PS anti-immigration wing: “a new [Cadillac] model every year”

by , under Enrique

By Enrique Tessieri

Helena Eronen, the parliamentary aide who suggested armbands for foreigners, is what Malcolm X once said about racism and Cadillacs:  “They make a new model every year.”* The Perussuomalaiset (PS) party’s far-right anti-immigration wing led by MP Jussi Halla-aho have a new model: Helena Eronen.

Hirvisaari was fined in December for hate speech, which explains why he chose Eronen as his aide to write and be his ideological alter ego.

Taking into account the outright rejection by the media especially after the election of the Counter-Jihadist writings of Halla-aho, Olli Immonen and Juho Eerola, it’s pretty clear that this group needs a fresh new face, and a new writing style to get across the same anti-immigration message. That person is none other than Eronen.

Even if Eronen claims no political affiliation, she used to advertise her affiliation to the far-right Muutos2011 on her Uusi Suomi blog. Many of her blog entries confirm her anti-immigration views, such as the last one published in Uusi Suomi and headlined, “What on Earth would you do about exotic- [skin-] colored rapists.”

Hirvisaari shines through in the text, and Eronen also mentions MP Olli Immonen, who inquired in Parliament about rapes committed by immigrants.

Eronen fails to share one absolute figure with the reader about how many rape cases have occurred. This is for obvious reasons, because we are talking about tens of cases and not discussing the white Finnish males who commit the lion’s share of rapes in Finland.

At the end of her blog entry she warns that two dailies, Turun Sanomat and Karjalainen of Joensuu, may not quote the text unless they want to pay a 100,000-euro fine. This shows how little Eronen understands and her utter ignorance of the media. It’s a pretty ludicrous warning: how can you write a public blog and forbid someone from quoting you?

We mustn’t forget that PS MPs Hirvisaari, Halla-aho and Immonen – and Eerola herself – are all social media creations.

Noting how much their racist writings and victimization of certain immigrant groups brought them money and a ticket to Parliament, it’s clear that they will not abandon social media as a platform for getting their anti-immigration message across to their followers.

*Thank you Sasu Xinkang Ölander.

  1. Sasu

    Eeronen ei ole mikään uusi malli. Sitä samaa rasismia hän syöttää kuin muutkin äärioikeistolaiset. Malcolm X käytti tota lausesta enemmänkin liberaaleja vastaan hyökkäämiseen, kuin äärioikeistoa vastaan.

    Liberaalit värisokeat rasistit ovat niitä uusia cadilloita.

  2. eyeopener

    Hi Farang. Police-man you are. Right. Knows everything about nothing. Cool man.

    Yes I do. You forget what I have been writing about her “Edelweiss”´arm-sleeves. Oh, sorry for your help: That was sarcasm, a satire.

    Farang. Ever thought that you are a sitere and a piece of sarcasm?? Paying the monkey theme?

    Peanuts. 🙂

  3. BlandaUpp

    The colour of people’s skin should NEVER be used in the way she is using it in an article published in a civilized country in the 21st century!

    These disgustingly misleading articles are all about picking political points and to make her Nazi-inspired ideology a little more attractive.

    Her party doesn’t really care about this issue. They’re just using it as a political tool with which to stigmatize all refugees and immigrants.

  4. Farang

    eyeopener, even if that sleeve-badge would have been serious suggestion, it still wouldn’t be racism. To fulfill the criteria for racism, there needs to be some kinds of inequal treatment based on race, ethnic background etc. That was not the case.

  5. justicedemon

    Farang

    To fulfill the criteria for racism, there needs to be some kinds of inequal treatment based on race, ethnic background etc.

    So we are all equal when I wear a sleeve emblem saying liberal/tolerant/generous and you wear one saying reactionary/prejudiced/selfish?

    No racism implied when BZ has to wear a Magen David and you have to wear a right-facing swastika?

    Or maybe you meant that we should all wear exactly the same sleeve emblem. That would be equal treatment.

  6. justicedemon

    Elf

    So sleeve emblems corresponding to “race” would be equal, as long as everyone wore one, even if the emblems were not all the same?

    The issue anyway concerns unlawful discrimination, as defined in such statutes as section 6 of the Non-Discrimination Act, and that awful section 10 of chapter 11 of the Finnish Penal Code that so horribly limits your freedom to defame population groups.

    No racism here:

    Emblems

  7. Elven archer

    “So sleeve emblems corresponding to “race” would be equal, as long as everyone wore one, even if the emblems were not all the same?”

    vs.

    “So we are all equal when I wear a sleeve emblem saying liberal/tolerant/generous and you wear one saying reactionary/prejudiced/selfish?”

    Your own words both. Get a grip.

  8. Elven archer

    Farang said that racism is about race. You then went on about values and other irrelevant stuff. I corrected you that Farang talked about race because racism is about race not for example about values. And again you had enormous trouble understanding and again you used the word “so” and then went on to construct your straw man.

