OccamsTeapot

Yeah they should link to it anyway!

And yes, this is a bad law. Rushed in a few months before an election by a right-wing coalition including the fascist SD. Things went badly so now they’re throwing scraps to the frothing racists in their base in a desperate attempt to maintain power. They don’t care if it’s a good law, it’s chum for dumbasses.

The law does ​not specify what ​types of behaviours ⁠are deemed unacceptable but the government has mentioned unpaid debts, not paying taxes, criminality and ​links to extremist organisations.

No doubt! And just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it’s unethical.

The problem is practical. If rules are not written down then you can have punishment without justification, and as an individual you can’t depend on fair treatment by the state.

Clearly respect for democracy and protection of minorities should be respected by immigrants, and immigrants coming from different cultures that do not have this respect as part of their culture is a democratic problem for more developed cultures.

Then make it a requirement of entry. Or - and I can’t stress this enough - shut the fuck up about it.

“Oh we let you in and you haven’t done anything wrong legally but we just realised we don’t like you so please leave.”

Grow the fuck up. Change the rules fairly or deal with the consequences of your actions.

Not you personally, obviously. This argument is just pathetic.

Like if you don’t want asylum seekers or immigrants, just say so. Pull out of the conventions. Change the laws. Do whatever. But don’t accept people in and then act like they’re the problem rather than your own short sightedness (and, often, straight out racism).

How is it fair when someone shitty is allowed entry who ends up hurting civilians but civilians are expected to suck it up

Civilians are expected to suck it up? Why? This would only be true if it’s not illegal. If it truly hurts civilians, why not make it illegal instead?

It is fair because if a Swedish citizen did something that “hurts civilians” but is not illegal, the victims would also be “expected to suck it up.”

Making some things only punishable if you aren’t Swedish is exactly what you would expect from the fascists in SD. Not really something to aspire to if you’re a sane, caring individual. It is the definition of unfair.

So because the legal system has failed, they have to punish people outside the system?

How exactly is one supposed to stay on the right side of the rules when they aren’t even written down?

Obviously the solution, if the legal system fails, is to improve the legal system, not bring in an official “sorry we know this isn’t illegal but you’re brown so… unlucky” system

The law has been criticised by the opposition and ​human rights advocacy groups as arbitrary because decisions would be taken ​on behaviour that has not been deemed criminal.

Doesn’t seem very fair

Removed by mod

Ratios and proportions?

Fucking rich coming from someone who killed millions.

But sure the social democrats are the problem, LOL

Av a proper gander at that word innit

“Breaking” news just means the story is still unfolding aka breaking

“Extending” is the key word here. You aren’t extending any power if it’s your own nation, it would be the other party who did that.

Anyway, thanks for the link, I’ll check it out!

Kicking someone out is not “extending power over foreign nations.” That is “resisting foreign nations trying to extend power over you.”

You’re being ridiculous and clearly not taking the definition as intended. Your definition is the problem here

Ok thanks.

Your definition seems a little cherry picky. Ignoring the obvious role of hard power and over-focusing on capital seems like a mistake. But I don’t know enough anyway. Wiki’s definition makes more sense to me

Would Russia be imperialist if everything was the same except they had more finance capital and less commodities trade?

Hmm OK. I don’t think you really addressed my question but it’s fine. Everyone’s imperialist. Except Russia of course, famously progressive Russia.

Anyway, thanks for explaining what you meant

So Russia with more finance capital and less commodities trade would be imperialist, but the way it is, they aren’t?

I think I get what you’re saying now. But it seems so arbitrary. Why should I give a shit who’s imperialist by this specific definition? It would basically make 0% difference to how much Russia is a problem for the world

I see where you’re coming from now. I think if you define imperialism in that way, it makes sense that you would consider all of those countries imperialist.

When markets are fully saturated domestically, capital expands outward. Once industrial and bank capital grow, they merge and dominate the entire economy, resulting in the dominance of finance capital in the economy …

But this whole description seems weird to me. Are there any powerful capitalist countries that could avoid this?

And I still don’t think Russia could possibly escape this definition. They have BRICS and are a major oil trader. They physically are trying to occupy another country right now. They use Russian language and state media to influence Eastern European countries in particular.

The EU is a coaliton of right-wing imperialist states, this is true.

Not really all right wing but perhaps compared to your politics. Or mine tbh

Russia isn’t imperialist

I’m confused about this. I checked to see if I had the right definition, just in case, and this is wikipedia’s:

imperialism is the maintaining and extending of power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power and soft power.

How does this not perfectly describe what Russia is doing in Ukraine?

Do you have an alternative definition you’re working with?