A filmmaker and a crooked lawyer shattered Denmark's self-image

If you starve a wealthy man for 2 weeks he will be ready to cannibalize. If you create a metric upon which you place a lot of economic-value, soooner or later it will get gamed and corrupted. If you remove checks and balances humans being unpredictable will turn on each other.

One can choose to ignore this fact, but at the cost of endless grief to oneself and those around.

People confuse population-scale average behaviors with guarantees about individuals.

In any country you can find outliers that don't match the country's norms.

The hard part is that the devious ones can leverage their country's (or culture, or state, or relgious affiliation, etc.) norms to disguise their bad behavior. It's easier to scam someone if you pretend to blend in with groups known for being trustworthy.

I think you are saying that people's behavior changes based on stimulus. That doesn't mean they're unpredictable, just that the prediction shouldn't be unchanged behavior regardless of stimulus.

For some population, you can safely state that some portion of them will contract appendicitis. You cannot make that same assertion about an individual person. This likewise carries to specific behaviors (theft, charity, becoming a pet owner, etc).

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-12785802.amp

This is not true in general. Environment does not only influence behavior, it selects for it.

As evidenced by our ability to breed behavior traits in domesticated animals - I.e. ragdoll cats, retrievers, rat terriers, etc. have distinct behavioral traits that have been intentionally selected for.

But yeah, depending on how strong the selective force is... Ashkenazy Jews have an average IQ of what, around 130 points? But on the other side also suffer a lot more genetic disorders.

Interesting are also the altitude tolerance of Sherpa, body morphology of the Kenian runners and the dive endurance of a particular South east asian tribe (if I remember correctly), some organ is able to store a lot more blood than usually

but i digress, and its hard to communicate that its better to end good times with ability to move, then to be caught in paradise, when the resource window falls shut. you want to be able to wiggle and act in the dark times, keep it together , have tech thats maintainable but not existence ending , while wild hordes fight for the last glimmering bits of the golden era.

That is absolutely not true. People aren't the same even in adjacent neighborhoods sometimes. Some create great environments, some create hells on earth.

Source: I lived in 3 different countries + an isolated island.

But you don't even need my biased opinion on the matter. We have cultures that throw gay people off the roofs, and cultures that celebrate them.

The rise of the far right in Europe and USA might challenge your idea of fixed regional cultures quite soon.

Also, I don't think someone who wants limited immigration is necessarily far right.

I think both genetics (personality, among endless other characteristics is significantly to majority heritable and going to have different distributions in different areas) and environment/culture play significant roles.

But an interesting thing is that by the time people are adults, perhaps even before, the environmental factors have irreversibly changed them so marginalising cultural factors as "just" environmental doesn't really paint a fair picture.

For a person who's happy to travel/live just about anywhere this makes having children doubly fun, because you basically get to decide the 'cultural mold' for your children, which is really neat!

We're knowledgeable people here, so we know there's no such thing as race other than as a human artifact. As human artifact, it can certainly affect how we think and therefore how we behave.

How we react to those stimuli is governed by culture, or memetics. Like genes, memetic frameworks are also passed on generationally, but with a much higher mutation rate.

Genetics is hardware, which defines possible behaviors. Memetics is operating system and applications, defining actual behaviors.

And you could take single individuals from either culture and drop them in the other culture, and most of them would happily act and think just like the new culture, and swear blind that they’d always thought that way.

It would be an interesting experiment to see how many individuals you could replace one-by-one before the culture changed. Or perhaps, like a Ship of Theseus, you could replace all the people, but have the culture endure.

And essentially all of species related biology would be a 'social construct' by such logic. The difference between entire species is often poorly defined. Different species can even interbreed and produce fertile offspring such as a liger. Or take the Australian Dingo which is literally just a wild dog, but it's not classified as one for quite arbitrary reasons.

Nobody in Europe has a problem with LEGAL immigration, but the left wing parties and MSM keeps ignoring this and sweeping illegal immigration along the legal immigration banner to drive the narrative that Europeans are racists who hate all immigrants in order to justify (social) media censorship and restrictions on free speech to fight the "right wing extremist nazi" boogie man, which ironically, actually fuels the swing towards the extremist right wing, because the regular public discourse and communication channels for criticizing illegal immigration in public are censored/disabled.

