You keep returning to the idea that I'm a conspiracy theorist because I "don't trust your sources". To be clear - there is one source that I don't trust, which is the Swedish Council on Crime Prevention (BRA). I don't trust them because there is a statistic that makes them look bad, to wit Sweden has the highest rape rate in Europe, and they have a convoluted explanation for why that stat isn't a problem. This seems like a pretty straightforward case of an organization spinning problematic stats to make themselves look better.

When I say that I don't trust Snopes - I'm not alleging that Snopes is involved in a conspiracy with BRA to cover up rape stats. Instead, what I think, is that the freelance bloggers churning out Snopes articles on trending topics are motivated to quickly produce articles. The Snopes blogger googles "Sweden rape capital true" and gets BRA's explanation and then copies and pastes it plus some graphs. Now, I'm using "copies and pastes" a bit loosely, metaphorically, but I definitely see some of the same language in that Snopes article that I have seen and heard from Swedish government officials - it is very much the same argument and it is very much wrong for the same reasons. Likewise, when I say that I don't trust you when you repeat the same argument, I am not saying that I think you are in a conspiracy with the Swedish government - I am saying that you are repeating the same original argument from BRA which is wrong.

Just consider the course of this argument - "Sweden has a higher rape rate because they count every individual rape whereas other countries aggregate multiple rapes into a single count." Which countries? "Denmark." Nope, they count offences. "Norway." Nope, they count offences. "This wikipedia article says an Amnesty International report says that a European Council says that in 1999 16 countries counted cases rather than offences." Okay, well that seems to be out of date - you can look at the government websites and Eurostat. "You are a racist conspiracy theorist." I am not saying that there is a conspiracy or that mainstream sources are wrong (they all agree completely with me), or that everyone is wrong but me. I'm saying that BRA spins the stats that make them look bad and you are uncritically repeating BRA.

Rather than investigate what is true, you try and find ways that you might be right. The question of whether or not Denmark reports offences or cases is a good example. I want to know, so I go to Denmark's current website on criminal statistics and look at their reporting policy. I do this not because I'm a genius but because it is obvious if I want to know Denmark's crime reporting policy I should look at Denmark's crime reporting policy. By contrast, you find a 20+ year old Amnesty International document that cites someone who claims that Denmark reports cases not crimes. That's not a good way of investigating - unless, you are just trying to find some source that supports your current claims (and who cares if it's not current, not an official policy, not from the Danish government, and not connected to the figures we are currently debating).

You write that perhaps Denmark changed their laws and/or their reporting practices and so they are perhaps they are up to date with Sweden now but then you say the important claim is whether they were up to date in 2017. First, this disagreement began when I claimed that Sweden is the regional leader for rape. That's a claim about the current year, not 2017. Second, in 2017 Sweden had the highest rape rate in Europe. We have data for 2021 and Sweden still has the highest rape rate in Europe. You seem to be saying that while Denmark and Sweden may have reporting parity now, the fact that they might not have had parity in 2017 means it's wrong to say Sweden is the regional leader for rape now. I suppose you think it's coincidence that Sweden topped the rape stats before and after definitional and reporting changes in Denmark?

Finally, I am not "claiming" that your sources are outdated. I'm reading the dates on your sources, observing that they are decades old, and pointing you to the current, up to date sources. It's also not a claim that BRA is biased. They are the government entity charged with preventing crime in Sweden discussing the high rate of crime in Sweden - how could you possibly consider this source unbiased?