  9. Farang

    justicedemon:

    “No racism implied when BZ has to wear a Magen David and you have to wear a right-facing swastika?”

    Where did Eronen suggest this kind of badges? So you can’t counter argument, therefore you invent a lie. Nicely done, I’m already used to it 🙂

    And what comes to sleeve badges and being equal. How would it make me less or more equal than you if I wore any kind of badge in my arm? The arm badge doesn’t change my “value” at all. Thought it’s interesting that YOU think that persons value or equality depends on what kind of badge one has on his sleeve…

    It can only become discriminaton if those people are actually being treated unequally based on those sleeves. But that wasn’t the case in Eronens writings. In Eronens text the badges was only used for identifying people. And identifying someone is not racism.

  10. Toni

    This comment fell short of our community standards and was deleted by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

    RL 11:10

    Yellow card

  11. I am

    And what comes to sleeve badges and being equal. How would it make me less or more equal than you if I wore any kind of badge in my arm? The arm badge doesn’t change my “value” at all. Thought it’s interesting that YOU think that persons value or equality depends on what kind of badge one has on his sleeve…

    Thank u so much for ur idea Farang,
    What u mean?
    Do u like this aidea?
    Do u think this is a good idea?
    What then if i dont want armbands?
    R u able to see my ,,value,, without armbands?
    Or i should write a story or my armbands about my value?
    If we r equal then we dont need armbands,
    Are we equal ur idea?

  12. eyeopener

    Hi Elfie.

    Also here trying to distort the discussion with the would-be policeman Farang and watchdoggie Toni. The Triad doesnot work anymore. You have been diguising yourselves. Hi Elfie?? Where is your link to your academic CV?? Still not send it to me.

    Down low sweet chariot just carry Elfie’s arse away!!

    And Farang and Toni. HommaZoo. Peanut butter for the people without teeth. Whaaaaffff!

  13. Farang

    D4R:

    “Farang and Elven, what do you two have to say about these news:

    http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2012042615499590_uu.shtml
    http://www.iltalehti.fi/iltvuutiset/2012042606007663_v0.shtml
    http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2012042615505844_uu.shtml

    About first two: Disgusting, these people should not be allowed to live normal life anymore, ever again. Even putting them in jail for the rest of their life is not hard enough punishment.

    Last one: What should I say. I hate criminals, so I’d put him in jail too.

    I really don’t see the point in asking this question…

  14. Farang

    eyeopener, what is your point in asking those credentials? It really is amusing that you ask those, because either

    a) you don’t have much credentials even yourself or
    b) you are a living proof that even having credentials doesn’t actually correlate anyhow with persons intelligence

  15. eyeopener

    Hi Farang. Get out of my discusiion with somebody else. I konw you don’t respect privacy. This is not your piece of cake.

    Farang. Do you police work where iot is needed. Uncurrable Finn rapists!!

  16. Toni

    eye: “You have been diguising yourselves”
    You used that word describing me and I told to Iam that I didn’t understand it..

  17. I am

    Hi eyeopener, Goodevening my friend
    : ))))
    I never used this word,, disguise,,
    Hay Toni this word is unknown to me 2 and 3,,,,,,,, or maybe 2 in 3 he he
    I dont need ur help Toni , no sorry please

  18. eyeopener

    Hi Toni. For once you are right. I raised this remark not I am. Maybe the peanuts are getting to your brains.

    If you want to know what I mean with that ask me. Not I am.

    Got it!! Monkey business again Toni?? You are losing moment. Go to the HommaZoo to get some “power”.

    Peanuts, man 🙂

  19. Toni

    eye: “Hi Toni. For once you are right. I raised this remark not I am. Maybe the peanuts are getting to your brains”

    That is what I ment when I send that msg to Iam. I didn’t quote her, I just told her I don’t know why I got that card because I didn’t understand that word.

    Sorry, I didn’t first know who gave that card… the card msg didn’t tell me who is the boss 😉

  20. Toni

    Iam: “who said am she?”

    I quess I had an image from your msgs and it came through. Our language doesn’t separate sexes, so sometimes we forget that when using english. Especially when we are accused as “criminals” without anyone explaining why… Did you feel the same with the police?

  21. Toni

    Iam: “Who said i had contact with police?”

    You told that the police was racist to you and hurt you:

    -“police was pain hurt pain for me”
    -“Police is nothing when is a fat supporter of racist”
    -“they are also supporter of racist police”
    -“i have no respect for racist police”
    -“ur police made a nightmare for me with his mistake”

    Are you just playing with me?

  22. I am

    Who said i had contact with police?
    Oooops
    I wanted to know that r u care about me a foreigner or not?
    R u remember my special words about police or not?
    That isee oh u love me, u care, thanks, u remmember all
    Maybe u printed all of my words and every morning u look at them and imagine me,
    ur imagination is active now a days.
    Dont imagine me white okay?
    I like to play but not with ball and people, also all know am joking most the time

  23. eyeopener

    Hi Toni. I know you don’t like me. Neither do I like you. But stay out of these discusiion where you have nothing else to offer than……..peanuts.

