First: "The English phrase "no-go area" was the term used in the original Swedish conversation, so I don't know what your point is about bringing in a different Swedish term."
...followed by:
"Instead, you use a term with no nuance - a strategy which I only see associated used in the xenophobic press."
I used a term from the original video, quoted it to indicate it is a general term (as many such terms are, e.g. 'free trade zone' does not imply you do not need to pay, the 'fire brigade' does not start fires nor do they only extinguish them, 'rednecks' can have many colours in their necks and elsewhere, etc).
I tried to make clear to an unwilling reader that the term 'no-go zone' is one which is used for an area where public services like police, fire brigade, ambulance, mail and delivery are hindered by threats of violence. I do suspect you know this term is used this way even though, taken literally, it does mean something else. As I suspected you wanted to use this fact to denounce the actual content of the message I explained that in Sweden, for just those reasons, the term 'utsatt område' is used in preference over 'no-go zone' given the loaded meaning of the latter term.
Your reply just goes off on another tangent involving "xenophobic press" and "xenophobic viewpoint[s]", a story about "dog whistles", somehow you also mention islam and then conclude that "That appears to be what you do, based on my reading of your comment history".
Or it might be that I just pointed out Sweden has problems which need solving before trying to point the finger at that scary big Russian bear or other external factors...
Had you been arguing from a right-wing conspiratorial standpoint I would have suggested to take off your tin foil hat.
In the context of this thread, I bought it up because legostormtrooper described areas which are 'refused public utility service'. This is surely a very strong definition of no-go area.
I mentioned no-go area in the general context as used in my country - I am an American - to mean an area where the police, etc. will not go or where the police have "lost control" of an area and the national laws do not apply.
For example, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sharia-law-muslim-no-go-zo... .
It is absolutely true that "no-go area" is used more broadly than that, in general. For example, http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/16216099.Dog_fouli... is titled "Dog fouling making popular nature reserve 'no-go area'"
Going then to the interview, the union head clearly stated that they do enter these areas. This is not the same as a no-go zone where people are refused public utility service or where police and rescue people will not go.
Therefore, when you use it to demonstrate that "no-go areas" exist, you are using it in a different sense than the original context.
Since I gave references which described exactly what I meant by "no-go area", and you gave a reference to someone using a different definition, I can easily interpret it as you not caring to consider what I was writing, perhaps because you have an ax to grind, or that it is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue and normalize the wider use of "no-go area".
But hey, I'm from the US, where we have many areas "where public services like police, fire brigade, ambulance, mail and delivery are hindered by threats of violence." As a kid, I remember stores of New York City where the locals called the fire department when there were problems because they were afraid of the cops. We had a standoff a couple of years ago where a self-styled militia had a standoff against the local authorities - and then won in court.
We've got many areas of the US which are effectively off-limits for blacks and other minorities.
If I'm going to accept your wider definition of "no-go area", then I want to see it really being used for something other than "places where we are worried about Muslim refugees and immigrants."
And that's why I keep referring to it as a xenophobic term.
For example, https://youtu.be/ta5a02MzWjE?t=83 says "so called 'no-go zones'", and the following discussion continues to use the English phrase "no-go zones".
I agree that there is are problem areas. I pointed to a Snopes page which agreed there is are problem areas. But there aren't areas where the police don't go, which is what "no-go zone" was originally supposed to mean.
Once problem is when you jump in and ignore what I said and the evidence in the references I gave, and make statements which the links I already gave refute - and refute directly! It's as if you didn't even look at the links, much less make even a basic attempt at demonstrating the errors in the references I gave.
Instead, you use a term with no nuance - a strategy which I only see associated used in the xenophobic press. This makes it very easy to associate your terms with a xenophobic viewpoint.
You could easily have used "problem areas" or "challenged areas", and avoided that loaded term. Since you know the topic well, you are surely aware that these are the more nuanced terms for what the xenophobic press calls "no-go zones."
Since you did not, it's more plausible to believe you are engaged in a normalization strategy based on a sympathy with xenophobic viewpoints.
Such a strategy works better using dog whistles than outright anti-immigration statements. It can include, for example, highlighting the negative aspects of immigration, Islam, etc. when talking about Sweden. That appears to be what you do, based on my reading of your comment history.
Your statement regarding "I'd expect a more objective approach to prevail" is an example of your style. Rather than make a specific statement that you think I am biased or (I know you don't like them) a 'social justice warrior', you instead make an appeal to the vanity of other HN readers, implying that since they are objective, they should obviously agree with you, and that I and jahaja are making emotional, subject arguments that should be ignored.