Immigration

[mister dog]

"I promise you that if they got in trouble, it's because they actively went looking for it

There's no limit when it comes to you trying to excuse any sort of violence when it's caused by immigrants no?

 

[Johnnypenso]

"60 Minutes" isn't a news programme, and nothing they make could reasonably be called a documentary. They're a glorified tabloid show with an obvious agenda. I promise you that if they got in trouble, it's because they actively went looking for it - they're clearly trying to depict Sweden as being fundamentally broken by their liberal policies and reaffirm our punitive approach as the only sensible one.

I'd say unbelievable but I'd be lying. "Actively looking for trouble"? Are you for real? I'm sure you'll deny it and try to spin your way out of it, but it really looks to me, and I'm sure others, that you are trying to justify journalists getting beaten for doing their job.

 

[Carbonox]

"60 Minutes" isn't a news programme, and nothing they make could reasonably be called a documentary. They're a glorified tabloid show with an obvious agenda. I promise you that if they got in trouble, it's because they actively went looking for it - they're clearly trying to depict Sweden as being fundamentally broken by their liberal policies and reaffirm our punitive approach as the only sensible one.

Out of all the outrageous things you've said (and yes, this includes the time you kept on seeing racism where there was none, back at the ISIS thread) this one has to take the cake. It's not like it surprises me that you'd defend perpetrators of violence as long as they have protective coloring, but the way you keep pretending you're viewing things rationally and then spewing out 🤬 like this blatantly shows how hypocritical you can be. Out of all posters on this subforum, I think you have the most transparent agenda.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Out of all the outrageous things you've said (and yes, this includes the time you kept on seeing racism where there was none, back at the ISIS thread) this one has to take the cake. It's not like it surprises me that you'd defend perpetrators of violence as long as they have protective coloring, but the way you keep pretending you're viewing things rationally and then spewing out 🤬 like this blatantly shows how hypocritical you can be. Out of all posters on this subforum, I think you have the most transparent agenda.

It strikes me that the point you were trying to make with the video was "look at these immigrants, attacking a camera!". You didn't stop to think what agenda the team's questioning was following, it seems. You also ignore the fact that this happens all over the world to news teams in all kinds of areas and all kinds of circumstances.

Be clear; what did that video demonstrate, in your opinion?

 

[Carbonox]

It strikes me that the point you were trying to make with the video was "look at these immigrants, attacking a camera!". You didn't stop to think what agenda the team's questioning was following, it seems. You also ignore the fact that this happens all over the world to news teams in all kinds of areas and all kinds of circumstances.

Be clear; what did that video demonstrate, in your opinion?

I didn't post the video, but to me it demonstrates just how common unprovoked attacks become as soon as gangs are given the impression by politicians and police that they've got any sort of control.

 

[Spurgy 777]

@TenEightyOne I thought the video was trying to show that there is a violent minority amongst the refugees that was being ignored by the authorities, which is why they showed the police officer not wanting to follow them in but also showed and stated that the majority of the refugees were good people who were happy talking to them. I don't see how that equates to them trying to show Sweden as fundamentally broken by liberal policies as PM suggests, if they were trying to do that they failed miserably. It's seems to just try to highlight a problem in Sweden, it's also worth noting that the main thing you can't tell from this video is the scale of the problem as obviously it only shows one incident, but that's not too surprising from a 6 minute video. Apologies in advance if I haven't explained myself too well or missed the obvious, I'm writing this whilst extremely tired

 

[Joel]

Out of all posters on this subforum, I think you have the most transparent agenda.

I assure you, we can all hear your dog whistles just fine.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

There's no limit when it comes to you trying to excuse any sort of violence when it's caused by immigrants no?

Yes, let's hold the migrants accountable for the obvious provocation by the "journalists".

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes, let's hold the migrants accountable for the obvious provocation by the "journalists".

Obvious provocation? Tell me what words a journalist can use to justify violence on behalf of someone who disagrees with them. Why would we not hold anyone accountable for violence when it's not in self defence or otherwise justifed?

 

[Joel]

Yes, let's hold the migrants accountable for the obvious provocation by the "journalists".

You can believe that the 60 minutes crew may not have been operating completely innocently and in good faith without condoning a violent response to a TV crew.

 

[Carbonox]

Obvious provocation? Tell me what words a journalist can use to justify violence on behalf of someone who disagrees with them. Why would we not hold anyone accountable for violence when it's not in self defence or otherwise justifed?

Maybe the appearance of reporters in "their" turf itself was the obvious provocation and we're all missing the point.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

the 60 minutes crew were not operating innocently

Fixed that to be representative. The film crew wouldn't have stopped provoking people until they got the violent response that they wanted.