    Zoobedoo!!

  24. Toni

    eye: “Hi Toni. I know you don’t like me”

    Why do you think so? Because you keep calling me an animal???
    You know that is a “crime”?

    “…sellaisen tiedon, mielipiteen tai muun viestin levittäminen, joissa ryhmään kohdistuvaa väkivaltaa tai syrjintää pidetään hyväksyttävänä tai toivottavana tai ihmisiä verrataan eläimiin, loisiin jne. tai yleistäen väitetään heitä rikollisiksi tai esitetän alempiarvoisiksi jne”.”

    And that is why you gave me a card?
    If you don’t like someone, you push them away? – ok???
    If some Finns don’t like some foreigners, they try to push them away? – not ok???

    Iam: “R u remember my special words about police or not?”

    I did, didn’t I?

  25. D4R

    Farang: D4R:

    “Farang and Elven, what do you two have to say about these news:

    http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2012042615499590_uu.shtml
    http://www.iltalehti.fi/iltvuutiset/2012042606007663_v0.shtml
    http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2012042615505844_uu.shtml”

    About first two: Disgusting, these people should not be allowed to live normal life anymore, ever again. Even putting them in jail for the rest of their life is not hard enough punishment.

    Last one: What should I say. I hate criminals, so I’d put him in jail too.

    I really don’t see the point in asking this question…

    fair enough, i take your word for it, ok, so should we make a conclusion about these criminals that ALL FINNS ARE LIKE THEM including you yourself? if not then why many Finns generalize all Somalis because of some Somalis wrongdoing? if we apply to Somalis why not to Finns too? i expect your answer to this.

  26. I am

    Yes u did, i said thanks
    Check my msg to yours
    Good night to u, eyeopener, MT and all
    u all have a useful night
    and happy weekend

  27. justicedemon

    Toni

    Why do you think so? Because you keep calling me an animal???
    You know that is a “crime”?
    “…sellaisen tiedon, mielipiteen tai muun viestin levittäminen, joissa ryhmään kohdistuvaa väkivaltaa tai syrjintää pidetään hyväksyttävänä tai toivottavana tai ihmisiä verrataan eläimiin, loisiin jne. tai yleistäen väitetään heitä rikollisiksi tai esitetän alempiarvoisiksi jne”.”
    And that is why you gave me a card?

    You quoted from government bill no. 317 of 2010 implementing the Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems, but for some reason you left out the immediate context:

    Tyypillinen rangaistava menettely olisi sellaisen tiedon, mielipiteen tai muun viestin levittäminen, joissa ryhmään kohdistuvaa väkivaltaa tai syrjintää pidetään hyväksyttävänä tai toivottavana tai ihmisiä verrataan eläimiin, loisiin jne. tai yleistäen väitetään heitä rikollisiksi tai esitetään alempiarvoisiksi jne.

    The immediate context makes it clear that this passage is intended to illustrate the intended application of the new section 10 of chapter 11 of the Finnish Penal Code that was proposed in the government bill:

    10 §

    Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan

    Joka asettaa yleisön saataville tai muutoin yleisön keskuuteen levittää tai pitää yleisön saatavilla tiedon, mielipiteen tai muun viestin, jossa uhataan, panetellaan tai solvataan jotakin ryhmää rodun, ihonvärin, syntyperän, kansallisen tai etnisen alkuperän, uskonnon tai vakaumuksen, seksuaalisen suuntautumisen tai vammaisuuden perusteella taikka niihin rinnastettavalla muulla perusteella, on tuomittava kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan sakkoon tai vankeuteen enintään kahdeksi vuodeksi.

    The provision with this wording took effect on 1 June last year.

    Contrary to your suggestion, this provision is not relevant when someone calls you an animal. For that, you need to turn to legislation on individual defamation, though it’s by no means clear quite how an anonymous username can be “defamed” or how any “damage” thereby caused could be quantified.

    However, you are correct in assuming that this is why you were yellow-carded above. The moderator’s message specifically references section 10 of chapter 11 of the Finnish Penal Code, which prohibits collective defamation of a population group.

  28. Farang

    D4R:

    “fair enough, i take your word for it, ok, so should we make a conclusion about these criminals that ALL FINNS ARE LIKE THEM including you yourself? if not then why many Finns generalize all Somalis because of some Somalis wrongdoing? if we apply to Somalis why not to Finns too? i expect your answer to this.”

    Why are you so ignorant? Even stupid I might say.

    I have many times said to you that I DON’T GENERALISE and those Finns who generalise are idiots. What in that sentence is so hard to understand that you don’t get it? If you want to be same kind of idiot as those Finns who generalise stuff done by some immigrants, be my guest and generalise that all Finns are like those mentioned in those articles.

    I mean seriously, what is wrong with you? You keep blaming others if they do these generalisations, but you are yourself just like them. It’s just that in your racist mind you don’t even understand that you are doing it, because you target white people, and in your mind you think it is ok to do what ever as long as the target is white person.

