Imagine your next door neighbor going out in public wearing a Dr. Mengele t-shirt and you start to get Abe's vibe. Complete ghoul.
I know the Japanese aren't exactly excited to take responsibility for their role in WW2, but good for them all the same for seeing through this guy's bullshit. Every now and then these lone nuts get it right, I guess?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shintaro_Abe
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi
[3] https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.as...
Say what you mean.
South korea is very anti-japan, not that I blame them, but its bad enough that I wouldn't trust news from it unless it has proved itsself to be particularly trustworthy.
This goes the other way around too, to this day koreans in japan are mistreated and japan is always putting propaganda especially in relation to disputed areas like dokdo.
from the recent japan olympics we see they are okay with pissing off all their neighbors as well as being two faced regarding these disputes.
korean and japanese news don't act unbiased at all in relation to eachother.
> a korean publication will clearly try their best to portray the events as they see it.
This is true of anyone, anywhere, ever.
> South korea is very anti-japan, not that I blame them, but its bad enough that I wouldn't trust news from it unless it has proved itsself to be particularly trustworthy.
So South Korea has reasons for being not too keen on Japan, which you understand, but you also wouldn't trust them to talk about that? Does anyone with any grievance deserve trust, in your eyes?
Also, your issue is that ... a South Korean newspaper exists, and publishes things?
> korean and japanese news don't act unbiased at all in relation to eachother.
First, why should they? You've just given plenty of reason for each side to be biased. Second, the hidden expectation that people ought to act "unbiased", whatever that means, is trying (and failing) to do a lot of heavy lifting here. It says "I want more ____ before I believe the claim", but you don't say what that is, and I get the impression that nothing would be enough.
All you need to do here is look at the photo.
Trust in the matter that they’ve grievances with? Not really. It’s already a chore trying to discern biases in media and cross check facts across multiple sources. I don’t think it’s particularly useful to spend time giving much credence to a source that you know is biased. It’s like getting all my news about Joe Biden from Fox News and the Daily Caller. Why waste my time?
Does this automatox mistrust applies to all victims of aggression/imperialism/genocide like Yazidi, Jews, etc?
As in, this logic means that you are determined not to trust victims of something, purely because they are victims and talk about it.
> Does this automatox mistrust applies to all victims of aggression/imperialism/genocide like Yazidi, Jews, etc?
It applies to any party that is making assertions about something where there’s a clear conflict of interest. It is not saying what is being said is false, just that it is not automatically true and requires more scrutiny because it’s from a biased source. I think Ukrainians are victims of a Russian invasion but that does not mean that I think that Ukrainian news sources are particularly reliable with regards to reports on the war. That isn’t asserting that they are lying either, just that those claims require more verification.
> As in, this logic means that you are determined not to trust victims of something, purely because they are victims and talk about it.
Determined to not trust implies that I’m actively going out of my way to think that anything coming out of a victim’s mouth is a lie or deceitful. I’m not saying that at all.
i.e.
"So Russia has reasons for being not too keen on Ukraine and NATO, which you understand, but you also wouldn't trust them to talk about that? Does anyone with any grievance deserve trust, in your eyes?"
In my view, no, I would not trust or give much positive weight to Russia's opinions on Ukraine and NATO.
Should you trust what Jews write about Nazi? Should you trust what Ukrainians say about Russians soldiers in Bucha or their analysis of Russia?
The rule was never that you can't trust anything a country writes about another country.
The link referred to: https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.as...
Wow, "biased source", what a word!
I think aside from the universal "China is bad" theme, the other theme closely related in Asian political discussion in HN, is that "Japan already did her part for their WWII and imperialism war crimes"...
Unfortunately, no.
Japan has never addressed the issue with any nations that they invaded in WWII. Literally, each and every suffered from Japanese imperialism invasion still have deep and broad hostility towards Japan whenever the topic start to divert to WWII and the era.
I have no idea was it Japan government intentionally doing this inadequate job, or are they simply incompetent on this matter.
But to call this website "heavily biased"... Bravo, this is borderline racism towards the people living in the nations suffered from Japanese invasions.
