"No. You are labeling me as such. There is a difference."
No, I'm not labeling you - I'm concluding that you are, based on what you yourself written here.
I'm not sure Hitler ever personally specifically claimed he was a racist - but we still recognize that he was. That doesn't mean we're "labeling" Hitler - is just a fair conclusion of the man's opinions as he expressed them to recognize that he was in fact a racist.
"The land was not given for free.
You would have had to pay annual taxes from it. The same today.
I repeat, the difference from past and present is that at present Sweden gives financial support to the immigrants, while in the past the immigrants had to give financial and military support to the Swedish state. Are you able to discern the difference."
This is a ridiculous argument.
If you give people free land when they in the rest of Europe have to works for peanuts on the land of others and still pay for the privilege or don't even have their own freedom at all, you're obviously treating them very, very well compared to everywhere else at the time.
Just as Sweden does to it's immigrant compared to the rest of Europe today - we treat them well.
Which you are complaining about because you would like to see immigrants be treated poorly.
Well that's your opinion and you get to keep it, but the record clearly shows Sweden has never had that opinion historically - and for good reason.
We've always benefited from immigration so we've treated immigrants well.
Your problem is accepting we've chosen another path then you believe is the right one but that's your problem - not ours.
And as I've said many times before - no one really gives a shit about what you think about it anyway.
"That is the same thing, because my views roughly represent the majority view of Estonians."
Remember I treat peoples as individuals - I don't lump them all together and judge them based on what one person says or does or what I believe about that group as you do.
You might believe most Estonians agree with your racist views - I bet they don't and I'm certainly not going to judge all Estonians on your words.
I wouldn't want to be judged on our Swedish far-right neo-fascists who constantly claim they speak for me and all other Swedes.
"Even that is debatable.
For example when compared to the Poland-Lithuania union."
The Polish-Lithuanian Union existed for 200 years and is long gone by now.
And there is no sign it left behind any greater "social acceptance for diversity" at all.
Look at Poland today - how socially acceptant it the current Polish government that's trying to ban abortions, refuse to take in immigrants and attack the independent judiciary?
Even if Poland really don't want to admit it very many Poles was also openly antisemitic before the war and had no problems with the Nazi's killing of their Jewish population. The Lithuanians even helped in the killings. That's clearly not countries or an area with a historically good track record of acceptance for diversity.
"But not in most European countries.
In most germanic / anglo-saxon countries, yes."
Ha,ha! You just keep moving the goal post when I prove you wrong.
First Sweden was unique in Europe, then when I prove it wasn't you suddenly exclude a large part of Europe and pretend they don't count.
And all this in an ridiculous attempt to find an excuse for the fact that the Nazis never even got 1% of the popular vote in Sweden in the 30's and 40's.
You're using every excuse - however ridiculus - you can dream up to try to deny the fact that Sweden obviously is culturally different from the rest or Europe.
But the very reason that we're having this discussion proves Sweden is - because we've taken in more refugees per capita then any other country. So obviously we are different!
But no, you can't accept that fact so you have to invent ever more ridiculous excuses to try to prove there is nothing different with Sweden at all. But there is - you know it and you're complaining about it in every single comment!
I'm not gonna quote your long comment on the Swedish electorate because it just takes up a lot of room and offers nothing.
You're trying to prove that Swedes actually do think just like you and the far-right want them to think - even though they didn't at all support those policies in the last election.
This is so pathetic - the far-right does it all the time and no we have a president in the US that does it to.
"Everybody really agrees with me - it's just the fake media that's lying!"
Yeah - right...
And I say overwhelming because it is overwhelming.
87% of the Swedish voters in the last election all voted for parties that repeatedly before the election promised to never cooperate with our far-right neo-fascists.
If Swedish voters had believed theirs (and yours) scare mongering about Sweden being destroyed by immigration they would obviously have voted for the only party that said Sweden was threatened by immigration.
But only just shy of 13% of Swedes did.
So yes - the overwhelming majority of 87% to 13% don't believe SD's or your bullshit.
Once again - you can believe what ever you want but an overwhelming majority of Swedes still don't give a shit about what you believe and they're not impressed by your warnings of a coming civil war.
"Not really.
Lithuanians had it better in Lithuania under the Lithuanian-Polish union.
Let me say it another way for you to understand - the life in the colonies was different from life in the "motherland".
Sweden proper was the "motherland". Estonia was the colonies."
I don't trust you as a source on anything, but I still only claimed "most of the people we ruled over during our war mongering days" considered Sweden a more benign ruler then others they experienced, so you still haven't disproven my point.
Also you're again moving the goal post as claiming that life was possibly even better in Sweden doesn't disprove the point that the peoples ruled by Sweden was treated better under Swedish rule then when they were ruled by other nations - or indeed by their own leaders sometimes.