  29. Farang

    Question to justicedemon. If someone defames a group “criminal immigrants”, would that be illegal by your interpretation?

    You should understand the difference between talking about “all immigrants” and “all criminal immigrants”.

  30. justicedemon

    Farang

    Question to justicedemon. If someone defames a group “criminal immigrants”, would that be illegal by your interpretation?

    That obviously depends on the nature and specific context of the defamation, but the expression itself is already more collectively pejorative than “immigrant criminals”. Overall we have to consider the precise contribution of the relevant population group term “immigrant” in these expressions. Word order is also a clearer indicator of part of speech in English than in Finnish. The earlier term has stronger adjectival connotations than the latter term in English.

    The Finnish Penal Code is not worded with a view to proscribing any particular form of words. What matters is the message conveyed, and this in turn depends on the overall context.

    Substitute “Finns/Finnish”, “Blacks/Black” or “Jews/Jewish” for “immigrant” in those expressions and consider the associated shifts in connotation.

    You should understand the difference between talking about “all immigrants” and “all criminal immigrants”.

    Indeed. In the same way as the differences between “all Finns”, “all criminal Finns”, “all criminals” and “all Finnish criminals”.

    There is also no specific requirement for defamation to be false. This is equally true for individual and collective defamation.

    Finally, we have to understand that MT bears editorial responsibility for its published content. This certainly gives Ricky, as the identified publisher (look at the top of this page), more expressive scope than an anonymous commenter.

  31. D4R

    Farang: Why are you so ignorant? Even stupid I might say.

    I have many times said to you that I DON’T GENERALISE and those Finns who generalise are idiots. What in that sentence is so hard to understand that you don’t get it? If you want to be same kind of idiot as those Finns who generalise stuff done by some immigrants, be my guest and generalise that all Finns are like those mentioned in those articles.

    I mean seriously, what is wrong with you? You keep blaming others if they do these generalisations, but you are yourself just like them. It’s just that in your racist mind you don’t even understand that you are doing it, because you target white people, and in your mind you think it is ok to do what ever as long as the target is white person.

    Your being emotional now, you went out calling me names, i will not scoop down to your level and name call you, im too civilized for that, you didn’t get my point, didn’t expect so, it’s no use to expect rational reasoning from you guys, you guys are blinded with your irrational thoughts, if you didn’t get my point earlier i will not start breaking it down for you, my time is too valuable for that, and your not worthy of that, your calling me a racist? ahahahah to that, no comment, im well known in this blog that, i am far being racist, and you should start searching what is the definition of being a racist, you seem to throw alot racist card for wrong reason. If you’re against those native Finns who like to generalize and stigmatize a whole group then, i suggest you start going to Hommaforum and start educating them on not to generalize a whole group of people, that’s your homework Farang, now be gone. 🙂

  32. Farang

    D4R: Callings someone ignorant or stupid is not calling names. Those are facts which have been observed during the conversations. And as conversation proceeds and one really shows lack of intelligence, it is appropriate to make this statement, so that both parties sees the fact why it is not meaningful to continue conversation with a person like that.

    And no matter how you try to deny you being racist, you actions and comments speak against you. You have proven with your own action that you are a racist against whites.

  33. D4R

    I don’t care about your so called fats or how you measure intelligence, you got your subways and that has little to nothing effect in my world. FARANG CAN YOU DEFINE TO ME AND TO AUDIENCE WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF RACISM? i expect a reply from you.

  34. justicedemon

    Farang

    Callings someone ignorant or stupid is not calling names.

    Yet if you do so in Parliament, then you will find yourself excluded from the debate until you apologise.

    Isn’t that strange?

    Perhaps the Speaker’s Council of the Parliament of Finland is also ignorant or stupid.

    ***

    What I have noticed many times, Farang, is that you only use these expressions when you feel uncertain of yourself.

    This blog has been highly tolerant of flaming, but I understand that this policy is now under review.

  35. justicedemon

    Farang

    I DON’T GENERALISE and those Finns who generalise are idiots. What in that sentence is so hard to understand that you don’t get it?

    Err… maybe the self-contradiction?

    LoL

    But tell us about these idiots. Are they a significant proportion of the population? 50 per cent? 5 per cent?

  36. Farang

    For D4R

    Definition of racism: Treating people differently based on their race, skin colour, ethnic background.

    Just out of interest: What did you think definition of racism was?

  37. D4R

    Farang: For D4R

    Definition of racism: Treating people differently based on their race, skin colour, ethnic background.

    Just out of interest: What did you think definition of racism was?

    Good, now explain when did i do any of those?

  38. Farang

    Farang: “I DON’T GENERALISE and those Finns who generalise are idiots. What in that sentence is so hard to understand that you don’t get it?”

    Justicedemon: “Err… maybe the self-contradiction?”

    Now I really need to question your intelligence. Where in earth is the self-contradiction? If I say that there are some Finns who generalise, and in my opinion that kind of people are idiots, then please answer me: where is the self-contradiction?

