the biggest mystery is why the fuck u wouldnât take your shoes of when entering someones home like you probably have 20 kinds of animal shit, dead insects and all of denmark under your shoes so take them the hell offÂ
the fine folks at the coca-cola company made a website where we can create our own gifs with their coca-cola logo on them, and the gifs we create are going to help the coca-cola people sell a lot of their beverage iâm sure
Content on demand, streamed services etc make me uncomfortable. Iâd like to keep DRM free data safe and sound on my drives, accessible at any time, thank you very much mr industry.
Little Sweden has taken in far more refugees per capita than any country in Europe. But in doing so, itâs tearing itself apart.
This is a really interesting article on the refugee crisis looking at the issue from multiple angles, not just âMuslim hordes are invading!â or the flipside âanyone who has a problem with this is an evil bigot!â
The untouchability of trans activism in liberal circles has really opened my eyes to how counterproductive it is to make discussion of a subject (other than cheerleading) completely off limits.  Regardless of how leftists feel about Europeans being worried about a huge influx of socially conservative immigrants (including worries about some being economic migrants falsely claiming asylum status) and how that might affect their pluralistic democracies, or about them feeling that their resources should be spent on their own citizens (even as Europe has stagnated economically over the past decade), or about them worrying that refugees arenât going to be able to integrate or find gainful employment, the fact remains that these worries are fueling the anti-refugee backlash in Europe, and attacking the people who have these worries (in the absence of undeniable white supremacy) will get everyone exactly nowhere.
When the refugee crisis began last summer, about 1,500 people were coming to Sweden every week seeking asylum. By August, the number had doubled. In September, it doubled again. In October, it hit 10,000 a week, and stayed there even as the weather grew colder. A nation of 9.5 million, Sweden expected to take as many as 190,000 refugees, or 2 percent of the population â double the per capita figure projected by Germany, which has taken the lead in absorbing the vast tide of people fleeing the wars in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere.
That afternoon, in the cafeteria in the back of the Migration Agency building, I met with Karima Abou-Gabal, an agency official responsible for the orderly flow of people into and out of Malmo. I asked where the new refugees would go. âAs of now,â she said wearily, âwe have no accommodation. We have nothing.â The private placement agencies with whom the migration agency contracts all over the country could not offer so much as a bed. In Malmo itself, the tents were full. So, too, the auditorium and hotels. Sweden had, at that very moment, reached the limits of its absorptive capacity.
Most of Europe, and much of the world, has, as Wallstrom feared, turned its back. The ethnically homogeneous nations of Eastern Europe have refused to take any refugees at all; Hungary, their standard-bearer on this issue, has built fences along its borders to keep refugees from even passing through. Balkan countries, by contrast, helped migrants pass through their territories to the West â until mid-November, when they collectively began blocking asylum-seekers who did not hail from Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan. England has agreed to take only those refugees arriving directly on its shores from the Middle East. Denmark has taken out ads in Arabic-language newspapers warning refugees that they will not be welcome, and has passed legislation authorizing officials to seize migrantsâ assets to pay for their care.
And then there is Sweden, a country that prides itself on generosity to strangers.
Yet the past may be a poor guide to the present. The 160,000 asylum-seekers who came to Sweden last year is double the number it has ever accepted before. I met many critics who were prepared to raise impolite questions about whether Sweden could afford to lavish generous benefits on so large a population, whether it could integrate so many new arrivals with low levels of skills, whether a progressive and extremely secular country could socialize a generation of conservative Muslim newcomers.
The Swedish Migration Agency is responsible for deciding who does and does not receive asylum. The agency assumes that anyone fleeing Syria has a well-founded fear of persecution or death, and thus automatically accepts such applications. Large majorities of Iraqis and Afghans are also accepted. Sweden does not take economic migrants; for this reason, authorities deny almost all migrants from Albania or Kosovo. At the same time, Sweden has made only the most modest efforts to ensure that rejected applicants actually leave. Many â no one seems to know how many â remain, living in the shadows. That may now change. In late January, the countryâs interior minister instructed the Migration Agency to deport approximately one-half of applicants who are now expected to be turned down. People like Diana Janse believe that Sweden must find the hardness of heart to carry out such orders, if it is to care well for those who remain.
