Let's talk about the Örebro Party: (Swedish) lefty socialists except they support remigration.
Key quotes from Wikipedia (emphasis mine)
The party claims to stand for a "class-conscious populism" which according to party leader Markus Allard takes inspiration from marxist ideology and unites the "productive" classes of society against the "Transferiat", with the "Transferiat" being a term coined by Allard to describe the classes of society that lives off transfers that are a net negative for society such as those who, despite having an ability to work, live off social welfare benefits, as well as those who work "made-up services" that the party deems serve no societal function, such as bureaucrats, consultants, public sector communications specialists, strategists and HR-specialists.
In 2026 ÖP party leader Markus Allard sparked controversy on several occasions. In a debate hosted by Studio3 with Liberal member of parliament Martin Melin, Allard asked: "why won't the Liberals push for deporting 100 000 social welfare-Somalis?" and in the same debate said that "Sweden belongs to the Swedes. We have to make sure that we take care of our own damn people and we must deport these damn parasites who sit and live at our expense."
In a podcast segment about immigration and deportations Allard stated his opinion and said that "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish."
"OH YES!!! SWEDEN BELONGS TO THE SWEDES! If an immigrant refuses to adapt then they should not be here. In our national party program we will present measures for massive remigration. We need to start by getting rid of the criminals and people who have lived off of social welfare year after year. 0 arguments to keep them here. On a municipal level that which can be done, should be done to achieve remigration/deportation of these."
They've made headlines recently (and got on my radar) because Mullvad's CEO donated €452,000 to them.
My perspective on remigration:
People should live in their own communities. I remember reading an article about a tradcath community, and presumably the article wanted to criticise and mock them, but I thought they had decent values and the world is better with them. Or the furry community, even though they can be weird, sometimes produce amazing works like this. Or the unique cultures from other countries and ethnicities...hence the appeal of reversing immigration.
Immigration has ruined communities. A massive problem with today's culture is that it has become one monoculture: everything is becoming gentrified, secured, and impersonal. Translation tools, ethnic stores, etc. are accelarating this (despite otherwise being positive by granting me interesting new cultures and vice versa), by making every culture adapt every other culture's most viral aspects (which aren't necessarily good, like arguably convenience food and tipping). LLMs are accelarating this. But immigration is perhaps most accelarating this: some immigrants are even beneficial, but immigrants who don't know or respect the culture's customs, don't socialize with the rest of the community, take more than they contribute (without an apparent excuse), commit much more crime than the existing community, and don't even speak the language...break community members' unspoken understanding, friendship, altruism, trust, and communication with their neighbor.
But remigration isn't a solution. First, because I can't imagine how to do it remotely ethically. Comparing anything right-wing to Nazism is an overused cliche, but it fits here: AFAIK Nazis initially planned to just deport the Jews somewhere (Madagascar), but ended up brutally overworking and exterminating them, because their end goal was to get rid of them and that was easiest. How would you get rid of immigrants if Somalia etc. won't accept them? What if it's too expensive? What if it's dangerous for them? What about women and children?
These are difficult questions not only morally, but the infrastructure (military tactics) to effectively implement remigration is dangerous for your own sake. It risks broadening persecution, creating a fascist state, an ugly monoculture...the exact failure it seeks to prevent.
So what to do? I don't oppose moderate immigration reform, like:
- Some restrictions on immigration
- More thorough vetting
- Rejecting anyone that can't demonstrate a good reason for immigrating or contribution to the target country
- Rejecting anyone that fails a "basic human decency and tolerance" test that specifically includes tolerating other religions
- Sending refugees to specific countries and regions in countries that accept them, maybe in exchange for tax relief; so they're safe and with the tolerant liberals who voted for them, not tight-knit communities who voted against them
- Deporting anyone who commits a serious crime, even native-born if they have loose connections to their native country and an overseas family
- Less welfare for immigrants than citizens (still enough to survive with small extra, but less than citizens)
- Also, less welfare and rights than legal immigrants. Refugees can apply for legal immigration by learning the language and culture
- Segregated communities (which do and will form naturally), then policing their border. "But isn't that just creating nations?" Yes, it's creating states, but see bullet point 2
Honestly, I don't think these are enough to reverse the decay of culture and public resources, and they may seem like a waste of resources for unwanted immigrants, but I think too much immigration/remigration would be worse (for culture and public resources). A real solution must be broader than immigration. Fixing the other issues: making LLMs more diverse, further improving translation tools and incentivizing ethnic stores to include more cultural nuance, and increasing nationalism as a side-effect of addressing the elephant in the room: convincing most of the population to like their government (maybe by having it do something notable for the public and advertising it, and electing new parties with less out-of-touch politicians, even Örebro if they tone down remigration).