 

[MXH]

This isn't the first time journalists are being attacked or threatened by immigrant thugs in Sweden mind you. I'm having a good laugh at you trying to claim that their mere presence is an obvious provocation.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm having a good laugh at you trying to claim that their mere presence is an obvious provocation.

And I'm having a good laugh at the way you are naïve enough to think that the footage uploaded to YouTube is the only footage gathered. I promise you that that film crew went looking for a fight, then selectively edited it to look like an unprovoked attack. It's their modus operandi to a fault - confrontation, provocation, manipulation.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This isn't the first time journalists are being attacked or threatened by immigrant thugs in Sweden mind you.

If I were to correct that quote I'd say

This isn't the first time journalists are being attacked or threatened by anyone anywhere mind you.

 

[Carbonox]

And I'm having a good laugh at the way you are naïve enough to think that the footage uploaded to YouTube is the only footage gathered. I promise you that that film crew went looking for a fight, then selectively edited it to look like an unprovoked attack. It's their modus operandi to a fault - confrontation, provocation, manipulation.

I thought all that exposure to religious arguments on this site would've taught you that you need something a little more than condescending words to prove a claim.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And I'm having a good laugh at the way you are naïve enough to think that the footage uploaded to YouTube is the only footage gathered. I promise you that that film crew went looking for a fight, then selectively edited it to look like an unprovoked attack. It's their modus operandi to a fault - confrontation, provocation, manipulation.

Got a link for that for this specific situation or are you just making it up hoping it's true? And even if it is true, how does saying things on camera that someone else doesn't like, in any way, shape of form justify being verbally or physically attacked?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Got a link for that for this specific situation or are you just making it up hoping it's true?

Haven't you heard the expression that you only believe half of what you read in the newspaper?

Of course there's not going to be tangible proof that the journalists provoked people. They're the source - they're the ones who control the flow of information. They're naturally only going to release the footage that coincides with their version of events.

This kind of "journalism" is notorious in Australia. In the 1990s, there was an infamous story called "In Barcelona Tonight" where a news crew went to Majorca to interview Christopher Skase, a fugitive businessman who fled to Spain with his investors' money when his business collapsed. Skase turned the camera crews away, and the public got treated to a story of how the journalists were chased by the Spanish authorities trying to recover an incriminating tape on behalf of Skase that saw the journalists out-run roadblocks and make a nail-biting escape from the island by overnight ferry. A subsequent investigation proved that the story was fabricated; the "roadblocks" were traffic police adding an extra lane to an arterial road in preparation for the afternoon rush hour.

The point is that down here, this kind of "journalism" is notirious for having a blatant agenda. In this case, they're obviously trying to prove that Sweden is a liberal dystopia, rendered impotent and dysfunctional by a generous immigration system, and ipso facto, our punitive and inhumane system of mandatory detention in sub-standard living conditions is the only viable solution.

It's easy to take the incident out of context. The video presents Sweden as having fallen victim to its own generosity, where ordinary citizens are living in fear of violent thugs who intimidate the population. And that's what the film crew wants you to think because that's the story they are running. But we're in a situation where they are creating news rather than objectively reporting on it, manipulating the truth and reality - and by extension, the audience - to believe that a fabricated version of events is true to life.

And even if it is true, how does saying things on camera that someone else doesn't like, in any way, shape of form justify being verbally or physically attacked?

So it's okay for the camera crew to attack someone, film the result and say "we were attacked"? If one side is guilty, the other is, too.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Haven't you heard the expression that you only believe half of what you read in the newspaper?

Of course there's not going to be tangible proof that the journalists provoked people. They're the source - they're the ones who control the flow of information. They're naturally only going to release the footage that coincides with their version of events.

This kind of "journalism" is notorious in Australia. In the 1990s, there was an infamous story called "In Barcelona Tonight" where a news crew went to Majorca to interview Christopher Skase, a fugitive businessman who fled to Spain with his investors' money when his business collapsed. Skase turned the camera crews away, and the public got treated to a story of how the journalists were chased by the Spanish authorities trying to recover an incriminating tape on behalf of Skase that saw the journalists out-run roadblocks and make a nail-biting escape from the island by overnight ferry. A subsequent investigation proved that the story was fabricated; the "roadblocks" were traffic police adding an extra lane to an arterial road in preparation for the afternoon rush hour.

The point is that down here, this kind of "journalism" is notirious for having a blatant agenda. In this case, they're obviously trying to prove that Sweden is a liberal dystopia, rendered impotent and dysfunctional by a generous immigration system, and ipso facto, our punitive and inhumane system of mandatory detention in sub-standard living conditions is the only viable solution.

