Outside a train station near Tokyo, hundreds of people cheer as Sohei Kamiya, head of the surging nationalist party Sanseito, criticizes Japan’s rapidly growing foreign population.

As opponents, separated by uniformed police and bodyguards, accuse him of racism, Kamiya shouts back, saying he is only talking common sense.

Sanseito, while still a minor party, made big gains in July’s parliamentary election, and Kamiya's “Japanese First” platform of anti-globalism, anti-immigration and anti-liberalism is gaining broader traction ahead of a ruling party vote Saturday that will choose the likely next prime minister.

top 88 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 160 points 1 year ago (34 children)

I keep hearing racist nationalists say stuff like this worldwide, and not matter how hard I squint it remains a non sequitur.

I mean, "we have a population crisis" and "don't let people come here" seem entirely contradictory unless you are... well, a supremacist.

Which they are, it's just the leap that gets me. So obvious, so rarely called out and never addressed.

  • source
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [+] -21 points 1 year ago (33 children)

    Without getting into discussion about how right or wrong they are those people are primarily worried about the identity of their country. They believe that sustaining the population growth by letting in big numbers of foreigners will destroy their culture. They prefer to suffer the consequences of population crisis than live in a country with different values and traditions. Is it supremacy? Sure it is. But it's also logical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    But it’s also logical.

    In what world is "I rather die in squalor and let the entire country suffer than see people that look different than me on the street, eat some food I don't recognize", logical?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    In a world where someone would prefer that. You can't apply logic to preferences. When I got to a dentists for a filling I ask them not to give me local anesthesia because I prefer the pain to the numbness. 99% of people I know don't agree. It doesn't make my choice illogical, it just means I have different preferences.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    that is a flawed analogy making it a strawman

    the equivalent would be that, instead of the numbness, you rather die in 10 years from this very preventable death... the outrageous extreme of this decision flagship indicator of irrationality

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 66 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Logical if you believe your race/identity are superior to others, which is an illogical starting premise and the root of why conservatives are always on the wrong side of history.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Doesn't have to the superior, but one of personal preference. You like the current cultural values and know other cultures don't necessarily share them and so fear a cultural shift.

    In this case though I think you're right that there's a strong superiority aspect.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    What's illogical about it? How can you even apply logic to personal values and opinions?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Recognize that it is an opinion that some people may disagree with, not a fact that everyone has to accept, and act accordingly. In this case, that means not using the force of government to persecute people who disagree with your opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You're still talking about how they are wrong but not how they are illogical. You can still apply logic to lies. It doesn't make them true but it also doesn't make it illogical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    No, I'm not. I am starting from the premise that there is an objective reality we all have to deal with and that different individuals have different subjective preferences, and everything else logically flows from there.

    If you're looking for a utilitarian reason to behave the way I am suggesting, I would say that when you start taking tangible objective actions against everyone who doesn't agree with your particular subjective preferences you will give people with a variety of different subjective preferences something in common (i.e. that they are being oppressed by you) and that will eventually make them work together to stop you. On a long enough timeline, tyranny is always a losing strategy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    No, I’m not. I am starting from the premise that there is an objective reality we all have to deal with and that different individuals have different subjective preferences, and everything else logically flows from there.

    That's just something you made up. Logic doesn't start from objective reality and preferences. It's just a tool.

    If A then B. If B then C. Therefore if A then C.

    I don't have to know what A, B and C are in some objective reality for this rule to be true. I can see you struggle to understand that logic is abstract and separate it from facts you want to apply it to but that's just what logic is. You're basically confusing logic with truth. To decide what is true you have to start with some objective reality and apply logic to it but you can apply logic to anything. You can apply it correctly to Harry Potter or to invalid facts. You will not reach truth but you're reasoning can still be logical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Looks at pile of dead cultures in textbook.... No, that's not logical. That's Jingoist dumbassery.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Like, if you start with the premise that they are right and you are wrong I guess it would be illogical to disagree with them, but that's just a completely meaningless argument that doesn't tell us anything too interesting about abstract reasoning nor does it have any substantive connection to factual reality that I can see

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    It is only logical if you're... well, a supremacist.

    I mean, it requires a mental framework of how culture and identity work that is fundamentally supremacist.

    Culture works by aggregation, it's entirely unrelated to borders and it is in perpetual shift. This assumption requires misunderstanding culture from a very specific perspective.

