u/sinddk

Good news!

Correct, this is the imported problem.

Stay mad. You are the one commenting on every single one of my responses. Go look at mental health.

Clearly, lol what mad liberal we have here.

Coming from you, imagine living in 2026 and get this offended by a joke. Pathetic.

Found the liberal blue haired karen.

Crazy delusional blue haird karens never see themselves as mentally ill. Hmm.

Crazy people never see themselves as crazy

Or i can see it for what it was and not being overly dramatic.

Why should the rest of us agree with you? See you dont get to decide that is correct or wrong - the joke was allowed on tv, means alot more than you and the people in here thought it was fine, AS IT WAS A JOKE.

Stop being the arbiter of jokes, use your own brain and take it as a joke.

Who the fuck is Dan Levy. Stop being so sensitive, its 2026, it was a joke.

fuckoff with shit gearscore

Sjovt som det er den demografi.

What about sudan or Iran? So tired of its only palestine...

On the flip side, I don't think for example Israel have 75.000 rapes like the UK have per year.

He isn't wrong though. UK is a crap show at the moment.

Not even close, but typical response from people like you. But keep trying to get social media points.

Good thing no genocide took place there. Meanwhile, in Sudan, more than 500,000 people have died, yet you don't see influencers adding the Sudanese flag to their profiles or Redditors rushing to virtue signal about it.

My original comment was “diversity is London’s strength,” so obviously the discussion includes the problems that can come with mass immigration and failed integration not just the benefits you prefer to acknowledge and conviently forget the negative sides.

The video shows a few people; official government crime statistics show the wider problems are not confined to one clip. Why should facts be dismissed just because they are inconvenient?

I never claimed every rape was caused by immigrants. You invented that argument because shouting “xenophobe,” “AI-generated,” and “cretin” is easier than addressing what is actually said.

You may not have dismissed a specific crime, but you did open with the blanket claim that “diversity in London is great” and then dismissed my view because I’m Danish.

My point is that diversity is not automatically or universally beneficial. It can bring advantages, but large-scale immigration from societies with radically different attitudes toward women, religion, sexuality, free speech, secular law and social trust can also create serious integration problems. Refusing to acknowledge those downsides is not being open minded; it is treating your own positive view of diversity as unquestionable.

And accusing me of being unable to consider another perspective is rather ironic when your response to a dissenting view was essentially: “You’re foreign, so you’re not qualified to speak.” Personally disliking me changes none of that. It only explains why you chose insults over addressing the argument.

Lastly, I really dont like you either, Buddy.

You did give a viewpoint. You argued that statistics “don’t mean much by themselves,” that citing them here was amateurish, and that the data was cherry picked. Rebranding your opinion as “what everyone who understands statistics thinks” does not make it neutral or universally true.

Nobody claimed statistics explain every aspect of society on their own. That is a straw man you created because it is easier to attack than the actual point. The point was that when someone makes a factual claim about crime being insignificant or isolated, official crime data is relevant evidence against that claim.

You also keep repeating cherry-picking without identifying what relevant data was excluded, why it should have been included, or how it would overturn the conclusion. Simply saying that statistics can be misused does not prove that these statistics were misused.

You have not exposed a contradiction. You have taken the completely ordinary point that data needs interpretation and inflated it into an excuse to dismiss evidence without engaging with it. That is not statistical sophistication; it is evasion dressed up as nuance.

Yes, we’re talking about the video which you dismissed as “a few idiots doing something stupid.” The statistics were relevant because they show the behaviour in the video is not some isolated, meaningless anomaly.

No one claimed the existence of crime in a big city is a revelation. The point is that you tried to minimise it, then switched to insults when challenged. Calling something “AI generated” does not make the argument disappear, and calling me a cretin is not a substitute for answering it.

Amazing stuff here.

Because I looked up the official figures after you tried to dismiss serious crime. That is not “extremely weird behaviour”; it is checking facts before speaking. Something you should try.

What is weird is insinuating something sinister instead of addressing the actual numbers. “We all know the answer” is not an argument, it is just a cheap personal attack used when you cannot respond to the point.

How is rape “cherry-picking”? I brought it up because you described serious crime in London as “a few idiots doing something stupid.” Thousands of recorded rape offences directly challenge that wording. I did not claim that rape statistics prove every problem is caused by immigration or diversity.

Your education figures may be valid and relevant to a different discussion about deprivation, attainment, employment and crime. But they do not cancel out rape statistics, nor do they make serious crime insignificant. Different statistics answer different questions.

The proper response is not to dismiss uncomfortable figures as cherry-picking, but to ask what claim they are being used to support. In this case, the claim was simply that London’s serious crime problem cannot honestly be reduced to “a few idiots.”