4) he was running a country, not a company thats entire purpose was to protect peoples privacy
5) had people taken privacy seriously, there would be a lot less dead people in Europe, famously the dutch kept meticulous records of their populations which is part of why the Nazi's were so effective.
If you care about privacy why do you support the political party that wants to use mass surveillance and AI processing to find the "imposter" non-Swedish people in Sweden?
I assume you're talking about the co-founder, because while I live in Sweden (and hold a Swedish passport, despite not being born here) - I do not support populist parties such as the Örebro party. (They aren't even a thing as far as I can tell in Malmö, where I live.)
I am one of the imposter people you reference.
That said, I don't actually see much to corroborate what you're saying either, they don't seem to be implying use of AI and mass surveillance.
I think you've decided something you don't like is bad and now are trying to tie other things you don't like to it?
You strongly implied you supported the Örebro party because they have strong opinions and you support people with strong opinions even when they are bad opinions. (Which is populism, by the way - it's another way of saying you're a populist.)
If you give money to Mullvad you're giving a percentage of it through to Örebro. That's why people are boycotting Mullvad.
No I don't think it's a honeypot, unless it's a total lie to begin with. If it's true, it's an unforced error by Mullvad. There are other VPNs you can use that allow port forwarding.
> I think you've decided something you don't like is bad and now are trying to tie other things you don't like to it?
I support the co-founder - I believe that he would defend my views that he would disagree with more now that I know he has disagreeable views himself and runs a platform based on free speech -- it gives him "skin in the game" for privacy; and the more I see people screaming about how everything that isn't 100% globalism is actually a Nazi is making me even more sympathetic to him.
Can you show me where you got the idea of mass surveillance and AI (since you're claiming you didn't make it up)
From what I've learned (from these threads) the leader of the Orebro party said he wanted to expel those who commit crimes, even if they were born here (if they have no "natural" connection to Sweden).
It's an extreme position.
Yet it's also now two degrees moved from the founder of Mullvad; who has not expressed these opinions nor issued direct support for them specifically, nor do they imply all non-Swedes as you imply.
I'm not sure how you go from "Mullvad founder gave money to a party" to "that party leader said something extreme about criminals and welfare-abuse" to "the mullvad founder wants all non-Swedes deported".
I listened to it, because of these threads. (My Swedish is passive rather than spoken, understanding it isn't the problem.)
That quote is his answer to a question about people born here who commit crimes and live long-term on welfare; whether they can also be made to leave. It's not a freestanding statement about everyone born in Sweden to immigrant parents.
And the passage continues past where your excerpt stops:
"They have not become Swedes. It says Sweden in the passport, but they haven't been interested in becoming part of Sweden. That's a qualitative difference."
"Have not become" only works if becoming is possible. So the criterion he's stating is failed assimilation, not ancestry; and the write-ups of the same interview describe his programme the same way: remigration for criminals and the long-term welfare-dependent.
To be fair: that's still a subjective judgement about people's inner attitudes, which I've said elsewhere in this thread is arbitrary and I'd oppose. He also says he's prepared to "walk over corpses" on this, so I'm not selling him as a moderate. Extreme, yes. Ancestry-based, no. Those are different accusations, and only one of them survives contact with sources.
Anyhow, "criminals" is a way too vague concept for expelling someone from a country, especially when your party could come to power and criminalize anything you want.
And, Show me the man and I'll show you the crime: most people commit something illegal relatively frequently, sometimes without even realizing that it could be (e.g. copyright violations, libel, slight violations of obscure little-known laws...).
They'll typically never face consequences for that; but if you target them, or if it becomes more interesting for law enforcement to find any violation of the law on the part of someone, more often than not something will be found.
Come now, this is a response to very obvious criminal situations, parties like this (and SD) don't just pop up in very egalitarian, sectarian and liberal societies like Sweden for no reason whatsoever.
I empathise with the point you're making, and I suspect we agree on a lot more than you expect, but there is a serious issue with crime as it is currently defined.
It could be a response, but the point I was making was that while saying "criminals should be expelled" might sound reasonable to many, defining what exactly you mean with criminal is extremely important.
If the party comes to power and the law they'll actually enact says "If you violated any law you can be expelled", it would make anyone easily expellable.
this kind of slippery slope is why I hate vague rules on forums, let alone national laws.
Selective enforcement of those you find disagreeable is a way of bullying people with impunity.
That said, I'm curious on how you would solve the issue that Sweden is faced with. It is a very outsized, pronounced, issue and the legal system in Sweden is not equipped to deal with it.
The Swedish legal system prioritises rehabilitation, but the scale of the problem and the reoffending rate being what it is for serious crimes of foreign born persons does need to be answered somehow.
Ignoring it will make the problem worse, people will keep reaching further right.