It's easy to take the incident out of context. The video presents Sweden as having fallen victim to its own generosity, where ordinary citizens are living in fear of violent thugs who intimidate the population. And that's what the film crew wants you to think because that's the story they are running. But we're in a situation where they are creating news rather than objectively reporting on it, manipulating the truth and reality - and by extension, the audience - to believe that a fabricated version of events is true to life.

None of which justifies violence even if it's all true.

So it's okay for the camera crew to attack someone, film the result and say "we were attacked"? If one side is guilty, the other is, too.

Can you point to the part of the video that shows the camera crew attacking someone? I must have missed it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I must have missed it.

Just like you missed the part of my post where I explained why it isn't there?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Just like you missed the part of my post where I explained why it isn't there?

You didn't explain anything because you have zero factual information regarding this incident and what went on, beyond what the rest of us can see. How can you explain something that isn't there without proof of it ever being there in the first place?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

How can you explain something that isn't there without proof of it ever being there in the first place?

Because sometimes a little bit of cynicism is healthy. I see a camera crew working for a programme and a network with a documented history of questionable reporting and a disregard for ethics claiming that they were victims of an unprovoked attack, and I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt. Ever since the current affairs format was first pioneered in this country, it has been dominated by poor-quality journalism and low standards of integrity. It is yellow journalism at its ugliest, and oftentimes its most blatant. Now, if the camera crew were working on behalf of one of the flagship evening news programmes, I would be more inclined to believe that it was unprovoked. But given that they worked for "60 Minutes", nothing that they say is trustworthy.

Do yourself a favour and watch the series "Frontline" on YouTube, particularly the episode "The Siege". It's fictional, and it's a parody, and I doubt that it will change your mind, but it's frighteningly accurate and will give you a sense of how these "journalists" work.

 

[mister dog]

Because sometimes a little bit of cynicism is healthy

Yup just like cynicism of those 'refugees' that are flooding into Europe at the moment is also healthy, and cynicism of the media depicting them as poor victims running from IS, whilst most of them aren't even from the bloody area.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Yup just like cynicism of those 'refugees' that are flooding into Europe at the moment is also healthy

No, that's unhealthy because you're automatically assuming the worst in everyone. The operative term in what you quoted was "little bit".

 

[Johnnypenso]

Because sometimes a little bit of cynicism is healthy. I see a camera crew working for a programme and a network with a documented history of questionable reporting and a disregard for ethics claiming that they were victims of an unprovoked attack, and I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt. Ever since the current affairs format was first pioneered in this country, it has been dominated by poor-quality journalism and low standards of integrity. It is yellow journalism at its ugliest, and oftentimes its most blatant. Now, if the camera crew were working on behalf of one of the flagship evening news programmes, I would be more inclined to believe that it was unprovoked. But given that they worked for "60 Minutes", nothing that they say is trustworthy.

Do yourself a favour and watch the series "Frontline" on YouTube, particularly the episode "The Siege". It's fictional, and it's a parody, and I doubt that it will change your mind, but it's frighteningly accurate and will give you a sense of how these "journalists" work.

So your answer is watch a fictional parody to find out what happened with 60 minutes in this particular program? Okay. And again, I've lost count of how many times I've asked this, how does anything the news crew did, if anything, justify violence?

No, that's unhealthy because you're automatically assuming the worst in everyone. The operative term in what you quoted was "little bit".

Ironically, the exact same thing you are doing. You hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

how does anything the news crew did, if anything, justify violence?

How does anything the man on the street did, if anything, justify being provoked into committing an act of violence? What you fail to recognise is that the attack would not have happened if the film crew hadn't provoked him, so how is the man wholly responsible for what happened?

 

[Rage Racer]

How does anything the man on the street did, if anything, justify being provoked into committing an act of violence? What you fail to recognise is that the attack would not have happened if the film crew hadn't provoked him, so how is the man wholly responsible for what happened?

Is he some kind of snake, or bear, that everyone has to be careful not to provoke him to attack?..

 

[-Cheezman-]

How does anything the man on the street did, if anything, justify being provoked into committing an act of violence? What you fail to recognise is that the attack would not have happened if the film crew hadn't provoked him, so how is the man wholly responsible for what happened?

Stop victim blaming.

Hitting someone with a car or punching them in the face is hardly a justifiable response to them asking questions about topical issues.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Hitting someone with a car or punching them in the face is hardly a justifiable response to them asking questions about topical issues.

And if they were just asking questions, you might have a point. I'm not blaming the victim, because the camera crew are not victims - they deliberately set a situation up to get themselves attacks.

 

[Dennisch]

And if they were just asking questions, you might have a point. I'm not blaming the victim, because the camera crew are not victims - they deliberately set a situation up to get themselves attacks.

Are you for real? Did you even watch the video? They did NOTHING to provoke them.

You are seriously losing touch with reality.