    So no, not logical.

    Internally consistent, yes: make women into reproductive vessels and men into the defenders of a fossilized culture enforced through violence. That's a consistent worldview.

    But not a logical one if you apply it to reality. The difference matters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    It matters if we're arguing who's right. If you just want to understand their mental jump it doesn't. Of course those people are ignorant, misinformed or have ulterior motives but their believes are often logical. It's like not vaccinating your kids because you believe vaccines are more dangerous than the disease. Or course it's wrong but if you really believe it, being anti-vax is logical. Where it stops being logical is in the MAGA movement. They want to drain the swamp by voting for a criminal and want to fight pedophiles by electing one. It's just a cult, there's no logic there. The far right movements in Europe/Japan are build on misinformation but still need to invent logical arguments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Sure, but that's taking the concept of what's "logical" to absurd extremes. Any sort of paranoid delusion is logical if you accept all of its premises.

    Is being antivax logical? Not at all. It requires amazing mental gymnastics to ignore centuries of scientific research. Things that are "logical if you believe them" is a great way to describe things that aren't logical. Vaccines do not, in fact, by all available measures, cause more dangerous issues than the diseases they prevent. If your "logic" requires a rejection of the entire epistemological framework upon which shared scientific kknowledge is established it's not "logic", kind of by definition.

    This is the same thing. Its internal consistency isn't "logic". It can be shown to not be logical. If you suspend yourself from that conversation, deny the parameters of anybody who disagrees with you and cherry pick your values to specifically support your instinctively desired conclusion, then it doesn't matter how well you can through your train of thought, it's still indefensible.

    I think that's why the MAGA thing stumps you a bit. Their train of thought isn't any better or worse than this. It's, in fact, identical. Information that supports it gets magnified, information that disrupts it is ignored. They are fun about it in that they add this cool temporal dimension, where that selection is applied regardless of how it was applied before, so they're all for free speech when people tell them to shut up, all for limiting speech when people criticise them. But that's not different to the fundamental contradiction of being concerned about a population crisis when you are trying to turn women into walking incubators but concerned about the massive influx of people when you're trying to be racist.

    It's a lot of things, but it's not logic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Sure, but that’s taking the concept of what’s “logical” to absurd extremes.

    No, it's just what logic is. Anti-vaxer doesn't have to know the science. Not knowing something doesn't mean my reasoning lacks logic. I can invent some facts and then apply logic to them. Logic doesn't have to operate on true statements. "All unicorns are pink and all pink animals eat clouds hence all unicorns eat clouds".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    That's... not how that works when you make statements about the world. Your unicorn example is all well and good in a universe where there are only hypothetical animals, but you're eliding big chunks of that chain. "Unicorns are pink" is a valid statement in the abstract, but if you're arguing about animals in the real world that's not where the chain starts. The chain goes: unicorns exist, unicorns are pink, all pink animals eat clouds.

    And of course in this situation you need to evaluate each statement. Unicorns exist is going to be a big fat FALSE, which means you can't claim all unicorns eat clouds and argue it's a logical statement. It's a meaningless statement by itself because it depends on a false assumption.

    Which is my exact point. You are claiming the argument is logical because you're assuming the only requirement is that it is internally consistent when all their premises are accepted. But the premises are false, so it's not. I appreciate that you're getting stuck when the chain of statements they cherry pick changes over time (see the free speech example), but they're not meaningfully different. If you let them cherry pick the clauses they need to verify and ignore everything else they can make a consistent argument in the moment about anything, including vaccines and flat planets and jewish space lasers.

    I mean, no they can't because they suck at this. But still, they can make something close enough to one that if they speak fast and loudly enough on the Internet they can get more morons to follow their channels than to block them, so... here we are, I suppose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    "I want to protect my children and I believe that vaccine are MORE dangerous then disease so I don't vaccinate my kids" - that's a logical statement.

    "I want lower value and I believe A < B so I choose A". That's logical.

    In this case, to change the outcome you need to attack the facts. You have to prove that vaccines are in fact LESS dangerous and then, using the same logic, the person will conclude that he should vaccinate his kids.

    "I want to protect my children and I believe that vaccine are LESS dangerous then disease so I don't vaccinate my kids" - that's illogical statement.

    "I want lower value and I believe A < B so I choose B". That's illogical.