  39. D4R

    Farang, also if you know the definition of racism as you seem to know then, why are you keep misusing it? if you expect the meaning of the word to lose it’s meaning you’re going to expect for nothing.

  40. D4R

    Farang: Now I really need to question your intelligence. Where in earth is the self-contradiction? If I say that there are some Finns who generalise, and in my opinion that kind of people are idiots, then please answer me: where is the self-contradiction?

    This comment of yours tells me alot about the superiority some of you racist have, that a dark skin or non caucasian must then be lower in intelligence, i don’t understand why you keep repeating intelligence, you have used it several times in short period, says alot of about your prejudice, any 6th grade kid could fix your flawed arguments so, i don’t understand what intelligence have to do with my comments, or is’t maybe that, you have a presumption about my intelligence already because you happen to know im Somalian.

  41. justicedemon

    Farang

    Where in earth is the self-contradiction?

    Interesting that you don’t see it. Let’s hope we won’t need a Venn diagram.

    Of any two related concepts, such as A and B, A is considered a “generalisation” of concept B if and only if:

    every instance of concept B is also an instance of concept A; and
    there are instances of concept A which are not instances of concept B.

    Your concept A = “idiots”
    Your concept B = “[those] Finns who generalise”

    “Those” is merely a plural identifying pronoun here. It’s equivalent to “the members of the class of”, and adds nothing of relevance to the sense of the plural subject.

    The assertion “[those] Finns who generalise are idiots” matches the logician’s definition of a generalisation, but the asserter (you) has also asserted “I DON’T GENERALISE”.

    We should also politely refrain from asking the asserter’s nationality.

    **

    But anyway, as an expert on Finnish idiots, could you advise us as to the proportion of Finns who are idiots? 50 per cent? 5 per cent?

  42. Farang

    D4R, you reveal yourself now. I don’t know a good term for it in finnish or in english but someone should invent a new term for people like you. Here’s what I mean:

    Always when something happens to you, which is or feels negative, you immediately assume that it is because of your skin colour and racism. You never even think about the possibility that the reason might be your own actions.

    Like in this case, I even pointed out to you why I consider you less intelligent. It was because of how you discuss here and what kind of comments you write. It has nothing to do with your ethnic backgroud. I made that perfectly clear. Still you come back to claim that I think you are less intelligent because of your dark skin.

    The reason why I consider you less intelligent is because when we discuss here, your comments prove your lack of understanding clear things. Even when the things are put crystal clear in front of your eyes, you manage to find totally different outcome from them.

    And why I bring intelligence up here? It is because if two persons who are so far away from each other in level of intelligence are trying to have a conversation, it is futile.

    • Mark

      Farang

      The reason why I consider you [D4R] less intelligent is because when we discuss here, your comments prove your lack of understanding clear things. Even when the things are put crystal clear in front of your eyes, you manage to find totally different outcome from them….Showing that kind of lack of intelligence makes it clear that no sane person should have any kind of discussion with him.

      I read these comments over the weekend, and I really couldn’t believe what I was reading. The whole subtext of this discussion is quite dispicable. White supremacism? Farang gives me the creeps.

      Always when something happens to you, which is or feels negative, you immediately assume that it is because of your skin colour and racism. You never even think about the possibility that the reason might be your own actions.

      I have various notions about intelligence. One notion is that the brain works differently according to different states of maturity. Some brains do not seem to mature in certain ways. A state of maturity that we all inhabit when we are young is one of ‘absolutes’. This ‘reality’ is constructed with such words as ‘always’, ‘never’, etc. Take a look above, you’ll find them in Farang’s sentences. In fact, they are crucial to the point being made. Think about how the statement sounds if you don’t use this ‘absolute’ language:

      Sometimes when something happens to you, which is or feels negative, you sometimes assume that it is because of your skin colour and racism. You sometimes even think about the possibility that the reason might be your own actions.

      See? Now the suggestion is perfectly reasonable, and I’d say that D4R could even say, “Yep, I do think that sometimes”.

      The fact that the absolutist language is utterly crucial to the meaning, the reasoning and the rationale for Farang’s conclusion about ‘a lack of intelligence’ says a lot about Farang’s own intelligence, or should I say, the state of maturity of his brain processes. An absolutist view of the world always breaks down, because the desire to ‘box’ the world and reality simply does not work. It’s how we start to think and grasp the world when we are children, but with maturity, the whole idea of ‘boxes’ becomes much more blurred. Logic is replaced with ‘fuzzy logic’, absolutes are replaced with a recognition of the relativity of much of the world, especially the world of human behaviour.

      Intelligence requires also an ability to see the world from someone else’s perspective, to be able to articulate what someone else is thinking, even when it disagrees with our own thinking. It is an ability to be objective about one’s own arguments and those of other people. It certainly doesn’t entail the thought that just because I tried to make something clear that it therefore MUST be clear, and that if someone else misunderstands it, they must be stupid. It also doesn’t entail the assumption that just because someone disagrees with me, that they must have misunderstood what i said, because, if they did understand, well, of course they would agree.