Arguably the above essay is another milquetoast thought experiment with the same conclusions everyone already knows: obviously government should not be so corrupt, etc. So another point of discussion is why Örebro decided to focus on this as their stand-out policy. Is it just marketing and they plan to implement something much more moderate (I realize I'm bad at marketing, but I'm skeptical this would work for a generally leftist party). Is it a radical idea to appeal to the working class? Is it only the media that's focusing on this policy, and Örebro themselves consider it a less important part of the agenda compared to the socialist policies? (Probably all of the above, especially the third.)
I do think we need some radical solution to fix societal decay, although it may emerge outside policy, like a technological breakthrough, or just younger generations replacing older ones and having a drastically different culture. I don't think it's in immigration. Maybe the Örebro party will get elected by arguing for remigration, but if they actually want to improve Sweden, I believe the bulk of their implementation must be in their other policies.
You see the State as a neutral floor that permits religion to exist above it. But I actually see it as a moving ceiling.
ChatGPT (or whatever LLM)'s metaphor is wrong. We both see the state as a floor, your concern is when the floor rises above the Church (and what's reasonable), i.e. the state's morality isn't flexible enough to permit Church doctrine.
When we talk about "state" we may refer to two separate things: the theoretical state with laws as they're written (which for most real nations isn't even coherent), or the physical state with laws as they're enforced. As previously said, religion is a set of opinions. The state can (theoretically) ban opinions from being practiced and discussed, but not the opinions themselves, and it's (physical) enforcement is limited.
Sure, in a 1984-esque state with total control and invasion of privacy, a religion will be physically destroyed (although the non-physical set of opinions will always exist, so it may be revived, maybe that's unlikely). Or perhaps a Brave New World-esque state may voluntarily convince the masses to abandon the religion, leaving it all-but-destroyed physically. But otherwise, in today's states (states without total control or persuasion, even Iran), a conflicting religion may at least survive by teaching its opinions (secretly, publicly covertly, publicly if allowed), even if they never get to be practiced; and they may be secretly practiced, moreso whenever the state becomes weaker, and eventually may influence the state so they become legal. Even the Aztec blood religion (although fortunately, a state today may be powerful enough to prevent them from actually carrying out any blood sacrifices).
Brainwavez
1mo ago
Something can wordy without being overly so. LLMs use lots of filler expressions. “But here is where the jurisdictional land-grab happens” - a very LLM-esque sentence, what does it mean?
My model of religion and governance (laws, welfare, etc.) overlap but are ultimately different.
Abstractly, both religion and governance are a set of opinions (and speculations, and manners, and practices, etc.) that adherents follow. The difference is that religion is stricter but voluntary, while governance is more flexible but mandatory. Church is between government and individual: both impose their opinions for the individual's own good and that of others around them, but government's opinions are less tailored and more imposed (by consequences and physical force).
In simpler words: Church tells you how to live your life in detail, but there are multiple Churches and you choose one, then can ignore it without much consequence. Government tells you less (broadly-applicable rules, education, etc.) but you only have one, and better listen.
When I imagine government, I imagine things like laws/enforcement against murder and theft, welfare to provide bare-minimum necessities, education that is facts and widely-held opinions (like "don't murder or steal")...things that are widely-agreed-upon or can be justified by widely-agreed-upon axioms. When I imagine religion, I imagine more specific rules ("no sex before marriage"), specific prayers, specific celebrations (Christmas dinner), specific customs (crosses)...that aren't widely-agreed-upon or justified by widely-agreed-upon axioms (instead axioms like "divine beings said so"). Both are important: the lowest-common-denominator provided by government is necessary to prevent anarchy, but not sufficient for human flourishing, because most people need more tailored guidance, and a bit of coercion, than they can provide to themselves.
Everything described before is simultaneously managed by culture (even enforcement, informally). Religion is a culture given structure, while government is the intersection of many cultures, or a large culture, given structure.
-
Sure, there exist (or have existed) religions with minimal beliefs and Churches that carry out laws up to executing people; and laws that are personal and controversial and governments with minimal enforcement. There are (or were) places where Church is more of a government than the official government. There are Church-government hybrids. This is just how I define Church and government and imagine how they work, based on my perception of them in modern Western nations and how other define them.
-
When Church and government opinions overlap, the government's take priority. This is obviously true in practice, but also according to this model, because the government's opinions should be strictly more permissive; if Church is right and government is wrong, the government should be more flexible so it permits the Church.
