Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Survey results minus police reports.

But that source has to be satire. 45% of Swedish women will be raped in the next two months? That's gotta be a parody.

[nullBolt]

You're right, man. Feminism does not explain the rape epidemic because the reporting rates have been going down. Have you seen the latest rape statistics from Sweden, by the way? They're so fucking horrible that it's no wonder the authorities don't want us to see them. D:

Earlier today, an independent feminist NGO known as Women's Rights Watch Sverige published their own unofficial statistics of unreported rape in Sweden, and the numbers have far outstripped the worst fears of the country's most concerned citizens. Gunilla Bergström, CEO of Women's Rights Watch, assesses the findings in no uncertain terms: "The only conclusion that can be drawn from this dataset is that the entire immigrant population of Sweden is waging an outright war against light-skinned, non-Muslim women – and the women have already lost." According to WRWS, the total number of unreported rape offences has increased by 229 000 each year, for the last five years, whereas the rate of reporting has plummeted from the earlier 5% to an abysmal 0.0005% during the interval. Bergström continues: "We are now at the point where over 45% of Swedish women will be raped at least once within the next two months, and 23% will be raped over eight times in the same time period. In addition, our estimates indicate that at least 29 000 of Swedish women have been brutally murdered during sexual assault by immigrant gangs, and approximately 13% of all light-skinned, non-Muslim womem have been forced into sexual slavery to their Muslim husbands." According to an anonymous government spokesperson, the WRWS is going to faces charges of treason for leaking classified information.

Neither that site nor the one it's linking to seem to exist. Got another source?

I'm always very, very wary of "unreported rape" statistics, anyway, since how do you even begin to measure that which is not, by it's definition, measured? It's guesswork.

[SirQuiamus]

Survey results minus police reports.

But that source has to be satire. 45% of Swedish women will be raped in the next two months? That's gotta be a parody.

You're right, man. Feminism does not explain the rape epidemic because the reporting rates have been going down. Have you seen the latest rape statistics from Sweden, by the way? They're so fucking horrible that it's no wonder the authorities don't want us to see them. D:

Earlier today, an independent feminist NGO known as Women's Rights Watch Sverige published their own unofficial statistics of unreported rape in Sweden, and the numbers have far outstripped the worst fears of the country's most concerned citizens. Gunilla Bergström, CEO of Women's Rights Watch, assesses the findings in no uncertain terms: "The only conclusion that can be drawn from this dataset is that the entire immigrant population of Sweden is waging an outright war against light-skinned, non-Muslim women – and the women have already lost." According to WRWS, the total number of unreported rape offences has increased by 229 000 each year, for the last five years, whereas the rate of reporting has plummeted from the earlier 5% to an abysmal 0.0005% during the interval. Bergström continues: "We are now at the point where over 45% of Swedish women will be raped at least once within the next two months, and 23% will be raped over eight times in the same time period. In addition, our estimates indicate that at least 29 000 of Swedish women have been brutally murdered during sexual assault by immigrant gangs, and approximately 13% of all light-skinned, non-Muslim womem have been forced into sexual slavery to their Muslim husbands." According to an anonymous government spokesperson, the WRWS is going to faces charges of treason for leaking classified information.

Neither that site nor the one it's linking to seem to exist. Got another source?

I'm always very, very wary of "unreported rape" statistics, anyway, since how do you even begin to measure that which is not, by it's definition, measured? It's guesswork.

Odd... I tried to re-check the sources but the websites have just... disappeared. Is this... oh fuck, we 1984 now! :O

[Loud Whispers]

TOO SPOOKY ME

[Ukrainian Ranger]

You have to get several secondary sources or a few primary sources to get some idea of anything approaching the truth.

Do you know what usually happens when people do this? They invent their own reality. They combine several sources (some of which are bullshit) and adapt it to fit their own believes and ideas.

So is it better to pick one authority and put all your trust in it? That seems silly to me.

One should create mental lists like

95% level of trust
80% level of trust
66% level of trust
10% level of trust
5% level of trust
0% level of trust


If several independent 95% sources claim something - it is true\very likely to be true. If 95% source claim one thing, and 5% source claim another, then you should stick with 95%

Not go "everyone lies" and read just everything and try to make a "truth" out of it. Your brain will create patterns that fit your mentality.

