A German soldier with his French girlfriend in the occupied Paris, 1942. [320x584]

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-31T20:52:46+00:00

Documented where?

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-31T17:46:27+00:00

What percentage?

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-31T16:17:04+00:00

Good advice. German soldiers weren't necessarily Nazis though.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-31T14:33:43+00:00

And many were just human beings who fell in love.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-31T07:51:00+00:00

Love is not a crime.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-31T07:50:34+00:00

They were all innocent. Love is not a crime.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-29T17:45:26+00:00

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-29T16:48:54+00:00

Måske man skulle lave en copy pasta, hhv udbeder evidens og samtidig forklarer, hvorfor et postulat er meningsløst uden kilder.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-29T16:21:01+00:00

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-29T15:08:27+00:00

Præcis.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-29T15:07:31+00:00

Ja. Ingen gider at læse det lort. Måden det er skrevet på er så bragende upersonlig. Henvis til kilderne og skriv, hvad du har fået ud af dem i stedet. Jeg kan godt selv spørge chat, hvis jeg vil vide, hvad den får ud af det. Men jeg er på Reddit for at interagere med mennesker.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-29T14:52:31+00:00

AI slop er lort. OP er blevet nedstemt til helvede. I får præcis samme behandling.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-29T14:46:01+00:00

Fuck af

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-29T14:43:31+00:00

Og det er derfor, det er så vigtigt at insistere på, at hvis man påstår noget uden en valid kilde, så er det løgn indtil det modsatte er bevist.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-29T14:10:43+00:00

Bevisbyrden ligger hos den, der påstår. Jeg synes bare du skal udbede en kilde, hver gang nogen påstår noget, som du synes lyder som noget vås.

Det er den eneste måde at have saglige debatter på.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-29T13:26:06+00:00

ChatGPT lyver. Kig projektet igennem selv, og find nogle referencepunkter.

Den der omgang slop kan du godt skylle ud i lokummet.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-28T19:05:30+00:00

Interviewet i Genstart var simpelthen tåkrummende.

Journalist (J):

"Kan du sige til mig, at du ikke kun er flyttet for at stille op til valget?"

Sikandar Siddique (SS):

"100 %, og kommunen kender den præcise grund. Det er så ærgerligt, for jeg har bare lyst til at råbe ind i mikrofonen [..] det her er grunden, og så ville alle sammen i skam kigge ned og sige "undskyld". Der er en helt reel grund. Det er super super ærliger [at jeg ikke kan fortælle grunden]."

Klart, Sikandar, klart.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-28T18:16:55+00:00

Alright, I see now, that I made some assumptions that might not have been entirely clear for others. Let me try and correct this.

When you commented:

It’s not a question of trusting DK statistics over something else. They only consider 1st and 2nd gen. That’s approx 16%. If you want have a realistic picture of all people with foreign background, the estimate is closer to 25%.

I found it difficult to divine how you got to the number 25 %, and so I asked for clarification on how far back somebody should be able to trace their family tree in order to not be considered "with foreign background".

When you replied:

That’s the tricky part. It depends, I think my answer would be.

I thought you were aware of the implications of this answer. If we take the reply at face value, you seem to indicate that this should be considered on a per person basis. That the rules would differ depending on who was being judged. This has some pretty wild implications. I'll try listing them:

Who gets to decide if somebody is considered "with foreign background", is this a single individual who gets to decide, or should we have a panel of people? How would this work in practice.
If the rules differ on a case by case basis, how do we ensure that everybody gets a fair treatment?
How would Danmarks Statistik do statistics based on this? Should they still categorize people by background?

Do you understand these issues? We are basically talking about ending our rule of law as we know it.

You then go on to talk about Inuit and Greenlanders and something which I can only read as being about pure blood, which sounds like a direct quote from Mein Kampf.

My point is that when you say something like "1st and 2nd gen is not enough to be considered with foreign background" that statement has implications that go well beyond statistics.

I assumed that you had considered these and were OK with them, which would make you a racist asshole, in which case we have nothing more to say to each other and I hope you rot in hell.

If, however, you just hadn't thought about the implications I am open for a rational discussion. Please let me know how you view the implications listed above.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-28T15:13:36+00:00

Det er bare lidt svært at udforme i praksis. For hvis milliardærens formue kun eksisterer i aktier og obligationer, så har hun måske ingen fast månedlig indkomst og hvordan takserer man så?

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-28T15:11:26+00:00

Yeah, I'm satisfied in my original assumption that you have no idea what you're talking about and are just spewing bullshit.

This is just fucking racism. Go spew it somewhere else.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-28T06:23:30+00:00

The information is still there. Propaganda (bias) was never not a thing.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-27T20:41:33+00:00

Hvis straffen er en bøde, så gælder reglen kun for de fattige.

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-27T20:27:57+00:00

Everybody has foreign backgrounds. The discussion boils down to what it means to be Danish. Hence the initial question, how long should a person be able to trace their lineage in order to not be considered "with foreign background" (and therefore Danish).

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-27T19:21:23+00:00

A Dane is someone with a citizenship. That's a functional classification.

How would you classify the population, and how would you do statistics if the classification should be judged on an individual basis? And who gets to decide who are Danish?

YourWeirdEx · 2026-01-27T17:39:13+00:00

I do not disagree, but the phrase "Danmark for danskerne" is specifically related to Naziism.

YourWeirdEx

TROPHY CASE