You've already conceded yourself that Swedish rule is considered the best foreign rule in Estonia - why are you still trying to make that case that Sweden was not different to other nations at the time?
It's clear Swedish society had a more equal and inclusive approach then other nations around it already hundreds of years ago - that's not historically disputable in any way.
I'm not saying that Sweden was superior - I'm just saying Sweden did things differently and saw things differently then the rest of Europe.
Not that we where perfect democrats in any way of course, but just that we treated most of our people better in many regards then the rest of Europe at the time.
"It depends whether we are dealing with unicorns or devils. Both have horn(s) and tails.
They should be able to blend in to the Swedish population. If they do not blend in, then we should make some cuts."
I'm never going to accept people talking about other human beings in that way, however harmless you might pretend it is. And we all know you weren't talking about any unicorns when you conjured up the imaginary of "horn and tail" to describe immigrants.
Well you've never been to Sweden so you don't know shit. Immigrants are blending in just fine in Sweden. It's a generational issue - the kids who grow up here have it a lot easier of course - but over time there are no big differences.
As I said before but you refused to believe because it doesn't fit your prejudice, the refugees from the Balkans that came in the 90's aren't even visible anymore.
The kids speak as good Swedish as other Swedes, they have the same level of education and even slightly lower numbers of unemployment and so on. Our neo-fascists that claimed they would destroy Sweden 20 years ago don't even talk about them today. They've just become Swedish, except for their Balkans names and cultural expression like food. We got some nice food from them - just as we have from other immigrants groups. That's always a nice bonus for us. :-)
"Great.
Perhaps Sweden can finally adjust to the global situation of the 21st century.
Borderless Sweden is an oxymoron.
Borderless Europe is an oxymoron. "
I don't really know what you meant by all that but as an Estonian I'd think you really liked the borderless Europe when it lets YOU travel to other countries - no?
And finally, once again - the majority of Swedes, me included, doesn't give a shit about what you think Sweden should or shouldn't do or what "situation" you think we all have to "adjust" to.
Sweden's been doing pretty f****** great over the last thousand years or so so I don't really think we need the advise of people who try to tell us we must abandon all our principles that got us this far and do exactly as they say instead - or else we're doomed - DOOMED I SAY!
0
@ThorsomeTarmukas
"No. You are labeling me as such. There is a difference."
No, I'm not labeling you - I'm concluding that you are, based on what you yourself written here.
I'm not sure Hitler ever personally specifically claimed he was a racist - but we still recognize that he was. That doesn't mean we're "labeling" Hitler - is just a fair conclusion of the man's opinions as he expressed them to recognize that he was in fact a racist.
"The land was not given for free.
You would have had to pay annual taxes from it. The same today.
I repeat, the difference from past and present is that at present Sweden gives financial support to the immigrants, while in the past the immigrants had to give financial and military support to the Swedish state. Are you able to discern the difference."
This is a ridiculous argument.
If you give people free land when they in the rest of Europe have to works for peanuts on the land of others and still pay for the privilege or don't even have their own freedom at all, you're obviously treating them very, very well compared to everywhere else at the time.
Just as Sweden does to it's immigrant compared to the rest of Europe today - we treat them well.
Which you are complaining about because you would like to see immigrants be treated poorly.
Well that's your opinion and you get to keep it, but the record clearly shows Sweden has never had that opinion historically - and for good reason.
We've always benefited from immigration so we've treated immigrants well.
Your problem is accepting we've chosen another path then you believe is the right one but that's your problem - not ours.
And as I've said many times before - no one really gives a shit about what you think about it anyway.
"That is the same thing, because my views roughly represent the majority view of Estonians."
Remember I treat peoples as individuals - I don't lump them all together and judge them based on what one person says or does or what I believe about that group as you do.
You might believe most Estonians agree with your racist views - I bet they don't and I'm certainly not going to judge all Estonians on your words.
I wouldn't want to be judged on our Swedish far-right neo-fascists who constantly claim they speak for me and all other Swedes.
"Even that is debatable.
For example when compared to the Poland-Lithuania union."
The Polish-Lithuanian Union existed for 200 years and is long gone by now.
And there is no sign it left behind any greater "social acceptance for diversity" at all.
Look at Poland today - how socially acceptant it the current Polish government that's trying to ban abortions, refuse to take in immigrants and attack the independent judiciary?
Even if Poland really don't want to admit it very many Poles was also openly antisemitic before the war and had no problems with the Nazi's killing of their Jewish population. The Lithuanians even helped in the killings. That's clearly not countries or an area with a historically good track record of acceptance for diversity.
