Scandinavia SUCKS

[Oruc]

I'm rambling.

Also isn't this information I'm presented at least little racist? How do I deal with it, if it is? Should I abandon my information about the Japanese altogether?

If it's true what does it matter if it's "racist"?

 

[Cutlass]

Tbf Swedish crime was much higher than US crime according to a statistic I stumbled upon during the course of this thread. But I can't seem to find it again. Looking for it, I stumbled upon this statistic instead http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp where the Scandinavian countries absolutely blow US crime out of the water. Denmark has half the crime index that the US do. I'm actually quite impressed by it, I knew we were doing great but this is marvelous.

I'm not sure I trust the stats being delivered by some of those countries. But, that said, being a high crime country is a policy in the US, not an accident. And we all pay for it.

 

[JollyRoger]

Based on our high incarceration rates, we Americans are exceptional in our criminality.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Or there's too many blacks. Who knows? Maybe there's just too many gay blacks.

 

[Tahuti]

Or there's too many blacks. Who knows? Maybe there's just too many gay blacks.

Or maybe to many gay Bulgarian blacks who happen to be vassals of King King the 'Bulgarslayer'.

 

[Domen]

Or there's too many blacks. Who knows? Maybe there's just too many gay blacks.

In many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa criminality is lower than in the USA, despite even more blacks.

 

[Arwon]

I'm not sure I trust the stats being delivered by some of those countries. But, that said, being a high crime country is a policy in the US, not an accident. And we all pay for it.

There's recorded crime and crime victimisation.

The former is almost completely non-comparable across countries. Different categories, different legal definitions, different recording practices (reported vs charged vs convicted), different reporting rates because of different levels of trust in the police and legal system. For example Sweden has a very high recorded rape rate, this is almost certainly because there's more trust in the effectiveness of the official response than most other countries. As a rule I'd actually suggest a rising recorded sexual assault rate is a *good* thing.

The latter, crime victim surveys, is based on pretty standardised surveys and doesn't depend on official records. But I think you can still get some methodology and cultural variations.

 

[Cutlass]

There's recorded crime and crime victimisation.

The former is almost completely non-comparable across countries. Different categories, different legal definitions, different recording practices (reported vs charged vs convicted), different reporting rates because of different levels of trust in the police and legal system. For example Sweden has a very high recorded rape rate, this is almost certainly because there's more trust in the effectiveness of the official response than most other countries. As a rule I'd actually suggest a rising recorded sexual assault rate is a *good* thing.

The latter, crime victim surveys, is based on pretty standardised surveys and doesn't depend on official records. But I think you can still get some methodology and cultural variations.

I worked the crime victimization survey for the US Census for a year. So I know some of the underreporting that historically has gone on which caused their to be an independent survey in the first place. That is a very difficult survey to get people to participate in, so I don't know how good the margin of error comes out as.

My question was with the chart Angst was linking to, the positioning of some of those nations was counter-intuitive. So I was wondering if it was a legitimate position or a measurement differential?

 

[Angst]

I don't know enough about crime to say something with substance on the matter. But yes, certain comparisons, such as rape rates, don't compare well. Iirc in Egypt marital rape isn't recognized at all, for example. But I think this "Crime Index" rating is different though - using an international standard. Not sure how.

I'll grant you that there might be a larger subculture in Japan of people who think men should be active and women passive, but my anecdotal experience does not confirm that theory. I hope I'm not being too rude, but I'll say that while in CFC you've come across as a bit too emasculated than what I think is good for you, I think your biggest problem with picking up girls in Japan would be the language, and not the culture. But just find the right crowd, and the language problem should be okay as well.

That's interesting, I had no idea I came off like that.

I don't really like emasculation as a concept though, I think it's a sign of toxic masculinity that it's devalued, or rather, that it even exists.

I'm a pretty sensitive guy, but I don't have any issue hooking up.

If it's true what does it matter if it's "racist"?

Good point I guess.

 

[gozpel]

I, Me and Myself...or should it be Me, Myself & Irene?

To be so megalomaniacally busy with his writings, luiz failed here and there and some pointers are already, erh pointed out. But for the Scandinavians holding tight on their purses and we being cheapskates doing the programs to help the world comes to an end with a crash.