Sweden has traditionally interpreted the standards for asylum far more liberally than most of its neighbors have. Since 2005, Sweden has accepted those fleeing persecution by nonstate actors as well as governments, and has permitted all asylees to bring in a wide range of family members. (This rule, too, has recently been tightened.) The Migration Agency accepts applications from thousands of people from Eritrea, a nation that is autocratic but currently peaceful. When I asked Pierre Karatzian, a spokesman for the Migration Agency, why Eritreans qualified, he said that many Eritreans flee the country rather than face the draft; if Sweden returns them, they will face arrest. This, however, permits the authoritarian Eritrean government to play a cynical game in which they let citizens flee and then demand that they pay a tax on their relatively lavish earnings abroad â a kind of involuntary remittance. (I was told that Eritrean embassies track down citizens abroad and demand payment.) The system guarantees a perpetual flow of Eritreans.
Afghanistan poses a particularly thorny problem. Afghans have lately swelled the great river of refuge-seekers. The country is so profoundly insecure that many of its 32 million citizens might have a colorable claim to asylum. Germany, terrified at the prospect of new millions on the march, has said that it will not grant asylum to those from relatively safe parts of Afghanistan; it now accepts slightly less than half of Afghan applicants. By the end of 2015, far more Afghans than Iraqis were applying for asylum in Sweden; many were unaccompanied minors, placing them in a specially protected category. Sweden has extraordinary laws protecting minors: Refugees who arrive without parents are taken into the countryâs social services bureaucracy, operated by each municipality though financed by the federal government.
Whether from Afghanistan or Iran, these were still children who had experienced a world of suffering. Valdana Andersson, an official at Malmoâs Social Services Agency, told me that many said they had been sexually abused by older men as part of Afghanistanâs tradition of bacha bazi, or âboy play.â Did that qualify them for asylum status? Legally, it didnât matter, since Sweden provides asylum to virtually anyone who arrives as an unaccompanied minor. Some of them, however, were certainly not minors. Since they arrived without documents, officials simply accepted their word for their age. Denmark, among others, mandates age-testing, a somewhat rough-and-ready system using measurements of bone density. In Sweden, however, doctors have largely refused to apply the test, arguing that it is inexact and that, in any case, such tests constitute an invasion of privacy. Andersson said to me that a âminorâ who looks to be 30 or so will be told, âYou cannot share a room with the boys. You have to go to the Migration Agency and find a [new] room with them.â
I had, it turned out, arrived in Sweden at the very moment when the supply of goodwill was petering out. A poll in early November found that 41 percent of Swedes thought the country was taking too many refugees, up from 29 percent in September.
When I said to Paula Bieler, a member of Parliament from the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrat party, that most Swedes seemed to welcome refugees, she rejoined, âMostly the Swedes who havenât met them. Itâs the top politicians and journalists who live in the center of Stockholm.â Thatâs hyperbolic; Swedes have proved remarkably willing to accept a burden most other Europeans wish to shuck. Nevertheless, the intelligentsia generally view the refugees as a new contribution to Swedenâs tapestry of diversity, while ordinary Swedes may think in more prosaic terms.
The reaction against the refugees has put wind in the sails of the Sweden Democrats, as it has all over Europe. Far-right parties now rank first in polls in France, Switzerland, Austria, and elsewhere. A poll last August found that slightly more Swedes identified with the Sweden Democrats than any other. This has terrified both the ruling Social Democrats and the Moderates, who have forged a tight alliance in order to keep the Sweden Democrats from power.
What is certainly true is that refugees take far too long to join the workforce and remain unemployed in far larger numbers than native Swedes. Tino Sanandaji, an economist and critic of refugee policy whose work has become so controversial in the Swedish media that he asked me not to name his university, says while 82 percent of adult Swedes are in the workforce, only 52 percent of immigrants from non-Western countries are â a gap that has grown rapidly in recent years⊠Despite widespread reports that Syrian refugees are drawn largely from the educated middle class, statistics compiled by the Swedish Migration Agency show that half the new arrivals do not have a high-school degree, and one-third have not progressed beyond ninth grade. The figures are yet higher for the Afghan unaccompanied minors.
Even before Sweden slammed on the brakes, it seemed that the country had posed for itself a test that it could not pass, and could not acknowledge that it could not pass. The financial costs, even for one of Europeâs richest countries, were daunting. Sweden expects to spend about 7 percent of its $100 billion budget next year on refugees. The real number is somewhat higher, since the costs of educating and training those who have already received asylum are not included in that figure. It is, in any case, double the 2015 budget. Where will the additional funds come from? Itâs not clear yet, but since the cost of caring for refugees is considered a form of development assistance, Sweden has already cut 30 percent of its very generous foreign aid budget, which largely goes to fortify the very countries from which people are now fleeing, to help make up the difference. Other European donors, including Norway, have done so as well.
