HN would be a slightly better place if you would stop derailing topics about Sweden (and more) into anti-immigration tirades which I've noticed you've done for a couple of years now.

A country handing out a brochure on civil defence which was last published during the days of the cold war is a political issue. When that same country clearly has internal problems which threaten to overwhelm parts of society - something even the current government doesn't deny so it would be pointless to deny it here - my reply is very much in line with the subject. To get a better perspective on the situation in Sweden you might want to take a look at what neighbouring countries' governments - Denmark, Norway and Finland being the closest as well as the most interesting examples - state about Sweden and the situation here.

I do not know where you live so I can not make assumptions about your direct knowledge on the situation in Sweden. If you do live in Sweden I assume you follow the news - and by that I don't mean you only listen to Sveriges Radio, watch Sveriges Television and read Dagens Nyheter and Aftonbladet as that will give you a rather skewed image of current affairs. Read both national and foreign publications, especially those from neighbouring countries as these often have direct input but are not hampered by the 'åsiktskorridor' (look it up, it is a real thing). I you do not live in Sweden you can still do the same and draw your own conclusions but you will not have the experience of actually living in the place itself.

By the way, on the subject of me going on 'anti-immigration tirades' it might interest you to know I'm an immigrant myself. This gives me a perspective on the situation in Sweden which some natives lack, both because of my experience from other societies as well as that of my reception in this country.

> When that same country clearly has internal problems which threaten to overwhelm parts of society - something even the current government doesn't deny so it would be pointless to deny it here - my reply is very much in line with the subject.

This is just false. There is no "overwhelming problems" on the scale of this brochure. That's ridiculous.

I'm born and raised in Sweden - actually in one of the no-go zones you like to throw around - and I'm well aware of politics, media & history. In fact, I'm quite heavily interested in them all. This means I know exactly what kind of people uses rhetoric like yourself. "Åsiktskorridor" (which you for some strange reason find the need to add a source to Wikipedia for) which is just a bad name for thinking that "They don't like my opinions, and are for some reason arguing back to me!", "left-leaning" conventional media (even though almost all is liberal or moderate conservative, and certainly pro market capitalist), and using Breitbart style of alt-media as your sources.

I've read that you're Dutch. Doesn't change a thing though. I know that the Netherlands have a lot of people like yourself as well.

It doesn't sound like he's derailing that much, since he's providing context to the political environment.

Would you be complaining if his tirades were all pro-immigration?

Yes. Take the political rants to a site that encourages rather than strictly bans them. The internet is full of politics, is it so wrong that this one corner of it not be?

In that case this story should have been voted down or even flagged as it clearly is a political issue. Civil defence, the resurrection of the antagonism between 'east' and 'west', terrorism (look in the brochure, it is one of the discussed issues) - all politics. Even the history of the document itself involves politics, it being part of Sweden's avowed neutral stance in the east-west conflict.

It's a pattern of comments, not just this one.

Is is an ongoing issue that, when discussed, leads to the same conclusions. You clearly do no agree - which, given your posting history, also can be called 'a pattern of comments' - but that does not make my opinion less valid than yours. While HN is not meant for nor intended to discuss politics (something which you yourself also do rather often, as do many others) it is often difficult to avoid as politics touches many subjects discussed here, even more so now that social media and the accompanying #hash_tag_storms started to influence (and in some cases dominate, much to my chagrin) parts of the tech world.

Banning all political talk in not feasible. Banning political talk you do not agree with is censorship. Allowing unbridled political talk is Reddit. HN thus far has avoided the first, is partly guilty of the second and has not yet and hopefully will not devolve into the third. In an ideal world it would be possible to discuss these issues without the site ending up like a dung heap but alas, we do not live in such.

Do you want me to compile a list of examples?

> Would you be complaining if his tirades were all pro-immigration?

Avoided the question

I've answered it in another reply.

Why shouldn't a citizen of a country offer their own perspective on their own country?

Immigration is not a one-size-fits-all policy to be exported from the US, every country has their own contexts and should be allowed to set their own guidelines around it.

One can display one's cherry-picking proficiency and be on-topic at the same time.

Openly discussing current affairs is not 'cherry picking', not even in a country where mentioning those issues until recently was taboo. This is now changing rapidly, mostly due to the upcoming elections.