      It is ironic that Farang wants to focus on D4R’s intelligence in this kind of way – even to the point of saying that he won’t discuss with him – i.e. social exclusion. Maybe Farang thought he was just telling ‘the world’ what he thought we already knew, that he was smarter than D4R. To me, however, he showed me how important ‘ideas’ in the hands of children are dangerous toys.

  43. Farang

    Justicedemon. Seems that we have different point of view of what generalisation means. What I have been trying to say is that I oppose generalisation which are untruthful. I’m sorry my english is not that perfect so I try to explain it once more:

    1) Person A belongs to group X. Now person A hates women. Wrongful generalisation would be that “all persons in group X hate women”. Do you understand what I mean? This generalistation is totally incorrect.

    2) Group Y consists of white people who all hate black people. So it is already a fact that ALL people in group Y hate black people. Now, if one says “All people in group Y are racists”, that is not generalisation, because that group was already predefined and there is no generalisation based on actions or opinions of only part of that population. Do you understand this?

    Now, what I said about idiots, i break this in parts:
    -some Finns (not all) thinks that if one somali is a rapist, then all somalis are rapists.
    -those Finns now formulate a group called “Finns who generalise”
    -we can for sure make a statement that “person who thinks that all somalist are rapists because one or more somalis are rapists” is an idiot
    -based on all that we can surely say that those Finns who generalise are idiots

    That is not generalising when we are talking about a group of people who already have some predefined factor. Saying “All black people have dark skin” is not generalising, it is just stating a fact about that group.

  44. Farang

    Justicedemon

    “But anyway, as an expert on Finnish idiots, could you advise us as to the proportion of Finns who are idiots? 50 per cent? 5 per cent?”

    I don’t know because there are over 5 million Finns. But based on empirical observations, the correct figure is somewhere aroud 30 %.

  45. D4R

    Farang: Always when something happens to you, which is or feels negative, you immediately assume that it is because of your skin colour and racism. You never even think about the possibility that the reason might be your own actions.

    Like in this case, I even pointed out to you why I consider you less intelligent. It was because of how you discuss here and what kind of comments you write. It has nothing to do with your ethnic backgroud. I made that perfectly clear. Still you come back to claim that I think you are less intelligent because of your dark skin.

    The reason why I consider you less intelligent is because when we discuss here, your comments prove your lack of understanding clear things. Even when the things are put crystal clear in front of your eyes, you manage to find totally different outcome from them.

    And why I bring intelligence up here? It is because if two persons who are so far away from each other in level of intelligence are trying to have a conversation, it is futile.

    Can you really measure my intelligence of a few comments i made in this blog without knowing me personally? You’re too quick to judge peoples intelligence without nowing them, is’t maybe because you doubt your intelligence, is’t maybe becauase you lack self confidence in yourself, you can make whatever assumption you want about me but that will not change of who i really am, unlike you i have selfconfidence in me, i know who i am, i know my intelligence,do you?, it’s laughable for a person like you to even question my intelligence, you made me laugh with that Farang, make my day, perhaps we all in M.T particapants lack intelligence in your mind, perhaps all people who disagree with you lack intelligence in your mind, perhaps that’s what is lacking intelligence to you if one puts an argument wich does not please you, then you start resorting in to name callings, very uncivilized of you, so you already made up your mind that, to you i am less intelligent than you’re, applaud Farang, you really are smart one arent you?

  46. justicedemon

    Farang

    Seems that we have different point of view of what generalisation means.

    This is an aside, so there’s little point in exploring it here. Suffice it to say that you seem to be confusing inductive generalisations (“all tigers have stripes”) with semantic tautologies (“all spinsters are female”). These are quite different types of universal statement, as you will realise if you consider what kind of evidence is required to falsify them.

    You can’t simply define away your generalisation that “Finns who generalise are idiots” as a semantic tautology by inserting a major defining premise (“anyone who generalises incorrectly is an idiot”), as you will find that this premise cuts too broadly. A biologist who spends years studying tigers and eventually generalises that all tigers have stripes does not become an “idiot” when someone subsequently falsifies this generalisation by finding an unstriped tiger. All that happens is that the property of “having stripes” is dropped from the list of diagnostic features of tigers. We call this “scientific progress” and “advancement of knowledge”, and it depends fundamentally on the possibility of well-founded error. Characterising anyone who makes a well-founded error as an “idiot” is not helpful. By this reasoning Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton were idiots.

    But anyway, this was an aside.

    ***

    30 per cent of Finns are idiots – well I never… 😀

  47. Farang

    justicedemon

    “Characterising anyone who makes a well-founded error as an “idiot” is not helpful. By this reasoning Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton were idiots. ”

    Are you serious? You really think that a person who thinks that all Finns are drunks because they know of some Finn who is a drunk, is not stupid? You honestly think that an intelligent person can come up with that thought?