Obviously it's an extreme example but many of the norms of a Western mindset would be no less offensive to billions of people in this world.

What bias of moderation exists is that you probably wouldn't migrate to Saudi Arabia unless you were already mostly ok with their values.

And if e.g. economic opportunity drove you there you'd probably keep your opinions to yourself, but it's unlikely your values would fundamentally change.

I will only add - I speak from experience here.

Maybe because people have been duped so much in the last 10+ years to know that the loaded statement of "more immigration" from the government only means legalizing more ILLEGAL immigration, driving them to hate all forms of immigration because the governments have proven themselves useless at enforcing border controls and depurations of those who brake the law.

That's the result that you get when you maliciously sweep ILLEGAL immigration under the same political banner used for legal immigration, as the liberal European governments have done, so you end up hurting the image of legal immigration as well but this is the fault of politicians, not the people whoa have suffered form illegal immigration and have next to no channels of changing this other than voting far right.

Specifically, the rise of far-right parties in Scandinavia, Germany and France is very much a reaction to legal immigration from Arab and African countries. The argument is not "they're stealing our jobs", but "they're abusing our welfare benefits, driving up crime and raping our women".

2) Even huge amounts of legal asylum seekers can end up straining the already thin welfare state, so it's only normal that taxpayers paying for the welfare state, ask their politicians "where are you goanna house all these newly arrived asylum seekers when even citizens and taxpayers are struggling with housing?" or "how do you know all those unvetted people you're letting in aren't criminals or if they're compatible with our culture and values so that we and our children can feel safe in public?"

So when politicians provide no answers to those questions, how are you surprised voters aren't taking this well and choosing the extreme right?

Just ask Germans or French or Belgian folks, or go there. The idea was exactly what you write, and it failed miserably with no solution in sight.

Just to explain - we have friends among those communities. We like them a lot, but the difference is there even after couple of generations. Its not talked about much, but if you look for it, it shows up. Nobody will talk about this with strangers of course, thats just polite facade.

If that was true you wouldn't have minority communities isolated within larger ones, they would just naturally mix - but the ones that do are the outliers.

Imagine if those same people would have been adopted as newborns, by a rural family on a farm in Belgium, France or Germany.

This isn't inherent to Europe, nor to any particular background. I live in Korea. Most Western immigrants here spend most of their time not inside the culture. They both work and relax outside of the dominant culture. If they have children here, and raise them similarly, those children will also have different values. But if they put their child in environments where everyone else is from the dominant culture, for >8 hours per day ever since kindergarten, then that's the values they'll take on.

It all does come down to culture. For what it's worth, I'm originally from Europe, and very familiar with the phenomenon you're talking about.

Someone else here rightly mentioned the internet as changing this somewhat, which has some truth in it - it does affect the probability distribution. But by and large, it still holds.

But illegal and legal immigrants from other countries mainly consume taxpayer resources and spread crime and violence.

When you use a list of tattoo elements to identify "Venezuelan gang members" and that list is also matched by the cheap options on the wall of any random tattoo shop, you tend to get a lot of false positives.

Mr. Mota can absolutely stay in my neighborhood.

It is the major decider from the way one talks, one walks, one acts, one decides, everything.

Can it be overruled by nature? Yes, very rarely. There's always a very small percentage of people (often thought of as neurodivergent, or witches, or simply free-spirited or eccentric, all case by case) who's neurogenetics cause them to partiaLly diverge. But these are the exceptions.

> That is absolutely not true. People aren't the same even in adjacent neighborhoods sometimes. Some create great environments, some create hells on earth.

Sure. People are not the same in their current behaviors. People are the same in how they acquire their behaviors or change their behaviors based on the conditions of their environments. And sometimes these changes are very quick.

To give a very simple example, many people in my native country who would throw burning cigarette butts on the ground, stop doing so immediately when they, say, immigrate to the US. They didn't really change all of a sudden; what remains the same is the people's opportunistic ability to adapt to the conditions of their environment, regardless of what is moral, just, etc.