I'm selfish, but so are you. And the Scandinavians. We all set our own borders before which we restrict our solidarity. We all choose to spend money on stuff we don't need over saving starving kids. You do it too. So you are selfish. Go preach to someone else, I'm not about to sanctify you.

In Angst proposed link:

I'm sorry but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...a_percentage_of_Gross_National_Income_in_2013

I did a quick calculation on those figures and US give 100 dollars per capita, while Sweden give over 600 dollars per capita. Cheapskates, right? Norway is even better and Denmark around there too. Finland and Iceland are a little bit lower, but still way over US. Tax money going somewhere useful, and not for bombs?

Small things in Sweden, you pay your fee at the doctors, don't know how much it is today, but say 25 dollars. It will take you from the first examination all the way to the operation room and far beyond that, with rehab and everything, also there is/was a cap on how much you pay for your medicine, it was something like 150 bucks a year and then the system kicked in and you got the rest for peanuts.

Kids in school get a warm lunch for free. NOT chips/fish or pies, a proper meal.

In Sweden you have all-mans-right. You can go camping/fishing etc wherever you want, except on private properties. You ask them and they will mostly be ok. Pick up your litter and don't do like some Germans did a few years back. Going to the coastline, finding some beautiful cliffs next to the sea. Ok, let's get some lumber and they start to chopping down all the trees in the near area and then make a bonfire on top of the cliffs.

4 billion years of natures art destroyed in a few minutes.

For leisure time like fishing, you should go visit Gothenburg where I was born. You can do deep-sea fishing, or find a river within the city or go for a 2 hr drive to find 5 more. If you like lake fishing, there is a 100.000 lakes to choose from which is larger than 2 acres, with another 120.000 smaller lakes. You might catch a sweet water pike there, can weigh up to 100 pounds.

There is so much more than this, just take an example. Where I lived before moving to Australia. I didn't drive a car. I walk for 4 minutes down to the trams, look at the signs and next tram will be there in 3 minutes. (I had to go all over town to my friend, mind you, 30 minute drive on those excellent roads.) I hop onto the tram, disembark at Central Station. Many choices here, like 3 trams and 2 buses. And I get to my friends house in 45 minutes, paying 2 dollars. 60 kilometres! 15 dollars with Taxi.

Small things. I've been to US three times and it is a bipolar country. But being egocentrical is the way of "richer" Americans today, don't look what is over the fence.

I apologize for the rambling.

 

[Farm Boy]

Our bombs are your bombs. It's also myriadpolar.

Though for the rest, I do hope to visit someday. The north people sound lovely.

 

[Tee Kay]

Our bombs are your bombs
.

But Sweden is notably not a NATO member.

 

[Farm Boy]

Freeloading entirely then. >.> <.< >.>

 

[Yeekim]

I'm claiming, and backing with evidence, that for people in my situation - decent job, no debt - living in the US is materially better. Note that I'm the only one who brought actual evidence, like actual tax rates and actual living cost comparisons.

You've certainly proved that someone in your position would have more purchasing power in US. Whether that necessarily translates to overall "better life" is not completely straightforward, though.

What if the choice was between Scandinavia and Brazil or Mexico? I mean, you would probably have more purchasing power in Brazil as well, but in Scandinavia you wouldn't have to worry about you and you wealth becoming target for a kidnapping industry, right?

 

[gay_Aleks]

In many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa criminality is lower than in the USA, despite even more blacks.

Probably because no one that is remotely sane goes out in Sub-Saharan Africa to ask them a number of questions. "How many times did you steal in order to feed your family?"
or "On 1 to 10, how much would you rate your criminality?". And even the ones that do, well, not enough of them returns.

 

[luiz]

Of course when I first posted in this thread I didn't want to get dragged into some morality discussion, because they are so boring and never lead anywhere. I merely replied to a dude who supposed all Americans must feel jealous of how great he has it in Scandinavia. I replied (and in my humble opinion proved throughout the thread) that depending on your situation, living in the US is much better, at least materially. A person in my situation (and I boringly stressed several times I was referring to my situation, and other similar ones, not everybody's situation) does better over here than even in Norway, and Norway is the richest of the Scandinavian nations. But NOOOOOO. The welfare-state thought-police does not tolerate that rather self-evident statement. Living in Scandinavia must necessarily be better for everyone, because reasons. And if you can't see that it's a moral failure on your part. You're selfish and short-sighted and stupid and I hope you suffer an accident and become a cripple just so you can see how wrong and immoral you are.