At first the Swedish government made several very modest concessions to this ugly reality. In November, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven disclosed that migrants would no longer be granted permanent asylum, and thus no longer become eligible for the massive package of social benefits that comes with it. Applicants, if approved, would receive a three-year temporary residency permit with the possibility of renewal. Refugees could still bring in spouses and children under âfamily reunificationâ policy, but those relatives would not qualify for social benefits. In late December, Sweden finally threw in the towel. Henceforth, no one would be permitted to enter Sweden without proper identity documents. The new regulations, no longer described as temporary, violated the Schengen regimen; soon after, Austria imposed similar rules. The refugee crisis has, at least temporarily, ended free movement across borders, one of the signal achievements of the European Union.
A kind of hydraulic catastrophe is now building up over Europe and North Africa. The valves of refugee admission in Europe and the United States are closing while the taps in the Middle East remain wide open. The flow is now backing up in Greece, where tens of thousands of refugees have been trapped.
Either the taps must close, or the valves must open. By far the likeliest outcome is that Europe will close off its borders to refugees arriving overland, accepting only those vetted by U.N. officials and arriving directly by airplane from Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon â as Canada agreed to do in November.
And the rest? They will back up at various European borders. New arrivals may be blocked in Turkey. This is precisely what most of the critics in Sweden advocate for. It is also what the European Union itself now foresees as the best solution to the problem. Late last year, the EU agreed to pay Turkey $3.2 billion to expand care for refugees and stem their onward flow. Turkey already shelters more than 2.5 million Syrian refugees, and cannot be expected to simply continue absorbing millions more. Many are bound to be turned back at the border. There is simply no getting around the fact that if other nations declare that they are full, tens or hundreds of thousands of people will be trapped in the maelstrom of Syria and Iraq, while countless others will continue risking their lives in desperate Mediterranean crossings.
Yet it need not have ended this way. If their neighbors had pitched in, Sweden could have afforded the price of its remarkable generosity. At the Davos forum in January, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, said bluntly, âWe are a continent of 500 million people; we could easily handle this task if we cooperated, if we met this as a union and not as individual member states.â But Europe did not cooperate. Already the Schengen rules lie in tatters. The refugee crisis threatens European foundations as even the recent euro crisis did not. âIf we cannot handle this as a European union,â Lofven went on to predict, âthe European Union in itself is at risk.â
Something even greater is at risk. The Europe that rose from the cataclysm of World War II understood itself not simply as a collection of peoples, white and Christian, but as a community of shared values. The refugee crisis has forced Europeans to choose between the moral universalism they profess and the ancient identities they have inherited. Eastern Europe has already reasserted its status as a white, Christian homelandâŠ
Now the Europe where the Enlightenment was born may well be making the same choiceâŠÂ Europe may fail on both counts, driving the refugees from its doorstep while succumbing to right-wing nationalism.
âTrappedâ in Greece: a beautiful and peaceful country where their safety, welfare, and freedom from persecution are guaranteed. Being a refugee by definition involved fleeing from war or persecution, neither of which are happening in Greece (nor in the vast majority most of Turkey, but thatâs a whole ânother set of problems). This was the whole point of the Dublin Regulations. These laws were written for a reason.
âDesperate Mediterranean crossingsâ are 99.7% likely to arrive safely according to the UNHCRâs own numbers. Tragedy sells newspapers, but it doesnât accurately reflect the mental calculus or the economics of the decision to make this illegal crossing.
This is a good article, though. Iâm glad it doesnât completely fill my Bad Journalism Bingo card by conflating asylum seekers/applicants with recognized refugees like just about every German source does.
Give me a fucking break.
http://www.unhcr.org/54cb698d9.html
âThe main problems of Greece's asylum system include difficulties in accessing the asylum procedure, a continuing backlog of unresolved cases under the old procedure, risk of arbitrary detention, inadequate reception conditions, lack of identification and support for individuals with specific needs, push-backs of people at the border, concerns over integration prospects and support for refugees, and xenophobia and racist violence.â
Little Sweden has taken in far more refugees per capita than any country in Europe. But in doing so, itâs tearing itself apart.
