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

>All of Scandinavia, he believes, has persuaded itself that crime exists only in violent, poor abscesses on the edges of their societies. “The Danes totally subscribe to this idea that Denmark has no corruption, and to the idea of Denmark as the end of the road,” Brügger said, referring to the political scientist Francis Fukuyama’s notion that “getting to Denmark” is the goal of every modern democracy.

First, this is an assertion about “All of Scandinavia”, and there is some contradiction about crime exists but is small, and Denmark has “no corruption”. But this is basic over-generalization, between low and none, and a exposé that provides anecdotes but doesn’t challenge statistics.

Still people will claim (rhetorically) “none” when the real answer is not zero. And is that really incorrect? To be correct is to quantify and provide your reasoning. That’s something that public discourse is yet to embrace.

How can we view in the usa?

What's sketchy about their tax structure? Just curious what you think. I think they are pretty open about it?

The original purpose of IKEA was to foster self reliance, essentially making everyone a bit handier. IKEA brings decent quality furniture to people who otherwise wouldn't afford it. I think it's a noble goal, hence why I ask.

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, IKEA is owned by a non-profit organization called INGKA, set up in such a way to generate revenue not to a few rich people but:

"INGKA Foundation’s purpose is to further, without pursuing any profits, a better everyday life for the many people in need. We achieve this purpose by funding the IKEA Foundation, which is committed to helping children and families living in poverty afford a better everyday life while protecting the planet."

https://www.ingkafoundation.org/our-charitable-purpose/

https://www.inter.ikea.com/en/this-is-inter-ikea-group/about...

https://www.inter.ikea.com/en/-/media/InterIKEA/IGI/Financia...

Regarding them paying of Romanian secret police, I'm very interested to hear about it. I know they used east german prisoners for a time as cheap labor.

Haven't seen this film, but here are some observations I think we should keep in mind in general when it comes to journalism.

There is a famous saying, that in one version goes like this:

I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how. [1]

Mutatis mutandis, something very similar can be said about filmmaking: it is of less importance exactly what someone says and of great importance who cuts and edit it.

Light or lack of light, missing context - this can be the exact questions asked that triggered the answer[2] or what the person said to qualify their statements [3]. There is music, sound effects, camera perspectives and so on and so on.

One can also lead the viewer towards a conclusion without spelling it out [4].

There is a reason militaries advice soldier that in case of capture we should say as little as absolutely possible outside of what one is legally required to say: name, rank, service number, and date of birth. Anything and everything can and probably will be abused.

This is true not only for opponents in a war but as probably everyone knows also with police in most of the world, and HN is keenly aware of this.

I'd argue that we should be equally aware when it comes to journalism: as much as I respect many journalists, they are not a homogeneous group of perfectly ethical people striving for perfect objectivity. They have personal agendas: fame, income, people and cases they sympathize with and people and cases theywant to hurt.

We should be aware of this when reading, watching or listening - but of course even more when answering questions.

Any competent defense attorney can tell

[1]: Supposedly said by Stalin in reference to a vote in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but exactly who said is is less important than the general idea.

[2]: can be as simple as this classic: asking the person "hypothetically, if you wanted to ... how would you have done it?"

[3]: Simple example: "Q: Have you cheated on your taxes? A: yes, , back in 1956 when I was 18 ..."

[4]: This is an actual example: Our public broadcaster in Norway mentioning that they had tried to investigate the economic transactions of some people, saying they couldn't do it and it was very confusing and ending that segment with a merry go round.

What they didn't mention was that Norwegian police had already investigated the same people over three years, several months secretly and had not only been unable to prove the crimes suggested, but gone as far as stating they found it proven that the accused were innocent.

Some of those cultures that apparently celebrate gay people were also chemically castrating them not that long ago, and also have a lot of locals who still hate gay people and cannot wait to get back to the old ways.

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