Then, how do you explain, for example some people who migrates to France from a majority Muslim country and decides all French people are infidels and deserve death? Similarly, I know a lot of people who would curse America, yet still chooses to live in America. They were never mostly OK with the values on their current countries...

The fact that you think like that is kind of insane to me.

The examples you give come from environments which are likely to attract sociopaths. You yourself are with a higher probability a narcissist than the average human [1].

[1] https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/items/96cff233-cefd-45...

GP answered to clarify their position and answered the only question that should have been asked, the equivalent of, “if during my childhood I was indoctrinated by the Hitler Youth program, yes I probably would have done this horrible thing and so would you.”

Depends. I think in their home countries, Muslim youth does not hang around drunk in the park, that is more of a european thing, erm. cultural value. So they clearly adopted.

Ok, so that was satirical. But they are the ones bothering me. I am not bothered by women wearing a Hijab and I don't see that hurting our values.

Getting stabbed on the street vs somebody giving a government contract to a buddy? If I must choose, I’d rather take the later tbh.

Incentives are everything in a civilized society and anyone who cannot wrap their mind around this is most likely privileged.

Why do you worry more about the very unlikely events and not at all about the almost sure events?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-do-so-many-gay-men-s...

This has been proven false. To name just one measure of human behavior, the Big Five personality traits are 40-60% heritable: https://www.nature.com/articles/tp201596

People are complicated and there's no shortage of head scratching examples of seemingly mismatched fellow travellers.

Yes. You answered your own question. A person who is her legally is here legally. If their claim is denied (and I'd argue in many cases the bias would be towards denying valid claims then the other way around) and they refused to leave then they'd be an unathorized immigrant without legal right to stay in the country. But before then they are explicitly there legally.

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/-incredible-trump-admin-r... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/20/deported-bec...

At the end of the day, most people just want to be able to live a life, work, have children, some friends, family and health. Most difference come from the way people think they best achieve those goals.

When I said people are the same it means the same people who created great environments can in all likelihood create hell within a generation span.

Having your amnesty application rejected (whether the court judged fairly or too harshly) is not in any way or shape fraud. Law is complex and many refugees and asylum seekers don't fully understand the law. Even hoping it applies to you optimistically would not be fraud. Fraud is only when you purposely lie to try to gain the right to stay here. Such things happen but not nearly as often as anti immigrant people claim. Something that seems to happen more often is anti immigrant politicians lying and trying to break the law in order to restrict immigration such as by withdrawing TPS by claiming unsafe countries are now safe(so people can be deported)

He believes people would simply change their values, but I think this is an incorrect assumption, as the example should make obvious.

2) Maybe build more housing? Maybe hire some of the new immigrants to build more housing. They're not unvetted because they are going through a vetting process. Statistically we know most aren't criminals.

But non-Western immigrants are more likely to commit crimes (i.e. on a per-capita basis).

This blog post goes into some detail, and also adjusts by sex & age (also important!).

https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/the-effects-of-immigration-in-...

You can easily confirm the basic “Danish origin vs non-Western immigrants” statistics by doing simple math from official sources.

https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/sociale-forhold/krimin...

Persons of Danish origin commit 75% of crime yet represent 84% of the population. Immigrants are only 16% of population yet commit 25% of crime.

Or is official Danish statistics lying?

Also having an economic as well as other reaspns to immigrate does not mean someone isnt a qualified refuge or or not facing persecution or are committing fraud.

Taxes are complicated just like our immigration system. Many people make innocent mistakes every year, most people don't want IRS to come down as hard as they can on every innocent mistake by treating it as fraud without any proof. They expect corrections and if necessary small fines.aw

You not acknowledging there's a racial bias just makes you a racist.

Until you propose solutions to rising crime, rape and fracturing societal trust, then I'll listen.

Improving the living conditions and let it be known that equal opportunities exist and are viable would improve the situation.

Because when a person with dark skin is fully aware that the nice jobs aren't open to them, they'll behave consequently.

But of course you think all dark people are criminals so you wouldn't hire a dark person. You're part of the problem.