Brainwavez
1mo ago
I don't mind if someone uses AI, even to produce a full draft of their comment; as long as what they publish is hand-written, or somewhat if they gave the AI a unique-enough prompt that nobody notices.
A big problem with AI is sameness. Echoed by this short blogpost, where someone looks up "100,000 whys" books on Amazon, and all the covers are indistinguishable. 1 of the covers would be interesting and acceptable, 100 are boring and the flaws stand out. Besides desensitization, sameness also leads to model collapse and its cultural equivalent: AI and humans need to experience diverse writing (including bad writing) in order to write better.
This is also why I don't really mind if AI is unnoticeable. Because, if my thesis is true that AI output has inhuman similarities no matter how it's prompted, eventually humans would begin to notice. I say "really mind" because the realization may happen too late, when subliminal desensitization and model collapse have already caused serious problems. But it's an improvement, because right now I see serious problems from AI output that is obvious at least to me.
blockbuster films and AAA video games should be allowed to exclusively pander to straight men without any concessions to women or LGBT
Agreed
I'm happy to see a company signal boosting against misandry after 10 years of unabashed anti-male messaging in western culture.
Acceptable
And if this happens through the way of censorship
I don't think it really will, and it will have a slight opposite effect: the people pushing censorship don't care about free expression and vice versa, so if you censor their side, they will only escalate. I would gladly accept a truce where every art I like is allowed and every art I dislike is also allowed, but I already don't care about the latter. The people who care enough about offensive art to implement censorship, if they have any logic to their thinking, know it will be used against their art; they choose censorship over expression.
I acknowledge, one way censorship does reduce other censorship, is by getting bystanders to notice it used against the other side (which they already don't see), when it's used against their side, so they push back on all of it. So, maybe.
But I think promoting expression is better: you can alternatively (or both, but you only have finite resources) get bystanders to notice by creating media they like that the censors (whose tolerance is always lower than the bystanders') will target. And that has the intrinsic benefit of creating good art, and doesn't have the drawback of enraging the censors (as much) or creating censorship infrastructure (which makes it easier for anyone to censor).
Brainwavez
1mo ago
I passively clocked it as AI which is why I asked Pangram. Em-dash, "it's not X, it's Y", "here's the XYZ", very short paragraphs; if it had a couple of these tropes I wouldn't guess, but it's full of them.
It also has the high-level AI trope of being overly wordy. My understanding is that the main message is "Separation of church and state isn't fully possible, and the state is effectively its own church, because both church and state advocate and enforce their own morality, and sometimes these moralities conflict". That's one sentence, does the full 32-sentence comment add much else?
FYI, Pangram says this is 100% AI-generated.
Personally: if you're a human who had a human idea and used AI to put it into writing, please write in your own words. Maybe it can be intimidating when people write long-winded essays in perfect prose, but it really isn't necessary to contribute to this site. I wouldn't care even if you wrote broken (human) English.
Why AI writing is bad (even logic/philosophy writing like this) is complex and debatable enough that it would be a great top-level discussion. But at least, don't do it because it's borderline against the rules (yeah, a random comment you had no expectation of knowing being new here, it should really be in the sidebar).
Brainwavez
1mo ago
But English communities have decayed, including ones I doubt have many English-speaking third-worlders. And language barriers keep non-English-speakers in separate communities.
I always wonder what’s going on in non-Anglo social media, like African and Indian Facebook(?) Maybe they’re similar, but then I expect the cause is mass-media exported from Anglo countries, not vice versa.
Wokes rail against male gaze on principle. But they are perfectly capable of arresting the slippery slope short of censoring female gaze/gay oriented media...Even when they latch onto real issues, like domestic violence or sexual assault, I’m deeply suspicious of letting them set the terms...
I agree, but note this also involves many conservatives: I'm suspicious of anyone too passionate about censorship.
And the arguments for even mild censorship are weak. For example, censoring hardcore porn may slightly reduce domestic violence, but I'd prefer ways that don't restrict stable men, because there are downsides (even to men who don't prefer hardcore porn, as explained in GP). I'm sure everyone has some interest or characteristic (e.g. stereotype) that, if restricted, would reduce some kind of harm; so fairly implementing every restriction "for the greater good" restricts everyone, a nanny-state dystopia.
I'd be perfectly fine with conservatives censoring homosexuality in television.
I disagree. Cable is dying, so television amounts to YouTube, Netflix, and every alternative; the power to censor anything more than realistic CSAM and government secrets from all of these would surely be abused (already DMCA is abused by false takedowns). And it may seem like a small consolation, but I'm sure there's some quality in gay porn that inspires better straight media; for example, a wholesome display of gay affection may be reused in a wholesome display of platonic or heterosexual romantic affection.
