white_devil

This looks like government propaganda, basically. Sure, some Finns are genuinely racist, but the overwhelming majority of people here are very tolerant and sensitive about "offending" any immigrant group (as long as they're black, of course).

Before you shout at me for being racist, take a look at my conversation with potatolicious: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4654794

Quite frankly, the article you linked to looks disgusting to me. Like some "perception shaping campaign" with the aim of sensitivizing the police force to "hate crime".

All this hysteria about "racism", defined roughly as: "pointing out any facets of reality that reflect negatively on any non-white (preferably black) people", could well be meant to stifle freedom of speech. It's working too, because most sheeple in Finland are very strict about not saying anything negative about Somalis, for example, even though there's good reason to.

> If you do not have the (sound, defensible) numbers to point it out, what you have are personal anecdotes, not evidence.

You're still stuck on the numbers, and the lack of "statistical rigor" in the way I used them. Fine, let's just forget about the numbers.

As I already mentioned, the fact of the matter is that every non-sheep Finn KNOWS that Somalis rape women. It's just the way it is. We KNOW that the media tries to cover up the fact that Somalis are most often the perpetrators in cases of rape. We KNOW that whenever a bunch of "Younglings" gang-raped a woman, it was Somalis.

What would you expect from a culture that considers women men's property? They believe that if a woman is showing too much skin, she's asking to get raped. I heard this first-hand from a Pakistani colleague I befriended back when I was still a sheep too. Not only that, but if she wants anyone to get convicted, she needs four pious Muslim MEN as witnesses for the rape, and if she goes to the police station to complain about getting raped, the police may just decide to rape her too, just for funzies (or because she's "filthy" or whatever the official, Islam-sanctioned excuse was). Yeah. Not every single goddamn time, but it does happen.

It's just obvious that Muslims are more rapey than your average white Westerner (or any other non-Muslim).

Now, at this point, feel free to howl about "painting with a broad brush" or how Not All Of Them (tm) rape women, and so on. Not ALL of them bury their daughters alive for showing too much skin. No, but it constitutes a noteworthy phenomenon, and the observation can be made that Muslims are a group of people who do that (to whatever relatively-small-but-nevertheless-fucking-insane extent it happens).

So in other words, you believe Somalis rape 34x more than the general population, but you don't actually have proof of it. The fact that you would readily believe that one group rapes a whole 34x more than another group, without skepticism or wanting to verify the facts, reveals a great deal about what you wish to believe.

Yes, I'm willing to believe a factor of 34. But even if my "estimate" is wrong by half, it's still a massive factor of 17. Would you believe I was off by half? Even if we discounted a huge mistake like being off by 50%, it would still leave a massive factor of over-representation.

Again, it's just a fact that they are more rapey than non-Muslims. I can't just whip out proof for that claim, because rapes by Somalis specifically are not listed (even though they are for those handful of other groups) in those statistics. Not only that, but the media censorship of Somali rapes kind of gets in the way of proving anything.

And here's a little riddle for you: if the stats here are organized by significance (see how significant contributing nationalities are separated out?), why aren't the Somalis separated out? You would think that a rate over 34x more than the general population, contributing to a huge portion of rapes in the country, would bear its own column, no?

Here's another right back at you: If our government instructs our media to cover up Somalis' crimes, do you think they'd just give us the statistics that would make them blindingly obvious?

Can I personally prove the censorship to you right now? No, not really. But I KNOW it happens. You can't hinge everything on proof that is - or would be - provided by a government. All governments lie to their little tax cows. You want proof of that? Well, you can't have it.

You know, I used to be an innocent, well-meaning sheep like you. I used to be quite enthusiastic about the idea that we're all equal and we're all "the same" and that we should all just live together in peace and harmony, but then, gradually, I was faced with Reality, and had to adjust my views on things. That's the thing. You need to be capable of adjusting your views on things whenever the need arises.

But it's in our nature as human beings to reject any changes, cling to our preconceived notions and dislike/resent anything that represents Otherness. Because of that, different races just aren't destined to get along. Saying that doesn't mean I hate black people just for being black, it means I'm aware of this particular aspect of reality.

> Do you really believe that in the entire country of Finland there are only thirteen non-Finnish nationalities represented?

How well do you know Finland? -Not particularly, obviously. Do you have any idea how homogenous our population still is? Before 1990, there weren't any Somalis here.

Even in 2011, the people who speak something other than Finnish or Swedish (or Lappish) comprised only 4.5% of the population: http://www.stat.fi/til/vaerak/2011/vaerak_2011_2012-03-16_ta...