I would rather claim the opposite to be true: discussing this topic while not mentioning these issues would be cherry-picking. Intentionally leaving out certain issues while discussing civil defence - which this brochure is about - is a recipe for disaster, the proof of which can be found in several areas in Sweden.

It is rather depressing to see that openly discussing current affairs is deemed to be 'cherry picking' and, implied in many other comments, one of the many -isms.

Most people know exactly what kind of people are talking about a taboo, censorship etc while it's not nearly true - and even if one would say it exists, it would be well distributed. Unfortunately it consistently seem to be an exercise in futility to try to get through to people like yourself. That's why it's extra frustrating when the derailing begins.

"proof in several areas in Sweden" This is so obviously alternative anti-immigration media - and that's being nice - rhetoric, as most of your posts reeks of.

There is no nuance like: "The police has identified certain areas where segregation and economic hardship have made these areas extra vulnerable to furthering their hardship to crime, gang formation etc. and thus needs a multi-agency approach to stop this happening". In your alt-media view this is turned into a cocksure "proof of no-go zones" and more falsehoods (I've read your comments you know).

You sure do like to place all sorts of stamps on people, don't you? 'alt-media', 'anti-immigration', 'cocksure ....', 'I know that the Netherlands have a lot of people like yourself'? You do realise that this is not a way to engender civilised discussion I assume, you may also notice that I have not lowered myself to that level.

Also, I tend to provide links which stave the things I discuss. You do not, instead you just claim that said things are not true - we just have to take your word for it as there is nothing else to follow. In this you do fit in quite well in that segment of the political discourse in Sweden which is often accused of 'fact-resistance', things are the way you state them to be no matter what they seem to be.

Come down from that ivory tower and discuss on equal terms, stave your claims with proof other than a raised voice and a collection of epithets and maybe people will actually listen instead of wearily nod their heads.

"I tend to provide links which [state] the things I discuss"

As an example of the anti-immigration rhetoric you use, I point to my reply at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17123963 which highlighted out the information you linked to didn't actually say what you thought it did.

What was particularly annoying was that your reply linked to a BRÅ report which is often cited in the xenophobic English press as indicating an increase in the number of rapes, when I had already linked to a Snopes article pointing out how those exact same BRÅ statistics weren't about rapes but about the broader range of sexual crimes, and how they could not be used to infer a spike in rape reports caused by the recent refugee crises.

What's the point of stating "claims with proof other than a raised voice" if you don't bother to consider them before re-stating claims which have long since been dismissed as unfounded?

You are stating the extra-ordinary claims, not me.

"Comparable to Sadiq Khan (the major of London) claiming that terror attacks are just part and parcel of life in the big city"

I'm so incredibly sick of hearing this. It's completely a fabrication. That's not what the quote is, and the fact that people keep saying it is makes me think they have an ulterior motive for getting the quote wrong

The actual quote is this

"Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, you’ve got to be vigilant, you’ve got to support the police doing an incredibly hard job. We must never accept terrorists being successful, we must never accept that terrorists can destroy our life or destroy the way we lead our lives."

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/mar/29/misle...

It makes me really want to disregard your entire comment when you say that Sadiq Khan just "accepts terrorism as part and parcel of living in a city"

It's true either way, what could possibly make someone think otherwise?

How do gangs end up 'ruling' areas when you have a functioning and professional police force?

The Swedish police force is both too small for the (growing) population as well as unprepared for the increasing violence these gang wars have brought to the country. If you want to read about it from the horses' mouth - the police union - you can do so here:

https://www.polisforbundet.se/om-oss/nyheter/nar-farre-ska-s...

8 out of 10 police officers feel they rarely if ever have sufficient personnel for the task at hand. 8 out of 10 feel they can not fulfil their societal tasks sufficiently. 4 out of 10 claim that highly-prioritised issues get put on the back burner due to lack of personnel, the same number claim this stack is growing.

There is much more to be found on these issues, a quick search will give you enough if you're interested in the subject. I obviously am, living in the country and noticing the effects of these problems.

Police are afraid to fight them, since they'll fight back. (We have the same problem in America, with the bad parts of Detroit and Chicago)