is in our part of the world. By rejecting it, you're rejecting our norm, ergo, rejecting the notion you would integrate.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yet irish people get drunk talk GAA and try to hug me all the time when p1ssed, because it's seen as a social norm and "part of living in Ireland" are you saying i should allow this?

you have conversations in pubs you aren’t interested in? That’s general politeness. You can hardly tell people to shut up. But that’s up to you.

One persons social norm wether its hugging strangers while drunk or a simple handshake is an intrusion into personal space for others.

You’ve compared two non universal traits in Ireland - liking GAA (which in fact isn’t the most popular sport in Dublin) and “drunk hugging”, which isn’t also universal or even acceptable, with a common (almost) worldwide ritual of welcome, agreement or congratulations - the refusal of which is in fact always considered rude in the countries where it is used, including Muslim countries. (The difference there is that shaking hands is sometimes frowned on between sexes). This is a ludicrous analogy.

If you have been refused a handshake or have refused one as often as you claim you’ve been in some very weird situations.

Timberrrrrrrr

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If you regard a "simple handshake" as an "intrusion", unless you have serious dermatological or psychological issues, you have, well eh, serious issues.

I dont consider it an intrusion, thats not to say others don't.

That's what is the "social norm" is in our part of the world. By rejecting it, you're rejecting our norm, ergo, rejecting the notion you would integrate.

So is getting drunk and hugging strangers, should i just accept this as a way if life when in Dublin? If i refuse to let some drunken gobsh1te hug me and talk crap in my ear for an hour does that mean i am also not intergrating?

pearcider

Greentopia wrote: »

Most of the problems-the looting, burning cars in these areas are actually not done by newly arrived immigrants, they are the second generation of immigrants born in Sweden who feel locked out of the prosperity that white Swedes enjoy.

So your solution is to import even more immigrants and double down on the mistakes of the past. 600,000 of them into an aging population of 9 million. National suicide. Mark my words, Sweden will be in the pits in less than 30 years.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I dont consider it an intrusion, thats not to say others don't.



So is getting drunk and hugging strangers, should i just accept this as a way if life when in Dublin? If i refuse to let some drunken gobsh1te hug me and talk crap in my ear for an hour does that mean i am also not intergrating?

No. Getting drunk and hugging strangers isn’t in fact the same as a handshake. It’s not a ritual, it’s not universal, the refusal of it is not considered a rude gesture.

dav3

Greentopia wrote: »

Granted I don't live there any more so am a bit out of touch with what's happening on the ground, but I still visit, read Swedish newspapers online and chat to friends there.

Your first hand experience doesn't matter. The only way you can get a real grasp of what is happening over there, is if you're watching 19 hour long youtube videos of red faced americans, with steam coming out of their ears, screaming about no-go zones in Sweden. All the rest is fake news.

dr.fuzzenstein

Bootlegger wrote: »

I don't believe for one second you wouldn't be insulted if someone refused to shake your hand.

You know, I can shake your hand with a manly grip, look you straight in the eye, smile and say "how are you?" and every single nuance of it will be dripping an unsaid "fcuk you".
Or I can say that for whatever reason I cannot shake your hand, but I'm delighted to meet you and convey utter sincerity.
And you will be happy with the first one and insulted at the second one?
Seems you're bad at reading people and intentions.

Edit:
Not you in particular, more a general point

SnakePlissken

Greentopia wrote: »

I would be cautious of going to places like Rinkeby, Angered, Biskopsgården on my own, but Swedes don't generally go to these areas tbh.

That you openly admit that there are 3 major suburbs located in Sweden where the native populace feel too intimidated to enter, yet still argue Sweden has no major issues with their lax immigration policies, simply highlights your disconnect from the truth... it's ludicrous to be quite frank.

That not one poster can give a single positive to native swedes, either economically or societally, from their self destructive policies, embarrasses those on the wrong side of the debate.

dr.fuzzenstein

SnakePlissken wrote: »

That you openly admit that there are 3 major suburbs located in Sweden where the native populace feel too intimidated to enter, yet still argue Sweden has no major issues with their lax immigration policies, simply highlights your disconnect from the truth... it's ludicrous to be quite frank.

That not one poster can give a single positive to native swedes, either economically or societally, from their self destructive policies, embarrasses those on the wrong side of the debate.