Furthermore, nobody can deny that objectively gayness exists. Related, I object to completely censoring homosexuality from children any more than heterosexuality: that means at minimum, they should be told in sex-ed that it exists and it's normal for some people to feel it. Because like it or not, some people are intrinsically gay, and trying to hide gayness from them invariably ends up hurting everyone involved: see those who come out in the most repressive communities, knowing their formerly-generous family will now try to kill them, uplifting and threatening their entire life, just to have consensual sex with another adult (or similarly-aged teenager under Romeo and Juliet morality).
However, I strongly believe that, to a reasonable extent, people should have the right not to see and hear media they don't like, and children should be barred from inappropriate (including sexual) media as much as possible without compromising privacy. This means that (E: children only if it’s too sexual for their age, same as hetero) and adults who don't want to be exposed to homosexuality must endure sex-ed and plain "gay XYZ" advertisements, but beyond that, should have technology to block it, and a distributor intentionally circumventing this technology should be illegal. Offline, when mutual coexistence is impossible, laws and government should seek separation: for example, a gay culture growing in a deeply Christian community should (as it naturally will) be coerced to relocate if there's anywhere else (and vice versa). Likewise, graphic violence, porn, etc. should be allowed, but only distributed to those who present themselves as of-age and actively seeking it.
Brainwavez
1mo ago
I also remember growing up in the 2000s being taught and hearing most people defend near-unconditional free speech (except government secrets, immediate threats, etc.). Maybe that’s why I find it particularly important, and strange when it’s criticized.
A report aggregating polls on free speech from 2021 suggests:
-
Support for “people can say what they want” is still generally high in most nations (94% overall). Support to explicitly allow offending minorities and religions is much lower (an embarrassing example of the framing effect), but still 66% and 78% in the US
-
From 2015 (notably, before Trump) to 2021, support generally hasn’t decreased globally, but somewhat in the US and some other Western nations
-
“In the US, young people, women, the less educated, and Biden voters are generally more restrictive regarding free speech” - young people is particularly worrying
The slippery slope argument works against any good policy, because it can be framed as going in the right direction, but extrapolated, far off into the wrong direction.
Extreme example: “we should feed malnourished children” can be extrapolated to “we should significantly overfeed malnourished children”.
It’s a meaningful argument against anything that takes significant time and effort, because then it’s a buffer against a malicious group (which occasionally has power regardless of your ideology, and includes a criminal who temporarily breaks into the the security room).
But in particular, trying to prevent the Overton Window from shifting in the right direction backfires: people discover obvious conclusions on their own (if they’re outside the window they’ll just keep quiet), so if you oppose obvious conclusions, their priors will shift away from you and towards any opponent pushing a more radical conclusion.
My previous opinion still holds. Expressed well by the top YouTube comment (at the time of posting): “Don't bend the knee to an internet moral police weirdo.”
I don’t entirely know why, but when I see a game like this, even though I’m not planning to play it, I feel a strong urge to defend it. It’s not pedophilia: it also happens when I see some weird furry game, or movie like “Human Centipede” or “Martyrs”, or some edgy online discussion forum or post (hence why I’m here). It’s not that I like or agree with any of these. But somehow I feel defending them protects the art that I do like and opinions I hold, which I believe most people today wouldn’t even consider controversial (although probably “weird”).
An explanation that I gestured to in the last comment: I can’t know how other people feel about my opinions without risking myself, and I’d certainly be condemned in more puritan times, which moral policing can lead to. But this is the slippery slope fallacy and thus I consider it a logically bad defense: it’s analogous to “I wish people wouldn’t get arrested for murder, because I (a non-murderer) don’t want the vague risk of being wrongly arrested”. Although it does apply to enforcement infrastructure (analogous to “I wish mass surveillance wasn't built to arrest murderers, because now it can be used by brutal totalitarians to arrest passive dissenters”; we can have cops and reduce most murders without privacy-crippling mass surveillance).
A better defense (IMO) for radical speech, is that even overall “bad” speech has some “good” parts, and you need those to prevent stagnation and decay (like inbreeding). For example, this site has a lot of opinions I disagree with, but occasionally I discover some important fact or argument I didn’t notice before, which aligns with my values (changing my object-level, like policy, opinion). I think (an opinion that’s becoming more common) woke’s rejection of uncomfortable speech has directly led to its groupthink (finding uncomfortable then rejecting milder and milder speech) and downfall. Or back to art, some great works contain vague pedophilia (or other edgy themes), like End of Evangelion and Serial Experiments Lain; these have directly inspired further great works that don’t contain the edgy themes, and I doubt we’d have the derivatives or anything matching their quality (from the perspective of anyone with any taste), without allowing the originals or something matching their edginess.