    In this case you're not going to argue the facts. The person already thinks that vaccines are LESS dangerous but his logic is wrong. You have to fix theirs logic and they will arrive a the correct conclusion.

    The original case of anti-foreigner sentiment is the first case. The logic is valid, the facts are wrong. For some reason you're not getting the difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No, I'm getting what you're saying.

    I'm saying what you're saying is wrong because it demands you consider only the statements they are explicitly making and disregard any statements they are not enumerating but that need to be included for it to follow some semblance of logic.

    You are arguing that "I believe" has the capacity to contain all the false premises and justify them as long as every action that isn't belief-based remains internally consistent.

    I am saying that... well, no, you need to assess the premises included in that belief to evaluate the entire statement.

    "I want to drain the swamp so I vote for Trump because I believe he'll drain the swamp" or "I want to protect children from pedophiles and I believe Trump will do that" are just as valid of a statement, regardless of whether Trump is a convicted criminal or a sex offender.

    As long as you are willing to collapse all incorrect arguments into "belief", you can justify the logic of any premise at all by just assuming the speaker is incorrect somewhere else that you're not evaluating. It's entirely tautological at that point. All human action follows some perceived set of incentives. Not all human action makes sense.

    You're also presuming that the incorrect statements that make sense to you are fixable, which they absolutely are not. None of these people are working down that logic chain that you're stating. Let me be clear, you won't convince an antivaxer by changing their factual basis. Their factual basis is built to reach the conclusion they want to reach.

    It's also important to point out that even if that was possible, "we have a population crisis so we need to close the borders" is a contradiction, and it's exactly what these guys are saying. They aren't saying "we prefer the effects of the population crisis to the changes to our culture immigration brings". That's not the statement in the first place.

    The statement is fundamentally incongruous because it's incomplete and backwards. The real train of thought here is as follows:

    "I hate foreigners" "Our population is shrinking" "I miss when women worked for me having babies and cleaning after me" "Foreigners are coming here because our population shrinking creates demand for them" "If women worked for me again having babies and cleaning after me we would be able to grow our population without creating demand for foreigners I hate"

    The statement being provided is strategic. They won't say what they want, they will act to reach it. That includes misrepresenting their argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Logic doesn't have to operate on true statements.

    Logic is based on facts, ie: if you jump into a pool > you will get wet.

    Believing that logic is not factually-based is absolutely off-base.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Many cultures adapt for the better / become more humanist with open migration. Think of it as enhancing your identity (which is likely just mid at best in its current form if we're being real)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If your culture can't stand up to outside influence was it really that great? Also, the door to the world has been opened. There's no closing that one it's been open. So they'd rather crash into civil unrest because ignorant people have a hard on for the old days?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Sorry but in the case of Japan, it's definitely not logical. At best, they have an argument against over-tourism. But the Sanseito party acts like foreigners moving to Japan are creating a spike in crime. They literally have young women weeping through a megaphone on the street, crying that foreigners are rapists. But that's simply not backed up by statistics. Crime per capita has not increased, and the demographic committing the most serious crimes in Japan is predominantly native Japanese.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    So they are lying but their argument is "foreigners cause crime which is worse than demographic issues so we don't want foreigners" which is logical. Logic != truth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Japan's population crisis is caused by its young people being too overworked and overcharged to want to have children. Their population by age is becoming very top-heavy which means that the young are paying a lot to keep the old alive.

    The solution to this (apart from don't get into such a situation) is to import young workers to even out your population spread and to raise wages in line with the cost of living and raising a family.

    They appear to be shouting "Damn foreigners! Coming over here and making all our elderly live longer than we can economically support them! Overworking our breeding generation so they don't want kids! Curse those foreigners!"

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    (overworks and robs an entire generation to death)

    "Why would foreigners do this?"

    Also I'm almost getting tired of posting this brilliant illustration but sheesh, if the jingoistic authoritarian entitlement clan isn't using the same playbook every. Time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I'm not sure I like this comic because it suggests:

    1. The immigrant worker is absent a cookie not the other way around
    2. That the working class is dimwitted and easily hoodwinked into racism

    I think both assumptions are actually copes by a middle class who, afraid to look at its own complicity in neoliberalism, find's easier to condemn the common people as racist and intellectually deficient.