So when the chart I originally posted says: "The largest groups by native language 2001 and 2011", there's no reason to interpret it as: "The largest groups by native language 2001 and 2011 (EXCEPT FOR LOTS OF OTHER PEOPLE WE LEFT OUT)"

Yet where is your proof? You have offered ZERO evidence. You would think that if Somalis really raped women at a rate OVER THIRTY TIMES the national average, that you can find some iota of evidence? You would think that this would appear as a distinct column in your stats - after all, it points out much smaller national groups!

You just keep yammering on and on about evidence.

Here's an idea: You should vote for Obama because he's The Good Guy, and Romney is The Bad Guy. You want The Good Guy to win, right?

Here's another: Your country's real, actual unemployment rate is 7.9%. (Do you think you can prove this by pointing to BLS statistics? --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbfttPAj66k )

The massive bank bailouts and "stimulus" ever since 2008 have helped, and your economy is now on the path to prosperity!

Spain doesn't need a bailout! After all, Mr. Rajoy told us so!

You're free to believe all of that, but if you do, you are a clueless sheep. Most people in the world are, of course, and it's not your fault - you've been brainwashed into it, after all. But it is your mission, should you choose to accept it, to start seeing and accepting Reality for what it is.

Or, you could just keep on raging and bleating angrily at anyone who says anything that goes against your Rainbows & Unicorns view of the world.

By the way, here's another racial group in Finland that's a bit too active in the crime department: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Kale#Perceived_violence... ..

> in 2005, persons of Romani background (who make up less than 0.2% of the total population of Finland[1]) perpetrated 18% of solved street robbery crimes in Finland

So a group of people that represents 0.2% of the population perpetrated 18% of the street robberies in Finland. Want proof of that? I haven't got any, but having lived all my life in Finland, it's very easy for me to believe it. This is a group of people that performs the vast majority of shoplifting too. I can't cite any statistics for that either, but I've personally seen them wander around a department store, just picking stuff up and putting it into their pockets. Want proof of that? Sorry, I don't have the security camera footage. But this is yet another thing that's common knowledge in Finland, and this time even Sheeple would agree, with a sheepish grin on their faces.

Now, here's something you should think about really fucking hard: Is it RACIST to point this stuff out? Or is it, you know, just.. describing Reality? But whenever someone describes a part of reality you're not comfortable with, you label them racist or whatever-ist and then proceed to rage at them.

> - by way of comparison, Somalis were responsible for 12%, while ethnic Finns were close to 51%.

Well well well, who do we have here? So Somalis commit 12% of all street robberies in Finland? But.. but.. they're such a lovely and upstanding group of model citizens! That simply CAN'T be true!

But no, you are far more racist than I even suspected. For the love of God I hope we never meet.

Ah, because then you'd just HAVE to beat me into a bloody pulp in the name of Justice! Right?

That's sweet. I hope we never meet too. Who knows, maybe I'm a filthy misogynist too, so beating me into a pulp just wouldn't suffice - you'd have to straight up kill me.

All in the name of Righteousness and Justice, of course. Killing me would be your civic duty as a Good Person.

You are by far the most racist person I've ever conversed with, and I've seen some racist shit on this side of the ocean. The fact that people like you exist makes me depressed.

Well, Mr. White Knight, you just might be the most enraged sheep I've ever conversed with. I guess that makes us even. You know, there are actually people on Hacker News that live in reality. Sometimes you even see them speak about it, and somehow miraculously not get downvoted into oblivion by a herd of enraged sheeple, so I thought some of that might have rubbed off on you. Apparently I was wrong.

Somalis are quite militant about Islam, you know.

As I said, I'm no statistician. I can't do science, and I can't do statistics. But that doesn't matter with regard to what I was pointing out.

There's a very bad assumption here, which is that the "other foreigners" category contains only the 13 groups listed, and that membership in none of the others implies membership in the Somalis group.

Assuming I'm not even pretending to "do statistics" (as a science), and that I'm not even trying to be "rigorous" about it, why is that a bad assumption?

Why would it not be reasonable to assume that if a minority is not on that list, it's an insignificant one?

Why would membership in none of the others not imply membership in the Somalis group?

Again, there's no need to be rigorous here. It's actually common knowledge here in Finland that Somalis rape a lot of women, but I felt like I should point to some statistics instead of just making that claim right away. Otherwise a cold reception like this would have been guaranteed.

It's common knowledge in Sweden too, by the way. In Germany, it's the Turks, and in the Netherlands, it's Moroccans.

There are people who are aware of reality, and then there are Sheeple, and for whatever reason, the media here (and afaik, all over the countries affected by Muslim immigration) has been systematically covering up the fact that the perpetrators of lots of crimes are, in fact Somalis, and not Finns.

Whenever there's news of a gang-rape, they always say it's was a bunch of "younglings" (="nuorukaiset" in Finnish, "ungdomar" in Swedish, "youth" in English news). Without any mention of the ethnicity, the reader will just assume it was locals who did it. Actually, I'm surprised they even publish statistics like those I pointed to.

