No, but one shouldn’t take high impact statements about what the “consensus” is on any issue from random comments on the internet without any justification.
The second sentence is justification. I don't mind if people don't just accept my conclusion based on the comment, it's just a comment, a small piece of the puzzle in someones mind.
It’s not a justification though. That’s what I’m saying.
Just because the left doesn’t mention an issue, doesn’t mean that a consensus is reached.
No political party really talks much about school shootings in the US nowadays, but that doesn’t mean the consensus is young white men are naturally school shooters.
Do you think all comments need to be articles in length? My original comment contains an idea, and a justification. It really is almost platonic in how simple it is actually, schoolbook example.
You might feel that the justification is inadequate, but instead you began talking about how my comment doesn't "prove" anything, and now that it doesn't contain justification at all.
Part of the reason why this justifies the idea that a consensus actually has been reached, is that the left used to extol in length the benefits of immigration, and how Swedes are terrible people that need diversity to get anywhere. It turned out that was wrong, and now the country is heading away from reasonably being called a developed country any more. The focus of the leftists in control is instead to feverishly moderate the discussion so no one begins talking about __mass remigration__, what Sweden actually needs, and they do this by talking about limiting migration, even deporting some criminals. (the consensus, ding ding)
Not every comment need be an article, but the internet would be better if every comment has actual justification and not just statements.
I said “prove” at first, but I should’ve said “justifies.” It’s a better word for this.
An equally plausible reason for the left not talking about immigration is that there is not a giant migrant wave as there was in the mid-2010s and the lax migration policies are already in place.
My original comment contains justification for the idea presented. I don't understand why this is controversial to you? Why do you hold that my original comment does not contain justification? It clearly does.
Moving on to the real discussion, not this infernal semantic journey you've taken to embark upon.
If it was equally plausible that mass-immigration is currently not openly condoned by left-wing politicans, because the migrant wave isn't currently hitting europe and the lax migration policies are already in place; then why was the left so willing to talk about being pro-migration __before__ the migrant wave? The lax policies have been in place in Sweden since the 70:s.
What has happened, is that the disaster of the policies is now so plain and obvious, that not even professional liars can reasonably stand in the tv-broadcast and talk about it enthusiastically, it is a disaster for everyone involved and no one pretends it's not. Instead, all the politicians can do is ignore the problem while they silently try to alleviate as many small aspects of the disaster as possible, so people don't wake up to just how poorly this country has been run.