    In actuality I think the working class is intuitively aware that their disfranchisement is directly connected to policies like immigration. Along with the opening up of global markets which had a disruptive affect on wages the policy of open immigration has kept wages low and fractured communities and a common sense of culture.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
    1. The immigrant worker is absent a cookie not the other way around

    Statistically and visibly just how it is. Those dudes work two jobs that are both really bad to live in a shithole, because they have no choice.

    1. That the working class is dimwitted and easily hoodwinked into racism

    'Member WWII, or WWI, or the various imperial wars before that? I 'member. The prejudices are intuitive alright.

    I think not acknowledging that both are true and happen over and over again is a cope. The subset of middle class people who realise what's going on are that way, because they're basically working class people, but for whatever reason are privileged enough to spend time actually learning and understanding.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I think the cookie represents entitlements or government services granted to citizens.

    The wealthy person has oodles of subsidies and tax breaks, but is trying to scare the working person by talking about the immigrant seeking equality.

    That is literally the messaging from corporate media sources. The comic doesn't really get into whether the working person believes it or not, to me it's more about the messaging used by the wealthy.

    I don't actually think global markets or immigration are inherently bad things. It's vastly superior to nationalism and rigid borders. The problems are entirely caused capital and the exploitation of workers, hence the plate overflowing with cookies. The wealthy are the problem, not immigrants.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I think the cookie represents entitlements or government services granted to citizens.

    No, the cookie is just employment (money for work)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Then why does the rich bald guy have so many? He doesn't do shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I’m not sure I like this comic because it suggests:

    The immigrant worker is absent a cookie not the other way around
    That the working class is dimwitted and easily hoodwinked into racism
    

    So you dislike it because it's real and accurate? I don't understand, it could not be more accurate and straight forward for a comic

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Boomers of the world consumed all resources and pulled up all ladders behind them. American Boomers are especially oblivious to their roles in creating the current world, and seemingly oblivious to concepts like basic empathy. Their entire worldview is a function of how they can best benefit. "Generation Me," was the perfect tag.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Japan’s population crisis is caused by its young people being too overworked and overcharged to want to have children

    While this may be a contributing factor, there is obviously more to it. Japanese workers actually work less than the OECD average hours per year. Take a look at a handful of countries such as: Mexico, South Korea, United States, Finland, Germany, and Japan (generally representative of their respective regions and income levels)

    Then compare those country's hours worked to their fertility rate

    Mexico works the most hours of any of those countries by far, only behind Colombia in terms of hours worked, yet has the highest fertility rate of any countries I listed

    South Korea works a lot of hours, second highest of those countries, just above the US. They have by far the lowest birth rate. A bit over half that of Italy and Japan, the 2nd and 3rd lowest birthrate countries, yet both Italy and Japan work far less hours than South Korea

    Germany and Finland, famed for their quality of life and lower working hours, both have relatively low fertility rates. Far less than the US and Mexico, countries with far more hours worked, and far fewer legal protections to workers - especially pregnant women


    In short, when comparing different countries, I don't see a substantial correlation between hours worked and fertility rate

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Basically, a shrinking population is good for the people, because there's fewer people among which to divide the resources that the land can provide, so on average that should mean more resources for people, in other words a lower cost of living (since cost of living depends on resource availability). And it also means that there's less supply of human labor on the labor market, and by the rule of Supply and demand that means that the prices for human labor (wages) are gonna go up, i.e. people are gonna get paid better for what they do.

    That intuitively makes sense, because if your country has 10 million people instead of 100 million, then your CEOs and companies are better gonna treat your workers better or they're gonna strike, and since there's fewer other people to replace those workers, their strike would have greater impact and therefore more power.

    on top of that, you can't just assume that there will be a high demand of human labor in the future. You have to assume that automation is going to reduce jobs, so if you don't also reduce the number of workers, you're gonna face an unemployment crisis, and that can be very bad for the workers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago

    Japan will be the test case for declining populations. They will be the first to show us the consequences and the right and wrong ways to deal with the issue.

    Short of Malthusian disasters, I don't think any sort of economy in human history has had to deal with this.

  • source
  • [–] 70 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    Is there nowhere in the world now that fascist racists are not on the rise?

    It feels like we are barreling towards another world war.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I wonder if economics has anything to do with this trend worldwide. When people have to worry about their next meal every day they tend to get frustrated and finding something or someone to blame, rightly or wrongly,is a way to vent that frustration.

