My understanding is that the discussion can be found around this timestamp link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4goynP4mHYI&t=1h18m43s

According to the machine translation, Allard explicitly frames his argument around cultural assimilation, economic contribution, and behavior rather than biological ethnicity or skin color alone.

In public statements, he has routinely asserted that an individual's racial background or skin color is irrelevant to his politics.

Look, I'm not some Allard supporter. Don't know the guy, not even Swedish. Easily found some stuff on their platform which I quickly disagree with. I really doubt he's literally out there just calling for mass deportation of folks based on ethnicity. That is actual ethnonationism. Swedish people are from a nice free society and are accustomed to low crime and low problems. They've got this 2nd generation migrant issue that lots of Europe is dealing with.

The definition of ethnonationist is being used so flipantly throughout this thread.

Do your really think this guy is just standing up saying 'remigrate all dark skinned folks who got here recently'?

Even if that were his true political goals, it would be pretty self defeating to just charge onto the stage going full Nazi. He wouldn't have this much movement.

Ethnonationalism: Defined by shared ancestry, lineage, and cultural heritage. Membership is exclusive and inherited by birth, focusing on preserving a specific ethnic identity.

Civic Nationalism: Defined by shared political principles, values, and laws. Membership is inclusive and open to anyone who adheres to the state's legal framework, regardless of background.

Does the party call for remigration or a lower status for immigrants who have committed no crimes, found jobs and are not a disproportionate drain on the welfare state? To be ethnonationist, I believe they must call for that on the basis of us vs them. Perhaps someone can provide evidence of this. I haven't seen any. Seems like they are very upset about crime and welfare drain. Also they have a bunch other non immigration related positions that some might label as extreme.

If so, I'd be keen to see clear evidence of that.

The distinction is that a person can be ethnicity agnostic while being very strict about deporting immigrants who commit crimes. In the case of Sweden, it appears to me that the evidence indicates the primary concern is folks born to non-native parents. See the exert below from their Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention:

"The proportion of the various groups registered as suspects for any type of crime are as follows: • 3.2 percent of persons born in Sweden to two native-born parents (4.8 percent of men, 1.5 percent of women). • 5.9 percent of persons born in Sweden to one non-native parent (8.6 percent of men, 3.1 percent of women). • 10.2 percent of persons born in Sweden to two non-native parents (15.3 percent of men, 4.8 percent of women). • 8.0 percent of persons born abroad (12.2 of men, 3.9 percent of women)."

https://bra.se/download/18.45e4b8e192705389a34c2b/1729515966...

If I am a true-blue ethnonationalist, I want all non-Swedish ethnicities deported/remigrated or relegated to lower social status. This would be the Nazi position... White skin blue eyes = superior.

If I am a tough on crime migrant skeptic, I call for deportation of non-native's who commit crimes without concern for their specific ethnicity/origin. I can't be in the Nazi party, because I don't think German descent people are superior. I think anyone who migrates to our country and then commits crimes is undesirable. I would just as easily call for the deportation of any ethnic background.

I looked into this a bit, because I was curious if there was actual evidence driving these political movements. As it turns out, there is and it has been studied. The primary pain point(crime) comes in when the 2nd generation doesn't economically assimilate. If a non-native family economically assimilates they then apparently actually have lower likelihood of criminal activity than a native family.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism

Such an overreaction and mischaracterization.

Being unable to evaluate an anti immigration party without labeling them ethnonationist shows a pretty glaring blind spot.

Being this sensitive to company leadership political activity is going to exhaust a person and time would be better spent being careful to buy products with minimal value added from authoritarian nations with a history of gross human rights issues.

Lots of counties don't want immigration, especially after they let a large group in and deal with integration challenges. The CCP forcefully places ethnic Han into minority homes to function as de facto informants. The Russians broke up Finnish/Ukrainian families en masse, moving them to the other end of Russia to minimize the likelihood of dissent in occupied areas.

There are a lot worse ideas at play in the world than some of the more extreme suggestions that this very infant-sized Swedish party flirt with. On a scale of 1-10 heinousness, barely registers on the global stage.