The Japanese made peace with and paid reparations to the vast majority of (but not all) allied countries, including Korea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Basic_Relations_Betw...
Turns out, people are not stupid.
If the wrongdoers are not sincere, money never suffices. For example, you'll need a court to uphold an apology [1], then what is the substance of the apology anyway?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/20/review-...
If anything, I'd expect Joong-ang Ilbo to be biased toward Japan.
That’s not how conservatism works. The in-group bias overcomes common alignments on other issues. E.g. Muslims and evangelical Christians agree on a lot of things, but they certainly don’t get along.
One of the historical core tenets of South Korean conservatism is that the Free World(TM) should stand together against the evil of communism, which is going to enslave all of us "any time soon," unless we stay eternally vigilant. And by the Free World(TM), they mean South Korea, America, and Japan.
Banding together and liking the fact that you have to live in the same tent aren't quite the same thing.
Abe was controversial because he wanted to amend Japan's pacifist contribution which is a huge can of worms. Because Japan is so culturally homogeneous I think they'd have a very easy time picking an outgroup to blame for problems.
Most people in the UK celebrate Christmas, including atheists.
That's our point right
Also there's very little about baby Jesus in 'Here comes Santa Claus' or 'Frosty the Snowman'
To me, Christmas is mostly about giving gifts, eating (especially chocolates) and watching TV.
Something that specifically deals with alleged Northern European origins: http://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2018/12/concerning-yule.ht...
I understand it's not related to the currently hip Nordic paganism.
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/12/08/just-how-pagan-...
https://www.academuseducation.co.uk/post/how-saturnalia-beca...
Specifically:
* The similarities in how western Christians celebrate Christmas and Saturnalia was celebrated aren't that numerous. In addition, the Christmas traditions that do have Saturnalia parallels seem to have arisen independently relatively recently, long after Saturnalia ceased to be celebrated.
* The date of Saturnalia, while close to Christmas, never coincided with it.
* December 25th as Christmas seems to have an origin independent of Saturnalia.
* The celebration of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti on December 25th seems to postdate Christmas.
Additionally, the piece you linked does not deal with Alexander Hislop's work, which seems to be the origin of the alleged "pagan" origins of Christmas, Easter, etc.
There isn't much evidence that the solstice involves major celebrations predating Christmas. Whatever small celebrations did happen may have been appropriated by Christians, which makes sense given the persecution they faced.
I'm all likelihood, the date December 25 (winter solstice) was chosen as being nine months after the celebration of the Annunciation on March 25 (spring equinox) where the Virgin Mary was told she would give birth to Christ.
Throughout the history of Christianity, Christians have incorporated local traditions into our rituals and festivals, but placed into their proper framing and order (i.e. the one God is the source of all creation and is goodness). When Christianity came to Northern Europe, the church incorporated Yule festivities, placed into the proper order with Christ at the center and not the old Norse pantheon.
The arguments about Christians actually celebrating pagan holidays are from certain (usually) Calvinist reformers who had a revisionist interpretation of various Christian traditions, and felt they had debased Christ's church. The Puritans in England, for example, banned Christmas after they took power in the English Civil War, which suppressed the holiday (at first legally, then culturally) until Charles Dickens essentially revived it in the 19th century. Today, atheists have simply appropriated the Calvinist arguments for themselves.
Not something like putting up a Christmas tree and giving presents, maybe more like going to Christmas Eve and Easter sermons.
As an atheist, I enjoy the culture and tradition associated with such events. Asian festivals have lots of lights and colors and rituals have dancing, singing, and art forms alongside. All of these come with tasty and nutritious food.
In some ways, I feel we’ve lost this beautiful richness in our modern non-religious lifestyles.
Well, the celebrations are spiritually meaningless when actual, sincere theological views of the world are discarded for essentially material things. That the supernatural meaning of life has been replaced by "progress" in Western societies (we are continuously advancing towards better and better things) reflects this - we can build a paradise on Earth rather than have our spirits ascend to heaven when we are gone from Earth.