    With more and more wealth concentrating at the top 1% it stands to reason that the population that feels frustrated is increasing quickly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Yeah the consistent and ever growing wealth gap as corporations continue to grow more profitable and people have more trouble affording food and housing is at the core of a lot of it. People are angry, but the corporations/1% are spending billions on social media, lobbying, funding certain political campaigns etc to convince people that their anger should be directed towards others around them. It’s the fault of foreigners, immigrants, minorities, women, LGBTQ, the young, the old, etc etc.

    And on the other side of that, Russia has been working to stir up division in a ton of nations since the 90s and has gotten much better at it with social media, so these two groups have homogenized.

    Then on the third level, the super rich billionaires like musk and Thiel want dark enlightenment, which is the collapse of society so they can create neofuedalism and run their own techno-slavery-kingdoms, so they want it just as bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    it's a direct result of global economies. When things are bad financially the scapegoats are ALWAYS immigrants and the poor. always. every single time. "Things are tough for you? well it's that group over there...it's their fault!" and collectively our society in their infinite wisdom consistently fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

    However unlike other countries Japan isn't pumping out kids regardless of the scape goats. So compared to other places this rhetoric coming from them is extremely idiotic. And if a Japanese person believes this is the way forward then I hold them in lower regard than your average MAGA cultist. I didn't think you could have a population more stupid than MAGA but Japan, good job, you proved me wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Of course: the more people feel the system isn’t working for them, the more they’re willing to vote for nontraditional candidates who promise to burn it down. More often than not, those candidates are right-wing demagogues.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    Inequality breeds resentment, it's hardwired in our brains. And resentful people are easily led to blame minorities, something hateful and/or power hungry can use for political gains. The ones causing the inequality are more than happy to help this process asking as it usually keeps them from being blamed.

    And as in the current political and economic system the inequality globally can only increase, blame and hate is what you get.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    The global collapsing of communism was always inevitable.

    There has always been 1 of 2 choices countries would make when it finally arrived.

    1. Abandon the system of capital and embrace socialism

    2. Quintuple down on all the worst aspects of capitalism by fully embracing fascism and dooming your society to total collapse

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Is there nowhere in the world now that fascist racists are not on the rise?

    Yes. This is a Western capitalism thing; Chinese politics has only recently discovered rightwing nationalism and there are plenty of non-Western thriving democracies in, say, South America.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This has to be one of the most absurd claims I've seen in a while. You go on to contradict yourself in your second sentence. And still get it wrong. China didn't just discover bigotry. They've been dealing with it since before the founding of the United States or capitalism for that matter.

    South America full of thriving democracies? Are we talking about the authoritarian one Trump is paying to torture innocent undocumented. Or is it the fascist one Trump is talking about sending 20 billion to bail out their flailing populist leadership. Or is it the one that got lucky and woke up enough last minute to unseat their burgeoning fascist and take him to trial? But still chock full of the descendants of nazi german expats. Or was it all the tiny ones around them. That have to deal with all of them and the narco cartels. Regularly having elected leaders slaughtered. Hell even Mexico is struggling with that. And I'd say their leadership is far better that what we have here.

    It's got nothing to do with the west or capitalism. Though the West and capitalism has done very little to actually help the situation. Tribalism and xenophobic bigotry are basic human nature unfortunately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    China didn't just discover bigotry. They've been dealing with it since before the founding of the United States or capitalism for that matter.

    Good thing I didn't say "bigotry," then, I said "rightwing nationalism." Also I think it was clear I was referring to the modern PRC, not past Chinese polities. It's no coincidence that the Uighur genocide, an aggressive posture towards Taiwan and budding pro-natalism all came within the same general time period. China will eventually have to deal with fascism, but they're not barreling towards it like Western capitalist countries are because their history under capitalism is shorter and fascism hasn't had time to metastasize yet.

    South America full of thriving democracies?

    Again literally not what I said. I said there are plenty of thriving democracies in the world, and gave an example of one place where they exist. The existence of non-democratic countries in South America doesn't contradict this statement.

    Or is it the one that got lucky and woke up enough last minute to unseat their burgeoning fascist and take him to trial?

    Yes, that one.

    But still chock full of the descendants of nazi german expats.

    That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Like, at all. What's even your point here?

    That have to deal with all of them and the narco cartels.

    Fun fact: Homicide rates across South and Central America has been decreasing hard this last decade. Sure the cartels are a massive problem, but they're a massive problem that's getting better

    It's got nothing to do with the west or capitalism.