I'm sorry but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...a_percentage_of_Gross_National_Income_in_2013 . I know you probably don't think it's enough to be convinced that Scandis aren't selfish, but please understand there absolutely is a relatively meaningful cultural difference here.

EDIT: Also, it's important to note that the Danish foreign aid has just recently dropped the last few years to the listed level and it caused a huge uproar.

So you want to be sanctified for spending 1% of your national income on foreign aid? That's supposed to make you a shining example of unselfishness and egalitarianism? Please.

Norway spends more money per capita than any other nation on Earth on booze. You read it right. Sweden and Denmark aren't very far behind. The total amount spent on alcoholic beverages in Norway exceeds the amount spent on foreign aid in about 100%.

Scandinavians, just like human being everywhere with very few exceptions, put their own personal consumption of luxury goods they don't need above saving the lives of starving children. The only difference is that some people, like Akka, do that while still demanding to be treated as some sort of paragon of altruism and generosity.

If you think donating 1% of your income while blowing away a far bigger proportion on stuff you don't need makes you Mother Theresa or something, think again.

Things can be true while being presented in a way that implies value judgement. Your setting up of a contrast between the fact that you can pay your own bills and that some people can't while using language that strongly suggests the former situation is superior to the latter is pretty indicative on its own. On top of that, you seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that your situation is pretty incidental. You can't imagine how you wouldn't be able to afford to pay your own bills? How about if you were born to a poor family and had drug addict parents and never went to school?

I think you have difficulty reading. I went to boring lengths to explain that I was referring to my situation, and to that of people who like me were fortunate enough to receive a good education and solid values. I recognize people who don't receive a decent education, grow up in broken homes and etc may very well be unable to make it on their own. The fact that I can't envision a scenario in which I couldn't pay my own bills does not mean I cannot envision a scenario where some people are unable to pay their own bills.

Someone can be a little bit selfish or very selfish, and the former is better than the latter. We all should have learned this on the playground - the kid who shares his candies and eats one is kinder than the kid who refuses to share any, for example. It's so simple most kids can understand that.

But we're not talking about kids not sharing their candies (which is inconsequential. Nobody experiences real suffering for lack of shared candy). We are talking of people deliberately choosing to blow a far bigger share of their income on frivolous stuff than saving starving kids.

We're all extremely selfish under any objective analysis. The only difference is some of us are also boring, self-righteous, holier-than-thou hypocrites, who think that donating 1% of their income makes them a modern version of St. Francis.

Yep, but there is a large gap between caring more for yourself and people close to you, and promoting an uncaring society where it's "swim or sink" for those below and "bathe in your riches" for those on top.

And if you can't see that Scandinavia and Europe as a whole is bathing on its riches while much of the world can't afford basic necessities, you're blind. Of course, you can see it fine, because you're not stupid nor blind. You just choose to believe that paying your taxes makes you an unselfish and caring human being, and thus your conscience is clear to bathe in riches while kids starve. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

Ah yeah, some layer of relativist crap, "everyone does it even when it's not comparable". It's just blatant attempt at self-justification, as said before.

It's exactly the same thing...

Well, maybe one day you'll get crippled for life in an accident and will perhaps enjoy the fun of seeing first-hand what happens when there is no safety net and you actually need one

That's crass. And at any rate if I wanted a generous safety net because I expect I might need it someday, then it wouldn't be a moral position to take, just naked self-interest. You can't have it both ways. It's fine to support it for self-interest, of course, but then don't pontificate on morality.

I knew I saw the USA at a quit low place on a HDI list, but seeing luiz' list I just felt dumb and let that memory fleet away.
Now I know where I saw it - thanks!

Problem is that "inqueality-adjusted" list in nonsense. HDI was invented in the first place because Amartya Sen and some other economists that did a lot of research on poor countries realized that because of inequality, per capita income is not always an accurate measure of social and economic well-being for the majority of the population. So they came up with an index that look not only to income but also to things not distorted by inequality, such as mean and expected years of schooling and life expectancy at birth.