I have been to these suburbs.
They are considered bad, but I have to say that they look very nice, tidy and clean.
Compare that to some of the worst areas in Dublin, which look, well, not nice.
I had no problem in Husby or Kista and quite frankly would hesitate to enter some bad areas in Dublin.
And I'm sure more cars get burnt in Dublin than in all of Sweden. So quite frankly, the Irish don't get to point the finger at Sweden here.

RandomName2

dav3 wrote: »

Your first hand experience doesn't matter. The only way you can get a real grasp of what is happening over there, is if you're watching 19 hour long youtube videos of red faced americans, with steam coming out of their ears, screaming about no-go zones in Sweden. All the rest is fake news.

Like a comitted flat-Earther, it is incredible the amount of contortion that has to be done to defend a position that is easily disprovable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerable_area

Now this presents a number of options to you.

You could

1. Say that wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Bonus points if you mention alt-right or Russians.
2. Dispute the relevance of the details. This gives the additional benefit of getting bogged down in minute. You're also more likely to trip up an opponent.
3. Ignore this altogether and talk about unrelated, easily disparageable material in order to discredit your opponent's argument (you've just done this though, so it could get repetitive).
4. Say that there's nothing wrong with any of this, and that people having a hang-up with anything related to vulnerable areas are merely bigoted (that's been the primary line used in relation to the handshake issue).
5. Ascribe this to an entirely economic problem, with any overlap with immigration being entirely coincidental.

RandomName2

Bootlegger wrote: »

What on earth was the point of importing these people if the end result was to create no go zones?

How this improve Sweden?

Two answers.

1. Picking and choosing immigrants based upon skills can greatly improve your society and economy. Numbers will be limited, because you're only seeking to plug deficits in your country's knowledge base, and the integration of foreign cultures can improve one's own.

2. Taking in people who are from poorer countries is the 'right thing to do'. If you are setting yourself up as the most moralistic country in the world, then you have to put your money (social welfare) where your mouth is, and welcome anybody who arrives at your shores. Not doing so could make Swedes appear, and perhaps even become, more unpleasant.

Guess which of these two motives has produced the problems being faced.

malinheader

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I have been to these suburbs.
They are considered bad, but I have to say that they look very nice, tidy and clean.
Compare that to some of the worst areas in Dublin, which look, well, not nice.
I had no problem in Husby or Kista and quite frankly would hesitate to enter some bad areas in Dublin.
And I'm sure more cars get burnt in Dublin than in all of Sweden. So quite frankly, the Irish don't get to point the finger at Sweden here.

Your at it again.first priests now our capital city. I will say again we have enough problems of our own so do you think it is wise adding to the problem.

Roger Hassenforder

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I dont consider it an intrusion, thats not to say others don't.



So is getting drunk and hugging strangers, should i just accept this as a way if life when in Dublin? If i refuse to let some drunken gobsh1te hug me and talk crap in my ear for an hour does that mean i am also not intergrating?

No it's not, dont cod yourself.
I'd refuse to let some drinker gobsh1t3 blather in my ear. They're the rude ones.
I'm not aware of any culture where this is a norm. Where its the "done thing".
You might enlighten me?
A handshake, on the other hand...

And if you really think refusing a handshake due to bigotry, is comparable to not letting a drunk person blather in your ear, you have serious issues.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bootlegger wrote: »

Do I move to Japan and refuse to bow? No because it's their culture and it's up to me to respect it if I want to live there.

If I offer you my hand and you refuse to shake it then you have insulted me. If you are a fresh off the boat Muslim and you don't understand the culture, fine, but after awhile you need to start integrating.

Amazing how liberals, who preach gender equality and secularism, fold instantly when it comes to Islam.

Do all liberals preach secularism? I would have thought many support freedom to be religious or irreligious, as is your wont.

dav3

RandomName2 wrote: »

Now this presents a number of options to you.

I'll go with option 6.

Laugh at you. Then feel sorry for you. Then laugh at you again. Then feel disappointed with you for not posting a 19 hour long YouTube video.

Roger Hassenforder

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Do all liberals preach secularism? I would have thought many support freedom to be religious or irreligious, as is your wont.

That's what secularism is.
No wonder youre confused!

(Lovin how you glossed over the equal rights)