This is a really interesting article on the refugee crisis looking at the issue from multiple angles, not just âMuslim hordes are invading!â or the flipside âanyone who has a problem with this is an evil bigot!â
The untouchability of trans activism in liberal circles has really opened my eyes to how counterproductive it is to make discussion of a subject (other than cheerleading) completely off limits.  Regardless of how leftists feel about Europeans being worried about a huge influx of socially conservative immigrants (including worries about some being economic migrants falsely claiming asylum status) and how that might affect their pluralistic democracies, or about them feeling that their resources should be spent on their own citizens (even as Europe has stagnated economically over the past decade), or about them worrying that refugees arenât going to be able to integrate or find gainful employment, the fact remains that these worries are fueling the anti-refugee backlash in Europe, and attacking the people who have these worries (in the absence of undeniable white supremacy) will get everyone exactly nowhere.
When the refugee crisis began last summer, about 1,500 people were coming to Sweden every week seeking asylum. By August, the number had doubled. In September, it doubled again. In October, it hit 10,000 a week, and stayed there even as the weather grew colder. A nation of 9.5 million, Sweden expected to take as many as 190,000 refugees, or 2 percent of the population â double the per capita figure projected by Germany, which has taken the lead in absorbing the vast tide of people fleeing the wars in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere.
That afternoon, in the cafeteria in the back of the Migration Agency building, I met with Karima Abou-Gabal, an agency official responsible for the orderly flow of people into and out of Malmo. I asked where the new refugees would go. âAs of now,â she said wearily, âwe have no accommodation. We have nothing.â The private placement agencies with whom the migration agency contracts all over the country could not offer so much as a bed. In Malmo itself, the tents were full. So, too, the auditorium and hotels. Sweden had, at that very moment, reached the limits of its absorptive capacity.
Most of Europe, and much of the world, has, as Wallstrom feared, turned its back. The ethnically homogeneous nations of Eastern Europe have refused to take any refugees at all; Hungary, their standard-bearer on this issue, has built fences along its borders to keep refugees from even passing through. Balkan countries, by contrast, helped migrants pass through their territories to the West â until mid-November, when they collectively began blocking asylum-seekers who did not hail from Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan. England has agreed to take only those refugees arriving directly on its shores from the Middle East. Denmark has taken out ads in Arabic-language newspapers warning refugees that they will not be welcome, and has passed legislation authorizing officials to seize migrantsâ assets to pay for their care.
And then there is Sweden, a country that prides itself on generosity to strangers.
Yet the past may be a poor guide to the present. The 160,000 asylum-seekers who came to Sweden last year is double the number it has ever accepted before. I met many critics who were prepared to raise impolite questions about whether Sweden could afford to lavish generous benefits on so large a population, whether it could integrate so many new arrivals with low levels of skills, whether a progressive and extremely secular country could socialize a generation of conservative Muslim newcomers.
The Swedish Migration Agency is responsible for deciding who does and does not receive asylum. The agency assumes that anyone fleeing Syria has a well-founded fear of persecution or death, and thus automatically accepts such applications. Large majorities of Iraqis and Afghans are also accepted. Sweden does not take economic migrants; for this reason, authorities deny almost all migrants from Albania or Kosovo. At the same time, Sweden has made only the most modest efforts to ensure that rejected applicants actually leave. Many â no one seems to know how many â remain, living in the shadows. That may now change. In late January, the countryâs interior minister instructed the Migration Agency to deport approximately one-half of applicants who are now expected to be turned down. People like Diana Janse believe that Sweden must find the hardness of heart to carry out such orders, if it is to care well for those who remain.
Sweden has traditionally interpreted the standards for asylum far more liberally than most of its neighbors have. Since 2005, Sweden has accepted those fleeing persecution by nonstate actors as well as governments, and has permitted all asylees to bring in a wide range of family members. (This rule, too, has recently been tightened.) The Migration Agency accepts applications from thousands of people from Eritrea, a nation that is autocratic but currently peaceful. When I asked Pierre Karatzian, a spokesman for the Migration Agency, why Eritreans qualified, he said that many Eritreans flee the country rather than face the draft; if Sweden returns them, they will face arrest. This, however, permits the authoritarian Eritrean government to play a cynical game in which they let citizens flee and then demand that they pay a tax on their relatively lavish earnings abroad â a kind of involuntary remittance. (I was told that Eritrean embassies track down citizens abroad and demand payment.) The system guarantees a perpetual flow of Eritreans.