So what the hell is this "inequality-adjusted HDI" nonsense and why is it necessary? It gives a gigantic weight to the GINI index, that is they don't adjust the income by the GINI, they adjust the whole index, which is bizarre and makes no sense whatsoever. See this:

This is an experimental measure that will be subject to changes in the future. One issue is in the inequality adjusted income index, which forms a third of the overall index. Effectively countries with much lower inequality adjusted GNI will score higher in the income index than other countries who have higher inequality adjusted GNI, but higher inequality. For example, country A has GNI per capita of $40,000 (index= .858), inequality adjusted GNI per capita of $30,000 (index=.816), and country B has a GNI per capita of $18,000 (.743), inequality adjusted GNI per capita of $16,000 (.735). So country A is clearly better off by both measures. However, this is not the way the inequality adjusted income index is calculated. As the text says, "The HDI income index is adjusted for inequality in income distribution based on data from household surveys." [3] It is the index itself which is adjusted for inequality. Thus, for country A, the index of (.858) gets multiplied by the ratio (.1478/.166)=.642. For country B, the index of (.735) gets multiplied by the ratio (16,000/18,000)=.661. Therefore, country B has a higher income index in terms of income even though it actually receives about half the income of country A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

This means that even if a country is so massively richer than another that it's inequality-adjusted income is still much higher than that of the other, it's overall inequality-adjusted HDI will still be lower, because the "geniuses" who created this BS adjust the whole index by income inequality, and not just actual income

This is clearly a rather bizarre academic experiment which is only quoted, and I suspect was only created, to bash the US. It makes no objective sense whatsoever.

 

[Akka]

The welfare-state thought-police does not tolerate that rather self-evident statement. Living in Scandinavia must necessarily be better for everyone, because reasons. And if you can't see that it's a moral failure on your part. You're selfish and short-sighted and stupid and I hope you suffer an accident and become a cripple just so you can see how wrong and immoral you are.

It's funny how you openly state the selfish reasons which make you prefer the US system, and then freak out when being called selfish because of that

Just seem you are in denial and can't handle the morality of your own action.
Hint : it's not because of others just stating facts.

And if you can't see that Scandinavia and Europe as a whole is bathing on its riches while much of the world can't afford basic necessities, you're blind. Of course, you can see it fine, because you're not stupid nor blind. You just choose to believe that paying your taxes makes you an unselfish and caring human being, and thus your conscience is clear to bathe in riches while kids starve. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

When Scandinavia and Europe can draw laws and enforce them on the rest of the world, the rest of the world can vote in Europe and Scandinavia, and basically the entire world is under a single government, this counter-argument may have some weight.
But until then, it's just a smokescreen.

It's exactly the same thing...

No it's not, duh. People of a nation are linked and have power and obligation toward each other, because they have communally the responsability of the society they build. People from two different nations usually don't have shared responsability about their society.

That's crass. And at any rate if I wanted a generous safety net because I expect I might need it someday, then it wouldn't be a moral position to take, just naked self-interest. You can't have it both ways. It's fine to support it for self-interest, of course, but then don't pontificate on morality.

Crass ? You're just basically saying "I don't care about how my society treat others as long as I benefit more". THAT is crass. I'm just precisely saying being on the other side of the barrier might make you realize how crass this kind of egoism is.

And for the record, I want a generous safety net because I consider that it's a basic right and it's basic human decency. A society that abandon its own dying in the street is not a normal situation, it's a broken situation that should be fixed (and yes I know every society has its own destitutes, but that doesn't mean they are all equally broken). Yeah, I prefer to see a part of my income going to build a better overall society.

But if people spit on such decency, yeah, then I like poetic justice. I always liked poetic justice.

 

[luiz]

It's funny how you openly state the selfish reasons which make you prefer the US system, and then freak out when being called selfish because of that

Just seem you are in denial and can't handle the morality of your own action.
Hint : it's not because of others just stating facts.

We were trying to have a discussion over which system delivers better results for different kinds of people. There is absolutely no sense in dragging a morality discussion into it, specially because I never denied the Scandinavian system is better for a lot of people.

Note that first they were trying to convince me that I would be better-off in Scandinavia as well. Only after that was proven to be false did the argument change to "well it's immoral to say you are better-off in America, so agree with me or shut up".

When Scandinavia and Europe can draw laws and enforce them on the rest of the world, the rest of the world can vote in Europe and Scandinavia, and basically the entire world is under a single government, this counter-argument may have some weight.
But until then, it's just a smokescreen.