  48. justicedemon

    Farang

    Are you serious? You really think that a person who thinks that all Finns are drunks because they know of some Finn who is a drunk, is not stupid? You honestly think that an intelligent person can come up with that thought?

    This is confusing form with content. Deliberately, I suspect.

    The foolishness is not in the incorrect generalisation, but in its ill-foundedness (and in the malicious intent that motivates its public expression). This is the foolishness of the biologist who wilfully conceals the discovery of an unstriped tiger in order to avoid loss of face in asserting that all tigers have stripes.

    Everyone generalises in order to express empirical ideas about how the world works and is organised. All empirical principles are generalisations, and we call people who formulate these principles in a judicious and serious manner “scientists”. There is no foolishness in honest error, only in wilful ignorance.

    Anyone who asserts that all Finns are drunks based on the observation that some Finn is a drunk cannot be fairly interpreted as honestly mistaken, but rather as wilfully ignorant. Asserting such an ill-founded generalisation in the context of a discussion of public policy is also illegal in Finland.

  49. Farang

    Yes, now we are talking the same language 🙂 So we both agree that people making such generalisations (like that drunk example) are idiots?

  50. eyeopener

    Farang.

    A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse.

    I don’t want to offend the horse because she/he shows far more cleverness than you ever will be able to. That makes you blind.

    Did you see it??

  51. D4R

    Farang: Yes, now we are talking the same language So we both agree that people making such generalisations (like that drunk example) are idiots?

    No Farang, your not talking or even understanding the same language, you have been corrected and told to avoid genaralization in this blog, you and the others, so, it’s kind of strange that you claim to be against genaralization of people, Farang you’re a very dishonest person and i don’t know how your people trust you, i know i wouldnt.

  52. justicedemon

    Farang

    There is no foolishness in honest error, only in wilful ignorance.

    This is not the whole point of criminalising defamation of a population group, but we would normally hold that any empirical characterisation an entire population group is likely to be false in relation to some member of that group, and that it would at least require very extensive research to show otherwise. Moreover, the defamation persists, even when the assertion is qualified with some quantifier like “most”, “many” or “often”.

    Mark has explored another aspect of collective defamation and argued persuasively that it is not even necessary for the characterisation to be false. Defamation can also be achieved by stating facts. This is already quite clear with respect to individual defamation from the wording of point 2 of subsection 1 of section 9 of chapter 24 of the Finnish Penal Code:

    9 §
    Kunnianloukkaus

    Joka

    1) esittää toisesta valheellisen tiedon tai vihjauksen siten, että teko on omiaan aiheuttamaan vahinkoa tai kärsimystä loukatulle taikka häneen kohdistuvaa halveksuntaa, taikka

    2) muuten kuin 1 kohdassa tarkoitetulla tavalla halventaa toista,

    on tuomittava kunnianloukkauksesta sakkoon tai vankeuteen enintään kuudeksi kuukaudeksi.

    It is possible to defame an individual – even though the assertions or innuendo are entirely true – when the sole reason for disseminating them and the associated intention is to defame.

    I have some relatives with interesting stories to tell about the behaviour of a Finnish President many decades ago at school, but if I put these stories into the media for no better purpose than to defame the individual concerned, then the fact that I can prove them would not suffice as a defence to charges under the foregoing statute.

    This opens up the question of whether a population group can similarly be defamed solely by stating facts. I suspect that the answer is yes, if those facts are stated in a certain context.

  53. Sasu

    Ihmiset jatkuvasti luokittelevat toisiaan johonkin luokkaa. Luokkiin yhdistetään nopeasti joitain yhteisiä tunnus merkkejä. Mustat ovat vaikkapa urheillullisia tai hyviä koripallossa.

    Sitten kun alamme antaa ryhmille negatiivisia yleistyksiä, tulemme vaaralliselle alueelle. Me voimme sanoa tilastoiden todistavan Lähi-idästä tulevien tekevän paljon raiskauksia, mutta emme ikinä saisi sanoa, että kaikki Lähi-idästä tulevat tekevät raikaussia. Muutenkin kaikista yhteiskunnallisista ja sosiologisista ilmiöistä absoluuttisia sanoja pitäisi vältää, koska mikään ei ole absoluuttista yhteiskunnallisissa ja sosiologisista ilmiöissä.

  54. justicedemon

    Farang

    Odd question.

    Is racism a hereditary extraction, an ethnicity, a religion, or otherwise a fundamental part of the personal identity of an individual that serves as a principle of membership or inclusion in a group?

    Arguably racism is a disability or handicap, but I would not thereby classify racists as a population group in the sense of section 10 of chapter 11 of the Finnish Penal Code.

  55. Farang

    See justicedemon, that is exactly the twisting that backfires at you now 😀 Racism is not an ethnicity, or any otherwise hereditary feature. So we can’t say that racists forms a population group what is meant with that penal code.