So yeah, the celebrations are basically just another get together with a dead tree nearby and the exchange of material things we've been lured into buying "on-sale", etc. If anything, it's even worse because of all the obligations and because of the lack of shared belief of a super natural thing, there's nothing that really brings us closer to each other.
I think it's why I like Thanksgiving and the 4th of July more - it's essentially the same thing without the artificial Christmas obligations around it.
Don't need to have a belief in a benevolent God or his son to enjoy it or to celebrate Christmas. Plus, I'm sure that even if everyone was a devout Christian, businesses would still be marketing for Christmas sales.
Any party or celebration is in some sense a ritual, just not necessarily a religious ritual.
The US is the opposite, and its diversity doesn't stop them from doing it. Often, fully justified too, like in the case of the Soviet Union or Communist China. So I'm not very persuaded by this reasoning.
Wouldn't both a Buddhist and a believer in Shintoism tend to answer no to "belief in God"?
Also my impression is that the Japanese are generally just into rituals, they don't seem to need much excuse.
I hazard a majority of Americans (religious or not) voluntarily partake in those rituals.
1. I suppose rituals require venerated objects/subjects, and this is often religious, but does not have to be
Rituals have a few distinct elements:
+ Repetition both in the ritual and of the ritual itself.
+ Assigned time or place. Eg praying before dinner, or Christmas mass.
+ Fetish. Some kind of object or words, a "solidification of intent". This can be a garment or some specific movement too.
So yes, an anthem is absolutely a ritual, as is a specific cheer for a sports team, under this framework.
Rituals serve several purposes including fostering group identity (the family praying before dinner together), marking something as special (the anthem before a sports game) and demarcation (Christmas mass). Obviously a ritual can fulfill some or a blend of these objectives.
Rituals, I believe, matter for the subconcious and non-rational parts of the human psyche. I think intentional, religious or non-religious, rituals are a useful tool.
Japan just has a lot of rituals that people do daily and ~seasonally, and they tend to be well attended. The few people I've talked to about it didn't seem to have some superstitious or religious reason to do them, it's just a thing to do.
We have the same thing in western societies, it just isn't often as homogeneous. Taking the USA for example we don't call them rituals, they're just "how we do things" and the like.
Honestly I find it similar to the formal system of addressing people in Japanese and other languages with lots of words or modifiers for expressing your relationship to another person. We do the same thing in English, just less formally and with more variation among groups and regions. For example even if I am familiar enough to address my boss by first name I wouldn't address them a nickname: shortening names or nicknames tend to flow down or across the hierarchy in English, rarely up. The exceptions themselves are usually expressions of an extremely close relationship. Obviously this doesn't apply to people who are so far removed from the speaker that it isn't a relationship at all... that's another unwritten informal rule: if we grunts have a nickname for the CEO it would be extremely rude to use it in a meeting where the CEO is present, even if not addressing them directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death
Belief in fan death is still common even among successful educated people in their 30s-60s. Don't argue, it won't get you anywhere that a flat earther won't take you.
I know Buddhism varies by sect but it's definitely still highly superstition: going to temples and praying, making offerings, beliefs in reincarnation etc
Praying? Yes. 100% superstition. Which is why it's not a thing Buddha talked about at all.
Making offerings? Same as above.
Belief in reincarnation? Well.. maybe. Buddhist rebirth can be just "have kids" or "influence others with your ideas", and then it can be "I got reborn as a monkey". The first is just science and common sense, and the latter is superstition. It's a wide range... Literally buddhists shouldn't believe in "reincarnation", but believe in "rebirth", as they shouldn't believe in a soul.
But we all know what Buddha says and what Buddhism teaches, and what people actually believe who call themselves buddhists are vastly different. Just as with Christians. There are plenty of people who call themselves Christians who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus. The head of the Swedish Church once said about the virgin birth "It's a nice story..." :P
Buddhism unfortunately has a bad history of talking down to the lay people and allowing them to believe all kinds of clearly incorrect stuff like immortal souls, or gods, or spirits. Hell, Pure Land buddhism is based on crazy stuff like that!
Shintoism == believe in many "gods" or spirits, but not one singular "God".