Oh really? So the fact that Europe cannot enforce laws worldwide is stopping you and others like you from actually dedicating more time and money into helping people desperately in need then pursuing frivolous luxuries? Huuum? Do you really feel better by telling that to yourself? That's disappointing, because it's a rather stupid excuse.

What exactly is preventing Norwegians from cutting back on the billions they blow every year on booze (more than any other people on Earth on per capita terms) and writing a check to MSF? Or skipping those ski trips, or nice restaurants...

Don't kid yourself. You don't do more because you value frivolous luxuries for yourself more than saving starving kids. And unlike you I'm not calling you a monster for that, nor wishing bad things upon you. I just want you to quit your Mother Theresa act, because it's pathetic.

No it's not, duh. People of a nation are linked and have power and obligation toward each other, because they have communally the responsability of the society they build. People from two different nations usually don't have shared responsability about their society.

Says who? God told you that you only need to care about people inside an artificially determined border, inhabited by people who were born there out of pure chance, and the remainder 99% of the human race be damned?

And anyway, if you have lower taxes and a big disposable income, like Americans do (they have the biggest disposable income on Earth), who's stopping them from helping other Americans or even people abroad who need it more? If people fail to help others, it's their own moral failure, not the system's. In fact if people are forced to help it's not really a moral act, it's merely avoiding jail.

Crass ? You're just basically saying "I don't care about how my society treat others as long as I benefit more". THAT is crass. I'm just precisely saying being on the other side of the barrier might make you realize how crass this kind of egoism is.

And for the record, I want a generous safety net because I consider that it's a basic right and it's basic human decency. A society that abandon its own dying in the street is not a normal situation, it's a broken situation that should be fixed (and yes I know every society has its own destitutes, but that doesn't mean they are all equally broken). Yeah, I prefer to see a part of my income going to build a better overall society.

But if people spit on such decency, yeah, then I like poetic justice. I always liked poetic justice.

Yeah, fantastically crass. When arguments descend to essentially "I hope you become crippled" I'd say civilized conversation is over.

And of course it would be pointless to say you misread what I've been saying in the thread and assigned me positions I never made...

 

[warpus]

We're actually pretty friendly, though we don't appreciate the sudden and inexplicable friendliness Americans and Canadians seem to have towards strangers. Bourrelle put it like this: "Politeness in Norway is to not disturb each other".

As an introvert, I think I am going to feel right at home.

Starting a conversation with people on the street is only for the half-crazy people, or bums begging for money. Or foreigners! We're generally fluent in American culture, so if you're a tourist of the familiar Western type, you'll usually be forgiven for starting strange conversations. And if you can keep the conversation going, you'll end up actually experiencing how Norwegians are in fact very friendly.

I usually don't really start conversations with strangers, but I do when I travel.. It tends to happen moreso in hostels and bars and such, but every once in a while I will chat up random people on the bus or train station or something similar - to ask for advice. I am not one to engage in mindless chit-chat - if the conversation doesn't have a purpose, I will probably not start one. The way I see it, when I'm out on the town, on the bus, waiting for a train, etc. that is a time to ask for help and advice.. and at a bar or at a hostel - that is a place to try to make friends.

However, if I see some local guy do something weird that might be a local custom or something, I might very well walk up and start asking questions. Either way, I think I might very well feel right at home in Norway, from what you say anyway.

Just don't come off as an idiot American. Being Canadian should save you from that rather easily, but still... We know there are tons of smart people in North America, but everyone has heard stories about crazy lawsuits, braindead politicans, and unbelievable celebrities. We know the US and Canada are different countries, but we don't generally differentiate your culture.

Oh no worries there. I have met many douchebag tourists in the past, and I know exactly how to not behave to be labelled as one.

I tend to follow "the backpacker's code", which isn't really written down anywhere.. but most of the backpackers who I have met throughout my travels, whether they're Canadian, American, Austrian, Australian, Swedish, or whatever, tend to follow it to some degree.

People here keep telling me to put a Canadian flag on my backpack - because Canadians are generally not viewed to be douchebag travellers - while the opposite sentiment is a stereotype associated with American, British, and Chinese tourists.. But I don't do this, and I haven't had a problem yet. A lot of people assume that I'm American, but I'm not a dick, so I generally get treated well in return.

 

[Cheetah]

Sounds like you'll have a great time then.