Seriously. How rare is gang-rape among Western men? It's pretty fucking rare. But there have been lots of incidents in Finland in the past years. Does it make sense to assume that Finns have suddenly gotten all gang-rapey?

In other news, there are 100 cars in the parking lot outside. There are 2 Toyotas, 3 Hondas, and 95 "other" cars. Clearly these 95 cars are Fords.

Well, if we know that those 100 cars consist of Toyotas, Hondas, and Fords, and that 2 are Toyotas and 3 are Hondas, what does that leave us with for the 95 "Others"?

You can't do this with stats and still claim to remain impartial, or correct.

Again, I never claimed to be rigorous with my stats. That's just an assumption by you.

The moment the words "probably" and "let's be generous" come out of your mouth re: statistics, your numbers have lost almost all meaning. When you're trying to justify incredibly racist views, back of the napkin calculations do not cut it.

Again, not rigorous. Besides, there was no need to be rigorous. The conclusion is very clear even with a large error margin. Even 110 to 3 is a massive difference, but as I pointed out, it's reasonable to assume that the smallest minorities don't actually count for 3 rapes each, but less.

I rarely accuse people directly on these forums. You sir, are racist. For the sake of all of us, please re-evaluate your views.

I can see how you'd reach that conclusion, especially since it was what you wanted to conclude all along. But really, Europe does have a Muslim immigration problem. There's no problem with Chinese immigrants, or Western ones, or anyone who comes in and adapts and doesn't cause trouble.

But there sure as hell is a problem with Somalis, in both Finland and Sweden. We're all brainwashed by our Western cultures in to viewing the world through rose-colored glasses, but that's not what reality is like.

There are differences between races and cultures.

Oh? At least in Finland, the situation is actually the exact opposite of that. As far as I know, the same applies all over Scandinavia and Central Europe.

First, note that there are roughly three times as many Russians in Finland as there are Somalis:

http://www.stat.fi/til/vaerak/2011/vaerak_2011_2012-03-16_ku...

Then, look at this: http://www.stat.fi/til/polrik/2011/polrik_2011_2012-04-02_ta...

Unfortunately that's only in Finnish, but here are some key words:

  - "Suomen kansalaiset" = "Finnish citizens".
  - "Venäjä, entinen Neuvostoliitto" = "Russia, former Soviet  Union"
  - "Raiskausrikokset" = "Rape (-crimes)"

2011

  - Total number of rapes: 644
  - Total number of rapes committed by Finns: 474	
  - Total number of rapes committed by all foreigners: 170
  - Total number of rapes committed by Estonians: 15
  - Total number of rapes committed by *Russians*: 3
  - Total number of rapes committed by Swedes: 3
  - Total number of rapes committed by *Other Foreigners: 149*

Let's be "generous" and assume they account for 3 rapes each, much like Russians and Swedes, even though they're much smaller minorities so the numbers are probably much lower.

That leaves us with 110 rapes committed by Somalis. Now I'm no statistician, and not very good at math either. But when Somalis outnumber a much larger minority in rape statistics 110 to 3, it seems that they're pretty fucking Rapey.

We've been tolerating and understanding the fuck out of them too, but that doesn't seem to have helped at all. They're massively over-represented in crime statistics.

There are talented people everywhere, but you won't find all that many Western people who killed their own daughters for showing too much skin.

I bet most of us here on HN use expletives quite a lot in their everyday conversations among friends. It's just part of expressing yourself and your feelings.

Besides, the most vocal opponents of expletives tend to be religious. It's kind of sad when even the word "cursing" is so horrifying that you have to call it "cussing" instead.

Cursing is just another difference between the ways you speak in different situations. Imagine you're discussing the global recession with one of your friends. Which one of these sounds more natural:

  - "Those rather reprehensible individuals at Wall Street
    bear the brunt of the blame for this rather dreadful
    economic predicament we're in."

  - "Those fucking scumbags on Wall Street caused this mess."

A cross-platform UI toolkit that's pretty good all things considered? A reporting toolkit that produces PDFs according to custom templates?

(Swing and JasperReports, respectively)

Luckily we've got Mr. Atropos taking care of things.

There's a new huge undertaking of making a modern, competitive "Maps" product. Who'd have thought that when the first version ever is released, its data is not as accurate as a seven-year-old competitor's?

This is fucking ridiculous. Let's see how long it takes for Google to replace everything it has with vector graphics. You know, to get even with the iOS 6 Maps. Who's the incumbent in two years?

The price in the secondary market is whatever is agreed upon by the buyer and seller. There is NO set price, it's a normal functioning capitalist market.

Well, your "secondary market" consists of only two people - you and the guy who would actually use the domain you're hogging. It's not much of a Market, but of course you'd call it one in an attempt to scrape together some semblance of legitimacy for your point of view.