+1 on the "superstition" points here.
Source: my wife is Japanese. Also, I've seen "Spirited Away" more times than I care to say.
Anyone who claims its athiest is mistaken and hasn't done enough research into it.
Can't speak on real shintoism, I don't know anything about it, but the meiji era state-shintoism held the emperor as their deity.
1. nothing is permanent (not even gods) 2. there is no soul (literally "atma" which can also mean god) 3. because humans don't accept 1 and 2, we are unsatisfied
The three marks are the bedrock of buddhism.
Now, buddhisTS, meaning people who call themselves buddhists often do believe in gods or god. Just like here in Sweden most people who call themselves Christians don't believe in the Trinity, the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, or any other of things many christians would think are mandatory for the faith.
You need to keep your terms separate. Buddhism is agnostic, it says that if there are gods then they also are subject to the natural laws. Buddhists can believe anything.
My impression is that gerrymandering initially associated with the Reverse Course[0] has much to do with those electoral results.
(But maybe not? A cursory search turns up an article[1] complaining that voters in a rural district had —only— twice the voting power of urban voters, which certainly sounds inferior to the extent of US practise)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Course
[1] https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2022/04/29/fixing-japans-gerry...
It's not a good mentality to have in this regard anyway.. Not unless you like growing your on food etc. lol
Just factions within the LDP.
The Japanese can be pragmatic to a fault. Being in the LDP more or less guarantees that you'll 'finish'. You may then focus your efforts on implementing the changes you're able to.
Christians will pray to Saints, which appear to be beings, but the rituals having to do with their invocation often seem to be treating them like forces.
The difference is orientalism and the compulsion to label Asian beliefs as more mysterious and wise than usual.
People generally believe their own beliefs, and this includes believing that the way they think the world works is natural, not supernatural.
This is similar to what we have in Vietnam.
A very large portion of the country, last estimated about 80%, consider themselves atheists. They don't believe God exists, and they are superstitious only in a joking way.
However, most of us also go to the temple for "religious activities". It's not because people truly believe in God, but because many traditional activities like Tet holidays (Lunar New Year), funerals, or anniversaries have usually associated with them. Also, people don't mind going to the temples even when they don't believe in God because the temples are much more relax (chill/zen). When I was young, I visit the temple myself just to chill and enjoy the scenery despite having no association with Buddhism.
In context (modern Japanese, capital-G "God"), I suspect that phrase would generally be interpreted to mean "believe in the monotheistic God of Christianity and other Western/Middle Eastern Abrahamic religions".
The biggest obvious difference is the failure of the LDP to successfully repeal Article 9, but as I understand it, that doesn't have nearly as much popular support in Japan as war posturing does in the US.
As for "opposition to conservatives everywhere is often much more fractured" that makes me think of an observation I've had which is that conservatives in the US are united by the idea that there is a way that things are "spozed" to be whereas what passes for the left in the US are a groups of people who perceive themselves to either be outgroups or be supportive of outgroups. The problem is that racial/ethnic groups such as blacks or latinos don't automatically support, say, transsexual maximalism. Environmentalism is still perceived as a "white thing" even though blacks are worse off when it comes to exposure to toxics. "Environmental racism" as an issue just hasn't sold.
US Congress has an almost 80% (!!!) disapproval rating. https://www.statista.com/statistics/207579/public-approval-r... yet people are basically lifers in there. The Japanese system was largely modeled after the US, so seems logical...
At least they got there I suppose.
What I find most interesting is that among younger generations, the approval goes past 65%. Though that might have something to do with younger people not having the luxury of ignoring potential future threats, with respect to defense, energy and such.
However i'll remind you that for the majority of Japanese, Abe is a 'traitor' (their word) [1]
[1] - https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/abe-ignores-cont...
As for the traitor thing, it's what the population is saying, try to get in touch with students, it's what contributed to the assassination of Abe and the current events (majority of the population against a national funeral, why? it was their prime minister, such figure this disliked?)
My personal opinion: You don't assassinate your prime minister over a donation to a religious group, you do it because you are a nationalist and you punish act of treason