I don't know very much about Sweden's issues, but if you say that the legal system is not equipped to deal with them, maybe that's what should be fixed?
Do search for the causes and strive to solve them, I doubt that the only possible solution (if it were a solution) is mass deportations.
Insufficient integration efforts could well be at the root of a lot of the immigrant crime problems; I agree with striving to integrate immigrants, to the point that I agree to a lot of what I see at https://web.archive.org/web/20200120174720/http://www.orebro... (2020, not on their site anymore).
I think you should demand committed acceptance of some core values to new immigrants, and I can agree with expulsion after serious enough violations of those.
And I'm not a fan of having as much immigration as possible.
My guy, he contributed 70% of the party's funds. That's pretty strong support. And he's smart enough to keep an apparent firewall between him and the party to deflect criticism.
Having a home, kids, a pet, a job and being part of a community that is integrated into the social fabric of the country.
"Values" get thrown around a lot, but equality of women and acceptance of homosexuality is a big deal to Swedes, so if you shun those things then I wouldn't expect acceptance.
I'd feel hungry and on the way to work I might grab something from one of the many Espresso Houses in Malmö, I know this because I've skipped breakfast many times and it's just one aspect to my environment.
A better question might be:
A) How does it feel to have the president of the galactic federation of planets outlaw cybernetic implants because they are used to harvest cloned Mycinian DNA illegally - despite such a law preventing the commercial use of home based medical technology.
or
B) How did it feel to be Plato, during the ostraca.
--
My point is: I know that the environment my great-granfather lived in is quite literally unknowable to me, despite a living person being able to talk to me about his experiences - it was also barely knowable for him.. "you had to be there".
The same way trying to explain to someone about our upbringing (no cell phones, paper maps, you had to stick to your arrangements because once out of the home there was no communication possible) is very difficult, imagine not having cars, air travel, all news being via the paper (which not everyone purchased) and everyone you know is a labourer.
In that context, with a global political landscape, and a local-first community of folks who could only articulate ideas amongst themselves... Man, I have no fucking clue how I would feel. Just like they'd have no clue about the concept of Espresso House or what would be possible in 2026.
History is really really easy in hindsight. If I have conservative opinions of any sort it's because I prefer to choose options personally that leave us with more choices later.
If this level ethnic replacement happens to be wrong, then it's already too late to do anything about it. That's just true, 15% of a country is already here and there's nothing anyone can do about this humanely.
Asking me how I'd feel if I was born 100 years ago is extremely uncompelling, because I could ask you how my family from then would think about things are today and I can guarantee that they're not going to agree with your perspective on the right approach.
You're comparing something that happened 100 years ago with something that happened 2400 years ago (also, what does "during the pottery (ostraca)" refer to?) and some science fiction scenario? Does Sweden not include WWII in the history education anymore, or are students just not recommended to try to insert themselves in the stories at all?
> the environment my great-granfather lived in is quite literally unknowable to me
Okay, not many things seem to be knowable to you then.
I can’t recall things my ancestors experienced. Even when they tell me: just like I will have a difficult time conveying how it felt to live during COVID (the uncertainty, the different countries behaving the way they thought best, why Sweden didn’t lock down and Italy did- the death of it) and why anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers are a thing.
Just like explaining how nobody could see the 2008 financial crisis, just like explaining to my children (or great grandchildren, remember that its many generations removed for me and you)- how it felt to fly by air before 9/11.
How can you explain it, you would reach for lossy comparisons like coach travel (will coaches even be a thing? not like they are today, not like they were in 1980 already)
This intellectual dishonesty is maddeningly stupid or an expertly crafted troll, neither are making me think you are engaging seriously.
> This intellectual dishonesty is maddeningly stupid or an expertly crafted troll, neither are making me think you are engaging seriously.
Well, I could say the same about refusing to even imagine what life was like 100 years ago. It seems simply absurd to me to not be capable of imagining a simple hypothetical scenario. Most people are capable of answering hypotheticals such as "if you got a million dollars, what would you do?" or "if you lived in the USA, would you vote for Trump?"
How can you know? Its quite literally impossible, psychologists believe you can hold approximately 8 competing facts in your head at once, and we are mentally scarred with spoilers, every decision is known and has been talked about to death.
My great grandfather was 17, had to flee Poland (never to return), fought for a brigade in exile in Scotland against the Nazis.
He was also the most racist man I know, prejudiced against people from the next town over in his adoptive home.
He eventually forgot his own native language some
time after marrying a woman born in scotland to a predominantly irish migrant family.
So, clearly not a nazi, clearly in support of some kind of migration- but his whole thing is that he made painful efforts to be a great guest in his home, but he never put down his prejudicial mindset. How can this be?