Afghanistan poses a particularly thorny problem. Afghans have lately swelled the great river of refuge-seekers. The country is so profoundly insecure that many of its 32 million citizens might have a colorable claim to asylum. Germany, terrified at the prospect of new millions on the march, has said that it will not grant asylum to those from relatively safe parts of Afghanistan; it now accepts slightly less than half of Afghan applicants. By the end of 2015, far more Afghans than Iraqis were applying for asylum in Sweden; many were unaccompanied minors, placing them in a specially protected category. Sweden has extraordinary laws protecting minors: Refugees who arrive without parents are taken into the countryâs social services bureaucracy, operated by each municipality though financed by the federal government.
Whether from Afghanistan or Iran, these were still children who had experienced a world of suffering. Valdana Andersson, an official at Malmoâs Social Services Agency, told me that many said they had been sexually abused by older men as part of Afghanistanâs tradition of bacha bazi, or âboy play.â Did that qualify them for asylum status? Legally, it didnât matter, since Sweden provides asylum to virtually anyone who arrives as an unaccompanied minor. Some of them, however, were certainly not minors. Since they arrived without documents, officials simply accepted their word for their age. Denmark, among others, mandates age-testing, a somewhat rough-and-ready system using measurements of bone density. In Sweden, however, doctors have largely refused to apply the test, arguing that it is inexact and that, in any case, such tests constitute an invasion of privacy. Andersson said to me that a âminorâ who looks to be 30 or so will be told, âYou cannot share a room with the boys. You have to go to the Migration Agency and find a [new] room with them.â
I had, it turned out, arrived in Sweden at the very moment when the supply of goodwill was petering out. A poll in early November found that 41 percent of Swedes thought the country was taking too many refugees, up from 29 percent in September.
When I said to Paula Bieler, a member of Parliament from the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrat party, that most Swedes seemed to welcome refugees, she rejoined, âMostly the Swedes who havenât met them. Itâs the top politicians and journalists who live in the center of Stockholm.â Thatâs hyperbolic; Swedes have proved remarkably willing to accept a burden most other Europeans wish to shuck. Nevertheless, the intelligentsia generally view the refugees as a new contribution to Swedenâs tapestry of diversity, while ordinary Swedes may think in more prosaic terms.
The reaction against the refugees has put wind in the sails of the Sweden Democrats, as it has all over Europe. Far-right parties now rank first in polls in France, Switzerland, Austria, and elsewhere. A poll last August found that slightly more Swedes identified with the Sweden Democrats than any other. This has terrified both the ruling Social Democrats and the Moderates, who have forged a tight alliance in order to keep the Sweden Democrats from power.
What is certainly true is that refugees take far too long to join the workforce and remain unemployed in far larger numbers than native Swedes. Tino Sanandaji, an economist and critic of refugee policy whose work has become so controversial in the Swedish media that he asked me not to name his university, says while 82 percent of adult Swedes are in the workforce, only 52 percent of immigrants from non-Western countries are â a gap that has grown rapidly in recent years⊠Despite widespread reports that Syrian refugees are drawn largely from the educated middle class, statistics compiled by the Swedish Migration Agency show that half the new arrivals do not have a high-school degree, and one-third have not progressed beyond ninth grade. The figures are yet higher for the Afghan unaccompanied minors.
Even before Sweden slammed on the brakes, it seemed that the country had posed for itself a test that it could not pass, and could not acknowledge that it could not pass. The financial costs, even for one of Europeâs richest countries, were daunting. Sweden expects to spend about 7 percent of its $100 billion budget next year on refugees. The real number is somewhat higher, since the costs of educating and training those who have already received asylum are not included in that figure. It is, in any case, double the 2015 budget. Where will the additional funds come from? Itâs not clear yet, but since the cost of caring for refugees is considered a form of development assistance, Sweden has already cut 30 percent of its very generous foreign aid budget, which largely goes to fortify the very countries from which people are now fleeing, to help make up the difference. Other European donors, including Norway, have done so as well.
At first the Swedish government made several very modest concessions to this ugly reality. In November, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven disclosed that migrants would no longer be granted permanent asylum, and thus no longer become eligible for the massive package of social benefits that comes with it. Applicants, if approved, would receive a three-year temporary residency permit with the possibility of renewal. Refugees could still bring in spouses and children under âfamily reunificationâ policy, but those relatives would not qualify for social benefits. In late December, Sweden finally threw in the towel. Henceforth, no one would be permitted to enter Sweden without proper identity documents. The new regulations, no longer described as temporary, violated the Schengen regimen; soon after, Austria imposed similar rules. The refugee crisis has, at least temporarily, ended free movement across borders, one of the signal achievements of the European Union.