    Authoritarianism has nothing to do with the West or capitalism, but fascism specifically is a phenomenon that requires established capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The fact that you didn't use the term does not change the fact that it's what you're describing.Even if you choose to call it something, it isn't.

    We are not here to play Calvin Ball with you. It's also quite obvious that people are getting irritated by your kayfabe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    The nazi party is funded by Russia btw and there's so much propaganda in Japan rn its insane. One major piece still making news is that foreign tourists dont pay their hospital bills and losing "Japan so much money". The amount of unpaid bills was 400k usd that year and foreign tourists revenue was 58 BILLION usd. That's 0.00069% loss of total revenue.

    This constant propaganda around the world is so depressing and not because its there but because truth is right next to it and nobody's looking.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    funded by Russia btw

    This constant propaganda around the world is so depressing and not because its there but because truth is right next to it and nobody's looking.

    That much is obvious. Japan only has miniscule amount of foreigners compared to other countries but somehow managed to also have been stoken up with anti-foreign sentiment. It's all the dark money flowing into social media algorithms brainwashing people. And the truth is that data is the new gold. Personal information is not only commodified but also weaponised. However, as you said, the truth is next to it but nobody is looking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Here's a bit of a rant.

    Japanese people have notoriously been xenophobic, racist, or ignorant... but they also tend to be quiet and polite since the war, so they've really cleaned up their image.

    They've also had their egos constantly stroked with all the TV networks showing stupid shows where all the foreigners are SO AMAZED by Japanese culture. Same with all these social media content. It's really annoying. Being proud of your culture and heritage shouldn't need recognition by foreigners and it certainly shouldn't need belittling of others.

    Not saying that everyone is a racist. Not by a long shot. It's just that this kind of self-centered, xenophobic ember had been kept alive in a non-negligible number of people. And I feel like now, there is this perfect environment for which the shitty few to really have themselves heard for maximum exposure and influence. It sucks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 79 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Japanese people are being fed the same kind of propaganda as UK citizens and Americans. People say ridiculous things like "What if the number of foreigners increases to 20% of the total population? Then women will be sexually assaulted." Instead of immigrant gangs taking over apartment buildings and eating the pets it's foreigners buying up all the land to build compounds for foreigners to live in and pooping in the streets.

    But there is also a feedback loop where nationalists in Japan make the news, and it's repeated by right wing foreigners who don't know Japan but admired their idealized, racially pure Japan where everyone is polite and orderly and this would never happen, and then that gets repeated to Japanese people as if it were large numbers of foreigners warning them not to let immigration ruin Japan as it has ruined those other countries. Most of the Japanese people in this loop don't understand English, and the right wing foreigners don't understand Japanese. The reality isn't always faithfully translated in either direction, and the language barrier makes it harder for people to realize the discrepancy.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    It's actually scary how quick they're rising. I live in Japan, and I once heard them at a intersection nearby on a car giving a speech. I hated how they speak. They sounded like they were heavily appealing to the emotion and used a lot of sentence final particles like ne, in a tone that sounded half-aggressive and also... very conservative in a way. They were talking some shit about how Japanese people should come first and that we should "protect Japan", as if there was some sort of foreign force trying to tear Japan down to pieces. What's worse was that there were actually people cheering for them. I actually wanted to go downstairs to shout at them but I restrained myself from doing that. I still sort of regret not going there to shout at them.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    They're scared. If you believe the info out there, population collapse is imminent. Someone shouting out patriotism, rallying the people, is probably a comforting thought to them. They need someone to blame, the outsiders are easiest.

    When people don't feel they can afford the time and money to have kids, populations break and noone is addressing it. The world could probably stand to have some population regulation back down from 8bil, but this isn't the way :(

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They need someone to blame, the outsiders are easiest.

    The first sign of a feeble mind.

    Alas, it's so ubiquitous :(

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    It's absolutely horrifying how effective it is to stand in front of a group of people, name their fears and then suggest ill-concieved solutions to the fears. They're so desperate for someone to come along and solve their problems that they don't want to think critically about what is being said. Humanity as a whole is just so easy to control.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Their society will collapse from this racism in a generation or so. No point in correcting people who can't see the writing on the wall. As much as the current regime tries to deny it, immigrants have been the strength of the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    5 comments in c/world view that post