My thinking goes more like this:

This product I bought from this nation... Does that Nation tend to value human rights, freedom of expression and liberal values? Sweden... Check.

I can buy Swedish products all day. They make nice jets and mobile artillery that push back on the really bad ideas. One CEO's affiliation with an anti immigration populist party which honestly doesn't seem that serious... They've got some Marxist ideas in there. I really doubt these guys go much of anywhere in their current form. It's a capitalist society. Some of their ideas will stick but the party is immature. I wouldn't worry so much.

Unsurprising we know about it.

It's clearly elite though. They are making sophisticated moves. How do they rate on the global stage? I'm not sure. I have to assume, lower quality than the west but better than less wealthy nations.

Honestly if they had blown up our planes... I'd say there is a real chance we blow up that shiny building where they planned that.

It's even possible we told them exactly that and this is why the plot didn't continue.

It says... We can touch you in the United States and are willing to do it. The implication is that they might even be willing to conduct terrorist attacks against our civilians.

Could be a play that they thought might put them in a better negotiation position... If you can believe that.

This is my read as a civilian who follows war. I am not an expert.

Frankly, I posted this hoping to attract some discussion amongst those who might actually be able to provide a decent read.

Is the paper of practical use in life or more an area of interest?

In short, why did you post this? Just curious.

- assasination of the CEO of Rheinmetall... the largest defense company in Germany

- explosive devices on planes destined for the United States

- arson throughout Europe

Serious characters.

https://archive.ph/r8Rhw

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43064911

Points: 15

# Comments: 12

I found your writing useful.

Hopefully the landscape will improve.

The brightest minds now want to use machine learning to tease out more low level features of language itself, across various species.

We are already calling monkeys and elephants by their native names y'all... And they are responding to this...

Think about it... This research is unlikely to stall. We're barely scratching the surface. The animals were having more nuanced conversation than we thought. They've been doing this for millions of years...

Condescension toward nature... Usually a mistake. I'm not saying they are all philosophers, but it seems very likely they've been having some pretty advanced conversations surrounding their own affairs. If we can call them by their name... Probably we're going to unlock some pretty interesting communication.

I study managers. She's a manager. HN is rife with defamation. Sometimes I push back where it's particularly egregious and on a topic I know well.

Honestly, I bother a lot less. I'm not sure there is hope for this community.

The same happened with reddit.

I could write paragraphs...

Why the rain clouds?

This piece is built on conjecture from a source whose identify is withheld. The sources version of events is openly refuted by the parties in question. Offering it as evidence that Mirati intentionally made political moves in order to get Altman ousted is an indefensible position.

'Mr. Sutskever’s lawyer, Alex Weingarten, said claims that he had approached the board were “categorically false.”'

'Marc H. Axelbaum, a lawyer for Ms. Murati, said in a statement: “The claims that she approached the board in an effort to get Mr. Altman fired last year or supported the board’s actions are flat wrong. She was perplexed at the board’s decision then, but is not surprised that some former board members are now attempting to shift the blame to her.” In a message to OpenAI employees after publication of this article, Ms. Murati said she and Mr. Altman “have a strong and productive partnership and I have not been shy about sharing feedback with him directly.”

She added that she did not reach out to the board but “when individual board members reached out directly to me for feedback about Sam, I provided it — all feedback Sam already knew,” and that did not mean she was “responsible for or supported the old board’s actions.”'

This part of NYT piece is supported by evidence:

'Ms. Murati wrote a private memo to Mr. Altman raising questions about his management and also shared her concerns with the board. That move helped to propel the board’s decision to force him out.'

INTENT matters. Mirati says the board asked for her concerns about Altmans. She provided it and had already brought it to Altmans attention... in writing. Her actions demonstrate transparency and professionalism.

Please no speculative pieces, rumor nor hearsay.

Neither did she though... To my knowledge.

Can you provide any evidence that she tried to do that? I would ask that it be non-speculative in nature please.