"But not in most European countries.
In most germanic / anglo-saxon countries, yes."
Ha,ha! You just keep moving the goal post when I prove you wrong.
First Sweden was unique in Europe, then when I prove it wasn't you suddenly exclude a large part of Europe and pretend they don't count.
And all this in an ridiculous attempt to find an excuse for the fact that the Nazis never even got 1% of the popular vote in Sweden in the 30's and 40's.
You're using every excuse - however ridiculus - you can dream up to try to deny the fact that Sweden obviously is culturally different from the rest or Europe.
But the very reason that we're having this discussion proves Sweden is - because we've taken in more refugees per capita then any other country. So obviously we are different!
But no, you can't accept that fact so you have to invent ever more ridiculous excuses to try to prove there is nothing different with Sweden at all. But there is - you know it and you're complaining about it in every single comment!
I'm not gonna quote your long comment on the Swedish electorate because it just takes up a lot of room and offers nothing.
You're trying to prove that Swedes actually do think just like you and the far-right want them to think - even though they didn't at all support those policies in the last election.
This is so pathetic - the far-right does it all the time and no we have a president in the US that does it to.
"Everybody really agrees with me - it's just the fake media that's lying!"
Yeah - right...
And I say overwhelming because it is overwhelming.
87% of the Swedish voters in the last election all voted for parties that repeatedly before the election promised to never cooperate with our far-right neo-fascists.
If Swedish voters had believed theirs (and yours) scare mongering about Sweden being destroyed by immigration they would obviously have voted for the only party that said Sweden was threatened by immigration.
But only just shy of 13% of Swedes did.
So yes - the overwhelming majority of 87% to 13% don't believe SD's or your bullshit.
Once again - you can believe what ever you want but an overwhelming majority of Swedes still don't give a shit about what you believe and they're not impressed by your warnings of a coming civil war.
"Not really.
Lithuanians had it better in Lithuania under the Lithuanian-Polish union.
Let me say it another way for you to understand - the life in the colonies was different from life in the "motherland".
Sweden proper was the "motherland". Estonia was the colonies."
I don't trust you as a source on anything, but I still only claimed "most of the people we ruled over during our war mongering days" considered Sweden a more benign ruler then others they experienced, so you still haven't disproven my point.
Also you're again moving the goal post as claiming that life was possibly even better in Sweden doesn't disprove the point that the peoples ruled by Sweden was treated better under Swedish rule then when they were ruled by other nations - or indeed by their own leaders sometimes.
You've already conceded yourself that Swedish rule is considered the best foreign rule in Estonia - why are you still trying to make that case that Sweden was not different to other nations at the time?
It's clear Swedish society had a more equal and inclusive approach then other nations around it already hundreds of years ago - that's not historically disputable in any way.
I'm not saying that Sweden was superior - I'm just saying Sweden did things differently and saw things differently then the rest of Europe.
Not that we where perfect democrats in any way of course, but just that we treated most of our people better in many regards then the rest of Europe at the time.
"It depends whether we are dealing with unicorns or devils. Both have horn(s) and tails.
They should be able to blend in to the Swedish population. If they do not blend in, then we should make some cuts."
I'm never going to accept people talking about other human beings in that way, however harmless you might pretend it is. And we all know you weren't talking about any unicorns when you conjured up the imaginary of "horn and tail" to describe immigrants.
Well you've never been to Sweden so you don't know shit. Immigrants are blending in just fine in Sweden. It's a generational issue - the kids who grow up here have it a lot easier of course - but over time there are no big differences.
As I said before but you refused to believe because it doesn't fit your prejudice, the refugees from the Balkans that came in the 90's aren't even visible anymore.
The kids speak as good Swedish as other Swedes, they have the same level of education and even slightly lower numbers of unemployment and so on. Our neo-fascists that claimed they would destroy Sweden 20 years ago don't even talk about them today. They've just become Swedish, except for their Balkans names and cultural expression like food. We got some nice food from them - just as we have from other immigrants groups. That's always a nice bonus for us. :-)
"Great.
Perhaps Sweden can finally adjust to the global situation of the 21st century.
Borderless Sweden is an oxymoron.
Borderless Europe is an oxymoron. "
I don't really know what you meant by all that but as an Estonian I'd think you really liked the borderless Europe when it lets YOU travel to other countries - no?
And finally, once again - the majority of Swedes, me included, doesn't give a shit about what you think Sweden should or shouldn't do or what "situation" you think we all have to "adjust" to.
Sweden's been doing pretty f****** great over the last thousand years or so so I don't really think we need the advise of people who try to tell us we must abandon all our principles that got us this far and do exactly as they say instead - or else we're doomed - DOOMED I SAY!