Having one authority is bad, having no authorities is much worse.

[Reelya]

Odd... I tried to re-check the sources but the websites have just... disappeared. Is this... oh fuck, we 1984 now! :O

Those numbers are physically impossible. You need to be more critical of sources. You likely cited some "Onion" style article there. You're only making yourself look bad, just admit the article is clearly a load of shit. It's not physically possible for 45% of the population to be raped in the next 2 months.

[smjjames]

Survey results minus police reports.

But that source has to be satire. 45% of Swedish women will be raped in the next two months? That's gotta be a parody.

You're right, man. Feminism does not explain the rape epidemic because the reporting rates have been going down. Have you seen the latest rape statistics from Sweden, by the way? They're so fucking horrible that it's no wonder the authorities don't want us to see them. D:

Earlier today, an independent feminist NGO known as Women's Rights Watch Sverige published their own unofficial statistics of unreported rape in Sweden, and the numbers have far outstripped the worst fears of the country's most concerned citizens. Gunilla Bergström, CEO of Women's Rights Watch, assesses the findings in no uncertain terms: "The only conclusion that can be drawn from this dataset is that the entire immigrant population of Sweden is waging an outright war against light-skinned, non-Muslim women – and the women have already lost." According to WRWS, the total number of unreported rape offences has increased by 229 000 each year, for the last five years, whereas the rate of reporting has plummeted from the earlier 5% to an abysmal 0.0005% during the interval. Bergström continues: "We are now at the point where over 45% of Swedish women will be raped at least once within the next two months, and 23% will be raped over eight times in the same time period. In addition, our estimates indicate that at least 29 000 of Swedish women have been brutally murdered during sexual assault by immigrant gangs, and approximately 13% of all light-skinned, non-Muslim womem have been forced into sexual slavery to their Muslim husbands." According to an anonymous government spokesperson, the WRWS is going to faces charges of treason for leaking classified information.

Neither that site nor the one it's linking to seem to exist. Got another source?

I'm always very, very wary of "unreported rape" statistics, anyway, since how do you even begin to measure that which is not, by it's definition, measured? It's guesswork.

Odd... I tried to re-check the sources but the websites have just... disappeared. Is this... oh fuck, we 1984 now! :O

Found their english site: http://sverigeskvinnolobby.se/en/ Actually, that might not quite be what the origional source was.

[Reelya]

The language in the other article doesn't really match the tone in this one.

"approximately 13% of all light-skinned, non-Muslim womem have been forced into sexual slavery to their Muslim husbands"

This implies 13% of Swedish non-muslim women have a Muslim husband, which is clearly a joke. The alternative interpretation is that only 13% of non-muslim women who have a muslim husband have been sexually enslaved. But I don't think that's what they're getting at, because they also say:

"the entire immigrant population of Sweden is waging an outright war against light-skinned, non-Muslim women"

And it's a radfem organization, the emphasis on skin color is completely opposite of how feminists talk.

[nullBolt]

Odd... I tried to re-check the sources but the websites have just... disappeared. Is this... oh fuck, we 1984 now! :O

Man, this is why I archive EVERYTHING. Especially after a certain gaming debacle a few years ago where whole articles would be changed and things said a few years back suddenly disappeared into the ether because they showed uncomfortable truths.

There is nothing I don't archive nowadays before I post it.

One should create mental lists like

95% level of trust
80% level of trust
66% level of trust
10% level of trust
5% level of trust
0% level of trust

If several independent 95% sources claim something - it is true\very likely to be true. If 95% source claim one thing, and 5% source claim another, then you should stick with 95%

Not go "everyone lies" and read just everything and try to make a "truth" out of it. Your brain will create patterns that fit your mentality.

Having one authority is bad, having no authorities is much worse.

I've found "95% level of trust sources" that ALL backed each other in lockstep on a certain topic... And it was all false. Like, verifiably false. This includes the BBC (British Broadcast Channel) which is meant to be completely neutral and unbiased.

One of the problems you have to realise is that journalists, especially modern journalists, don't often bother to fact check their sources any more. If one news organisation posts it, five others will cite them as a source and post it even if they have no knowledge or way of proving it's true.

That's not even considering the problem that many journalists embrace the concept of bias and believe they should only report news that agrees with them or that they should present news in a way that shows "their truth" instead of "the truth".