A kind of hydraulic catastrophe is now building up over Europe and North Africa. The valves of refugee admission in Europe and the United States are closing while the taps in the Middle East remain wide open. The flow is now backing up in Greece, where tens of thousands of refugees have been trapped.
Either the taps must close, or the valves must open. By far the likeliest outcome is that Europe will close off its borders to refugees arriving overland, accepting only those vetted by U.N. officials and arriving directly by airplane from Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon â as Canada agreed to do in November.
And the rest? They will back up at various European borders. New arrivals may be blocked in Turkey. This is precisely what most of the critics in Sweden advocate for. It is also what the European Union itself now foresees as the best solution to the problem. Late last year, the EU agreed to pay Turkey $3.2 billion to expand care for refugees and stem their onward flow. Turkey already shelters more than 2.5 million Syrian refugees, and cannot be expected to simply continue absorbing millions more. Many are bound to be turned back at the border. There is simply no getting around the fact that if other nations declare that they are full, tens or hundreds of thousands of people will be trapped in the maelstrom of Syria and Iraq, while countless others will continue risking their lives in desperate Mediterranean crossings.
Yet it need not have ended this way. If their neighbors had pitched in, Sweden could have afforded the price of its remarkable generosity. At the Davos forum in January, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, said bluntly, âWe are a continent of 500 million people; we could easily handle this task if we cooperated, if we met this as a union and not as individual member states.â But Europe did not cooperate. Already the Schengen rules lie in tatters. The refugee crisis threatens European foundations as even the recent euro crisis did not. âIf we cannot handle this as a European union,â Lofven went on to predict, âthe European Union in itself is at risk.â
Something even greater is at risk. The Europe that rose from the cataclysm of World War II understood itself not simply as a collection of peoples, white and Christian, but as a community of shared values. The refugee crisis has forced Europeans to choose between the moral universalism they profess and the ancient identities they have inherited. Eastern Europe has already reasserted its status as a white, Christian homelandâŠ
Now the Europe where the Enlightenment was born may well be making the same choiceâŠÂ Europe may fail on both counts, driving the refugees from its doorstep while succumbing to right-wing nationalism.
The thing is that a lot of these âworriesâ are manufactured out of white supremacy and sexism. In Sweden itâs not âMuslim hordes!â vs âBigot!â, itâs âMuslim rapist hordes are invanding and if you disagree youâre a feminist c**t and iâm gonna rape you myself!â vs... well, both âbigots!â and vs actual arguments, like how Sweden is one of the richest countries per capita and how our inability to handle large immigration is closely linked to neoliberal policies.
Itâs hard to call for a sensible debate when people who are âcriticalâ of immigration either are members of the party which actually sprung from a white power-movement or people trying to attract voters from the the party which actually sprung from a white power-movement.
The ones talking about how we cant afford immigration are the same people that have been dismantling the âswedish systemâ for decades, while the capitalist class keeps making absurd amounts of profit, and are now even allowed to profit from housing immigrants, or running schools. Tax payer money going directly into the pockets of âentrepreneursâ. And the ones talking about âclash of culturesâ, how middle east immigrants disrepect women etc, are the same people that talk about the âLGBT-maffiaâ and âfeminazisâ... and are really fond of threating people (mostly women) who they disagree with with murder and/or rape.
Sweden can not break, Sweden was already broken. But itâs a lot easier to blame immigration...
I work with foreigners and whenever I meet people from sweden and they find out I'm learning swedish they just don't get why I would do that, they always (and I mean ALWAYS) say: "only 9 million people speak swedish it's not useful" And I'm like I know but ÂŻ\_(ă)_/ÂŻ
Also, speaking/reading swedish will get you a long way when communicating with danes and norwegians (especially norwegians) so that's another 10 million people.
DEADPOOL WAS SO GOOD. Listen: a blind black woman, and indian guy, canononically pan protagonist, more fourth-wall breaks than you could imagine, boss ass women, one of with is a stripper, NONE OF THEM ARE EVER OBJECIFIED, fuck it was good. I canât believe I put up with Avengers lmao
Fistfight Babylove @fistfightbabylove - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
titsay
tangentwithtanner
2087
kianamaiart
prguitarman