I don’t really know what thats like, even the simple warmth of being able to Video call my mum at a moments notice gives such a significant respite to the crippling loneliness you experience living in another country, its enough salve to keep you going. I can call anyone on earth, summon practically any facet of known human history in seconds, calculate complex mathematics and I have barely felt hunger, scarcity, famine or displacement in my life.
I have his perspective, as barely digestible as it is, and his is one perspective among millions- people who never saw a car until they were already on the other side of a continent- people for whom a job was a lifelong affair, who had tiny close-knit and isolated communities that were forced open by famine or war.
Man, I understand the details, but I can’t put myself in his shoes, theres too many variables and too many perspectives.
And, even though this man fought Nazi’s and assuredly killed people: he did so not knowing about the atrocities being committed- this fact came out very late into the war by his word.
It matters a lot because we can judge easily in hindsight, and because we won.
I’m not a nazi, I don’t agree with their philosophy in hindsight, but lets take the Bolsheviks- who slaughtered people too, who’s values I sort of still believe in.
Would I have been part of the coup in Russia during that time? Would you? How could you fucking know?!?
> Would I have been part of the coup in Russia during that time?
Well, let's just think logically. Do I today have the time, energy and inclination to be a part of a group of radicals plotting a coup? No. If I lived in Russia in the early 1900s would I have had that? No.
Sure, it's possible to say that if "I" lived then I would have had an entirely different childhood, but that's not how hypothetical scenarios work. What would the concept of "I" even mean? Would I have to account for different genes as well? Would I have to account for "me" being an entirely different person? You quickly get into a meaningless philosophical conundrum where nothing means anything and the only thing you can know is "cogito ergo sum" .
You might find that energy if the alternative is starvation, pestilince and war because a weak king was living in luxury.
You will never know, because you are ignorant to that situation, which is totally fine. Understanding your own ignorance is not a weakness, its a strength- it allows you to be open enough understand other peoples convictions and what confluence of actions may motivated them.
However you’re having a hard time with me specifically because you believe that because you are on the “right side” (an in-group bias more than actual convictions) today, that those values and motivations have always been the right side despite the benefits and biases of hindsight.
Every bigoted person in history genuinely believes they are right, they are righteous - and if only they could push the world to understanding or force people to live by those values, that it would be a better place.
To be clear, I am calling you ignorant and bigoted, because you claim to understand the value system of a person born in the 18th century while uou exist based on a comfortable, peaceful, plentiful life never knowing their environment, conditions, familial ties, how they thought about the world outside, technology or even their own tribal assertions.
Funny. Every bigoted person in history drank water too. Every non-bigoted person also believes they are right. Tell me, who would do something they believe is wrong?
I have no idea where you're getting that I'm trying to "force others to live according to those values" or whatever. Seems like you're fighting your own windmills rater than me. Chill out with the name calling and swearing, you're really just coming of as a bit deranged.
I tried to explain that even people living contemporary lives can be completely out of touch with one another (it's why rich people become so unrelatable that we get memes about "how much can a banana cost, like $10") and so imagining what life was like 100 years ago, or 100 years from now, is for all intents and purposes impossible. You went off about understanding individual single differences, which totally misses the point: it's the confluence of those differences in their totality that constitutes an environment, and environments shape opinion.
I wasn't alive before Hitler. I can't imagine what it's like to not have a figure like him in my history, along with the collective lessons we took from two world wars. As a consequence of those wars, European war to me may as well be as far removed as the US civil war or the English Wars of the Roses, except for one thing: I got to speak to someone who lived it, briefly.
My brain can't really picture Europe at war (I've seen movies, but even modern combat movies aren't accurate and sell 1% of the reality). I've only ever seen peace, the longest peace Western Europe has known. That's my entire reality, and it's as different from my ancestors' as theirs was from anyone's before them: a completely different understanding of history and what that might mean next, and totally different access to information and to opposing ideas from people as far away as the other side of the planet. Fog of the future.. right? https://youtu.be/NVGuFdX5guE?t=166 Everything is obvious in hindsight.
Being called a nazi sympathiser for admitting I can't know this (by people who are certain they do) is what I find hard. If you're resolute that you're right, and that you needn't consider the totality of a situation before assuming someone's motives, then you can look coldly at what you believe and judge people on that one aspect alone.
It's a closed loop. If the challenging arguments are the ones you won't engage with, you'll never meet one that moves you.
I'd rather ask myself "what if I'm wrong" and see whether I can attack my own position... maybe the other person has context I don't, or paints a different picture with the same facts. That's usually the more interesting conversation.
Anyway. I'm sorry I called you names. I was trying to shame you into seeing it, which was never going to work and was wrong of me regardless.
2) My parents weren't alive
3) my grandparents weren't alive.
4) he was running a country, not a company thats entire purpose was to protect peoples privacy
5) had people taken privacy seriously, there would be a lot less dead people in Europe, famously the dutch kept meticulous records of their populations which is part of why the Nazi's were so effective.