    So to my original point: Do you still consider “people who generalise that all Finns are drunks because some of them are” a population group meant by that same penal code? And if not, then calling persons in this group idiots is not a violation of that code. Simpe as that.

  56. justicedemon

    Farang

    Section 10 of chapter 11 of the Finnish Penal Code makes it a criminal offence to disseminate information, opinions or other communications that threaten, vilify or defame a population group on the basis of race, skin colour, descent, national or ethnic extraction, religion or conviction, sexual orientation or disability, or equivalent other grounds.

    This does not prevent you from defaming racists. You are free to call them idiots if you wish. It does prevent you from expressing racist views and attempting to spread other forms of prejudice against the population groups specified.

    Our discussion above focused on your claim that it is the practice of generalisation (or overgeneralisation) as such by racists that makes them idiots. This cannot be correct, as generalisation is an entirely normal aim of scientific and other forms of enquiry (and overgeneralisation is an important hazard in such pursuits). For a more profound understanding of racism, I recommend this website on the psychology of prejudice.

  57. Farang

    D4R: “Good, now explain when did i do any of those?”

    Dear D4R, here is a good example of your racism and very rude generalisation against Finns.

    D4R: “Finland has made it clear that they don’t have nothing to offer to us, not even friendly gesture anymore, Finland has made an enemy to us, we’re just unwanted invaders who’re not welcome here, the only reason why we force ourself to stay here is we don’t have any where else to go, but Finland has shown us great hostility, we came to Finland and seeked a refuge we didn’t plan to end up here, this wasnt scripted, but i guess our coming to Finland has been a great burden to Finns, that’s the reason they hate us to death.”

    • Migrant Tales

      –Dear D4R, here is a good example of your racism and very rude generalisation against Finns.

      Why do you disagree with what D4R is saying. That is how he feels and we must as a community try to answer his concerns. Are you denying his right to express his deepest fears about living in Finland? Certainly D4R doesn’t mean ALL Finns. Another matter that you and I lack is the ability to feel what it is like to grow up in a society where he has seen his fair share of hostility.

      How would you feel if you wen to the market with your mother and a total stranger came up and attacked you?

      One matter you have to understand, Farang, that when people speak out against what you call “racism and very rude generalisation against Finn,” it shouldn’t be seen as an insult but as concern by a member of our society that wants to address the issue.

      That is my take on what D4R said.

  58. justicedemon

    Farang

    Dear D4R, here is a good example of your racism and very rude generalisation against Finns.

    D4R: “Finland has made it clear that they don’t have nothing to offer to us, not even friendly gesture anymore, Finland has made an enemy to us, we’re just unwanted invaders who’re not welcome here, the only reason why we force ourself to stay here is we don’t have any where else to go, but Finland has shown us great hostility, we came to Finland and seeked a refuge we didn’t plan to end up here, this wasnt scripted, but i guess our coming to Finland has been a great burden to Finns, that’s the reason they hate us to death.”

    I’m not sure that you are in any position to lecture D4R on rudeness, but where is the specific racism in that remark?

  59. Farang

    Migrant Tales:

    “Why do you disagree with what D4R is saying. That is how he feels and we must as a community try to answer his concerns. Are you denying his right to express his deepest fears about living in Finland?”

    Here’s your double standards again. If someone else would write what D4R wrote but replaced Finns and Finland for example with Somalis, you would accuse that person of racism and propably delete whole comment for “being illegal”. But now when roles are reversed, it suddenly is totally ok to write racist stuff like that.

    • Migrant Tales

      –Here’s your double standards again.

      Farang, you are hearing the matter straight from the horse’s mouth with respect to D4R. I believe that your definition of racism is very different from many of ours on Migrant Tales.

  60. D4R

    farang: D4R: “Finland has made it clear that they don’t have nothing to offer to us, not even friendly gesture anymore, Finland has made an enemy to us, we’re just unwanted invaders who’re not welcome here, the only reason why we force ourself to stay here is we don’t have any where else to go, but Finland has shown us great hostility, we came to Finland and seeked a refuge we didn’t plan to end up here, this wasnt scripted, but i guess our coming to Finland has been a great burden to Finns, that’s the reason they hate us to death.”

    I wasnt specific and clear on this one i have to admit, i made a mistake for expressing abit wrong as i gave a bone to dogs like you who’re waiting a one mistake in every sentence i make, as exnglish is not my mother language so is mistake expected between my sentences, what i ment earlier was, the law enforcement seem to neglect us especially Somalis, for instance not investigating the killing of the Somalis boy, I didn’t ment to say Finland as a whole or Finns as a whole are racist, if someone misunderstood my earlier massege my apology. I don’t have anything against all Finns but just the racist ones who’re spreading lies about us.

  61. eyeopener

    Hi Farang. Double standards?? you who don’t have standards yourself. you belong in the HommaZoo, Get yourself some peanuts.

    Probably these arm-sleeved people like Eronen or this “Marsian” guy Hakkarainen, or Immoblinen have some nice “nuts” for you. Bags fool of them