Brainwavez
1mo ago
Since that "FDA approved" label on the box is likely to cost millions (maybe billions) of dollars
It doesn’t have to. What if, instead of companies applying, the FDA seeks out products that meets its standards, and/or creates its own approved baseline?
Products that don’t get FDA approval (unless the FDA allows them to pay for the necessary tests themselves) are disadvantaged, but it’s better than today where they’re outlawed.
Brainwavez
1mo ago
Why not have “FDA approved” products but still allow other products? You can buy FDA approved sunscreen and know it’s not coconut oil or benzene.
Brainwavez
1mo ago
I forgot also “charity”
Invest in index funds
EDIT: better and more unique answer: if there are any small-time creators with Patreon, Ko-Fi etc., donate to them.
Brainwavez
1mo ago
Yes, the proposals are bad.
But I think it's easier to persuade with "age verification is fine, but this proposal is bad because it unnecessarily hurts privacy (and won't even work), here's a better one" than "age verification is bad".
Brainwavez
1mo ago
Children's internet access can be mitigated without really invading privacy.
Better parental controls, phone bans in schools, and propaganda "the free internet is bad for children". I think those would get the most young people off the free internet for most of their youth, which is enough for significant improvement to society, even with a few (with negligent parents and/or ambition) still online.
I don't think Africans and Indians ruined the mainstream internet, I think it was "normies". The internet used to be dominated by autistic nerds like us, so it appealed to us; now we're the minority (like in real life), so it appeals to the majority.
You can still find communities which cater to autistic nerds, like this one. I think the answer is not censorship but gatekeeping. If California polices the internet, they won't police it how nerds want, they'll police it how (Californian) politicians and lobbyists want. Instead, on the free internet, one can create a community that excludes "normies" through culture, moderation, and as last resort invite-only.
The two problems I'm aware of are DDoS, but in practice CDNs like Cloudflare or Epik and bot-detectors like Anubis have defended so far; and doxxing, but most people want privacy for themselves, and many have worse skeletons in their closet than whatever you said, so that may be transient.
Brainwavez
1mo ago
I think obviousness is the point, similar to obvious scams. Smart people already filter them, the vast majority who'd be influenced as intended are too stupid to notice or care. Then the less obvious trolls are harder to detect.
Brainwavez
1mo ago
Substitute “political bias” for “scientific understanding”. If I point a scanner gun at a metallic box and it says “aluminum” I’d assume it’s correct, if it says “xenon” (gas except at extremely cold temperatures) I’d assume the gun is broken and run further tests.
The main difference is that politics is based less on solid evidence, and much less on reason from first principles.
We have much more invasive technology than Orwell’s time (some, like AI, surpass that in 1984). And arguably we have less overall freedom (at least it’s harder to commit crime without getting caught), but again, much more than 1984 citizens.
In a few years our leaders may actually not be human (if we achieve ASI and it merges with and/or overthrows them). Then it is plausible we’d be put into a 1984-like society (temporarily, but that may be a long time: until the AI can do everything more efficiently than humans and promptly exterminates us, or the Earth becomes uninhabitable, or aliens invade, etc.). While I can’t imagine why an omnipotent (from our perspective) AI would even give humans the choice to rebel, it’s possible 1984 is the best configuration for a non-omnipotent AI. But that’s just one possibility: if keeping humans alive is useful, I think giving them some agency would also be.
The woke aren't nearly as successful as the Party: while they have significant influence, Trump's faction exists, this site exists, and even on Reddit (outside the most extreme echo chambers) and in-person interactions with left-leaning people, I consistently see and hear the most extreme woke ideas (analogous to 2+2=5) repudiated by the majority.
You can find analogies to everything in 1984 (Two Minutes Hate, doublethink, etc.), today and in Orwell's time. But as bad as our society is wrt. conformity and top-down control, it's nowhere near 1984. I do note that mass surveillance is gaining in certain places (e.g. the UK), but it's stalling in others, and I suspect only a matter of time before it gets crippled because some group uses it for something stupid.
The only criteria I use when calling out AI is Pangram, which has a low false positive rate.
I don't mean to offend you, so I'll stop calling out your posts.
(Also, most of your posts haven't been visible for the last 1-2 days out of order, because you're in the new user filter. Once you get enough upvotes, your posts will appear to everyone else immediately).
More options
Context Copy link