As someone who has owned over a thousand domains and made a living off it, I've had domains earning thousands of dollars per month just being parked. You think those are still worth $10? That's idiotic.

Cute. The market price for a domain itself is, in fact, that $10. Whatever money you happen to manage to scrape off of unsuspecting (and likely idiotic) visitors to your sleazy malware/bullshit-laden parked domain pages is irrelevant.

that their time, effort and investment aren't worth anything

Your time and effort is worth only as much as you manage to extract out of your victims. You're not "adding value" to anything - quite the contrary. You're a parasite.

I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you. You claim you've done nothing wrong, but any non-scumbag would disagree.

Yep. It's weird that everything is built around just one button that says "Sync", when there are two different directions involved.

Either you want to save the state of whatever device you're currently using, or you want to revert it to the state stored in the cloud.

Export <--> Import, pretty much.

You're twisting the meaning of "market price" to suit your view, while accusing me of doing the same.

There's a marketplace out there where anyone can go pick up a domain name for roughly 10 dollars. That is a domain's market price, but someone may consider a specific domain name worth more based on his personal circumstances, such as being about to start a company that the domain would suit well, and that's exactly what you and other scumbags are counting on.

ICANN and the registrars don't price domains according to how desirable they think they are, and that's why they're all the same price.

But you do. You buy ones you think other people would want. They're worth more than ten dollars only when someone else actually wants them.

The domain you're "holding hostage" would still be worth only ten dollars to almost anyone else besides the guy who wants it. It's not the same as a plot of land, because there's no general consensus on the market price.

There are lots of people who have thought of various good names for a product they're making, just to find out that they're all squatted. I'm one of them. You're a squatter. We're bound to not get along.

Restrictions, huh? Do you think those might be related to the NSA storing and processing[1] everything that happens on the Internet?

I sure am glad there are restrictions in place though!

[1] Yeah. Who knows. Let's just not go there.

It seems both did.

what they're mad about is that Obama did not VETO the NDAA in order to RESCIND the authority that the executive ALREADY HAD from the AUMF.

You say it like there's nothing wrong with the authority to detain citizens at will because it was already in place.

Also, what I said about your behavior is accurate. You always do spring into action whenever bad things The Establishment does are discussed.

Why is that? For example in this case, it doesn't really matter that the AUMF had already "legalized" something that just should not happen at all. The point is that nasty shit is afoot. It's irrelevant exactly how and when your government "authorized" itself to do it.

Vetoing the NDAA, which passes every year, would have involved not paying soldiers.

Your "defense" budget could certainly use a hefty cut, but then you might have (even more) trouble maintaining your global Empire.

But surely they could work around this issue if they wanted to de-authorize the government from shipping any old innocent bystander (or unharmonious troublemaker, as the case would be) off to Guantanamo on a whim.

The market price for a plot of land is something based on the location and area.

Will a land-owner accept the current market price for it, or will he demand.. say, 500 times the market price (or preferably 5000 times or 50000 times), just because Fuck You?

Is land so cheap that anyone can start just grabbing hundreds of plots all over the world, on the off chance that someone might someday need one of them, planning to then extract 5000 times the market price from the buyer if he happens to need it bad enough?

  - You have a business idea.
  - You come up with a great domain name for your company.
    One that's relevant to what you're doing, and clever too!
  - You go online hoping to buy that domain.
  - You find out it's been taken by someone.. 
  - .. but not for the purpose of actually *doing* something with it. 

Bottom line: the domain name that would be perfect for your new business should cost you something like ten dollars. You'd buy it, and happily continue getting shit done.

But now that the squatter has it, it costs you thousands of dollars, just because Fuck You.

That's Bad, mm'kay?

Well that wasn't too hard to guess, huh? -Sad.

Nope. Quite the contrary. I'm aware that the main stream media is mostly just a tool for controlling the masses. The issue here was tptacek always rushing in to defend The Establishment in whatever is happening.

Oh? What about everything related to civil liberties going severely downhill since Bush? Take the NSA "spy center" in Utah we're all aware of by now. How's that for Change You Can Believe In?

Now, why is it that whenever there's a post about the US government being up to no good, you are all over the place defending the government or making things seem less serious, or like this time, just mixing things up?

Are you some kind of perception management agent or what?

Last time there was a post that um.. required your intervention, the thread was like half-full of your posts. Seriously. What the fuck? What are you doing?

Everyone who lives in reality knows you've got quite a police state going on over there. Everyone knows your government is totally owned by Wall Street and other elites [1]. Everyone knows your police force is full of thugs that tase people to death for fun. Countless Americans have had their houses fraudulently foreclosed on by the banks.

America is swirling down the drain. What the hell are you trying to accomplish here on Hacker News by trying to polish the turd of reality?

[1] Well, except for Ron Paul and a couple of other people.