Don't believe anything the media says and you're much more likely to get the truth.

[martinuzz]

EDIT: In more news, nightclubs and bars in Denmark are instating a new rule, where they will deny access to anyone who does not speak Danish, English, or German.
Next to that, a lot of these business are hiring extra doormen to 'deal' with refugee guests who fail to keep their hands off women.
Amnesty International has protested the language restrictiong as being dicriminatory, but the branche organisation Danmarks Restauranter og Cafeer denies the accusation. They say the measure is solely put in place for the increased safety of visitors: "if guests enter that show threatening behaviour, it is a big challenge for security to deal with it if they cannot try to engage in conversation".

Can you source that, please?

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/deense-nachtclubs-weren-vluchtelingen-om-talenkennis~a4228340/
http://www.thelocal.dk/20160118/danish-nightclubs-use-language-rules-to-keep-refugees-out

[Reelya]

EDIT: I was wrong, source seems legit.

[nullBolt]

EDIT: In more news, nightclubs and bars in Denmark are instating a new rule, where they will deny access to anyone who does not speak Danish, English, or German.
Next to that, a lot of these business are hiring extra doormen to 'deal' with refugee guests who fail to keep their hands off women.
Amnesty International has protested the language restrictiong as being dicriminatory, but the branche organisation Danmarks Restauranter og Cafeer denies the accusation. They say the measure is solely put in place for the increased safety of visitors: "if guests enter that show threatening behaviour, it is a big challenge for security to deal with it if they cannot try to engage in conversation".

Can you source that, please?

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/deense-nachtclubs-weren-vluchtelingen-om-talenkennis~a4228340/
http://www.thelocal.dk/20160118/danish-nightclubs-use-language-rules-to-keep-refugees-out

Damn. Good on them, at least.

Really, if anyone is taking that Swedish article at face-value, I ... really question your basic cognitive skills.

Honestly, I was immediately suspicious. I'd've preferred to be able to read it, though.

[SirQuiamus]

Odd... I tried to re-check the sources but the websites have just... disappeared. Is this... oh fuck, we 1984 now! :O

Man, this is why I archive EVERYTHING. Especially after a certain gaming debacle a few years ago where whole articles would be changed and things said a few years back suddenly disappeared into the ether because they showed uncomfortable truths.

There is nothing I don't archive nowadays before I post it.

One should create mental lists like

95% level of trust
80% level of trust
66% level of trust
10% level of trust
5% level of trust
0% level of trust

If several independent 95% sources claim something - it is true\very likely to be true. If 95% source claim one thing, and 5% source claim another, then you should stick with 95%

Not go "everyone lies" and read just everything and try to make a "truth" out of it. Your brain will create patterns that fit your mentality.

Having one authority is bad, having no authorities is much worse.

I've found "95% level of trust sources" that ALL backed each other in lockstep on a certain topic... And it was all false. Like, verifiably false. This includes the BBC (British Broadcast Channel) which is meant to be completely neutral and unbiased.

One of the problems you have to realise is that journalists, especially modern journalists, don't often bother to fact check their sources any more. If one news organisation posts it, five others will cite them as a source and post it even if they have no knowledge or way of proving it's true.

That's not even considering the problem that many journalists embrace the concept of bias and believe they should only report news that agrees with them or that they should present news in a way that shows "their truth" instead of "the truth".

Don't believe anything the media says and you're much more likely to get the truth.

dude...

Don't believe anything low-quality trolls say and you're much more likely to get the truth.

Don't believe anything low-quality trolls say and you're much more likely to get the truth.

Honestly, I was immediately suspicious. I'd've preferred to be able to read it, though.

Those sites never existed in the first place. It was made out of whole cloth. Straight from the fundament. VERITAS EX CULO.

And you would have loved to read it.

[nullBolt]

<snip>
dude...

Don't believe anything low-quality trolls say and you're much more likely to get the truth.

Don't believe anything low-quality trolls say and you're much more likely to get the truth.

I don't, but I prefer to be polite.

[RedKing]

Propose we rename the thread to "Europol REAL Truth Thread: Kebab Can't Melt Braunschweiger!"

I'll go back to now to the Ameripol thread where we're contemplating electing a guy who thinks he can build a giant 3,000 mile wall and get the people he's walling off to pay for it. And that seems sane by comparison.