I'm continually amazed that Abe's assassin appears to have successfully turned the media spotlight exactly where he wanted it to be, and so successfully turned public sentiment against Abe that a vast majority of the population now opposes a state funeral for him.
I'd question if public sentiment was ever pro-Abe; he regularly antagonized and taxed the middle class while doing little or nothing to help them, even during the COVID pandemic. His connection to the Moonies is just the icing on the cake. Everyone has a relative or knows someone who lost all their money to a cult.
The Abe cabinet had approval ratings above 60% in 2013, but the trend from then on was mostly downwards, with disapproval at times exceeding approval. https://www.nhk.or.jp/senkyo/shijiritsu/ Approval is red, disapproval blue; Abe is 安倍
Don't forget his strong family ties to psychotic Japanese fascism and racism [1,2], and his personal affinity for heinous war crimes and human experimentation in Imperial Japan [3].
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?
Not commenting on the article itself, but in general Joong-ang Ilbo is right in the center of conservative, pro-chaebol, pro-trade political section. It's owned by members of Samsung's royal family.
If anything, I'd expect Joong-ang Ilbo to be biased toward Japan.
> but in general Joong-ang Ilbo is right in the center of conservative… 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.
In general, you're right, but the difference is that evangelical Christians normally don't go around telling how Muslims are their brothers in the holy fight against the evil of atheism.
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.
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.
Yeah, and you wonder why paying money to the descendent people raped/killed/mutilated/{and many other horrendous anti-human barbarism brutality} [0] is not enough to get peace.
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?
he means its obviously biased, a korean publication will clearly try their best to portray the events as they see it.
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.
Assuming this is what they meant by "biased", it doesn't actually say anything.
> 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.
Should I trust the Russian press on the topic of Ukraine or NATO?
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.
I think the expression he opted not to use is that SK-Japan relationship is toxic. There is a misunderstanding that SK and Japan are in good terms as strategic partners with similarly developed societies, more like a divorced couple after couple 911 calls and court visits.
> 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?
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?
Trust is earned; it should not be given freely. As I’ve already said, it’s already a gigantic burden to try to corroborate claims and distill biases from all media, so there’s little reason to spend time doing so from sources I already know are biased, especially if there are other sources available.
> 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.
So it's purely that the source is Korean, and nothing specific about the source or its reputation. No need for all the verbiage. The paper can't be trusted due to the nationality of the people who publish it.
Be careful saying things like "psychotic Japanese fascism" here. You can expect @dang to slap your hand for spreading "nationalistic flamebait." Why they don't put something like this in the guidelines is beyond me.
These rules mostly exist not because there is a grand plan to stifle discussion, but because time and time again you see these sort of arguments devolve into low quality material that takes over the entire space.
I don't have a problem with the rule. I have a problem with it not being part of the guidelines. Besides, I've seen threads labeled "flamebait" that have more and better discussion than the main thread. That's not how it's supposed to work.
That prompted me to read the guidelines for the first time, and I'm seeing multiple relevant rules, such as asking not to fulminate, eschewing flamebait, avoiding ideological battlegrounds etc.
I've been warned for this for stating and sourcing true facts from fairly unbiased sources, while this person calls the entire country of Japan "psychotically fascist" and nothing happens? What's wrong with this picture?
No thanks. I trust dang to function in the way he sees fit. And because I meant what I said, and chose those words carefully, I'll trust myself to do the same.
Japan is a strange place. Polls show very low trust in the government, but the LDP has been in power since WWII almost continuously. A low faction of Japanese people claim to "believe in God" but Japanese participate in religious rituals at a high rate.
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.
It's "superstitious" from a Christian (particularly Protestant) point of view but this is what religion has historically been for most people. Even in rural England in the 1970s I saw the farmers had all kinds of observances related to saints, seasons etc. that didn't involve the church. I like to joke that the low belief in Christianity in England is because most Englishmen are actually druids!
I think some Chinese (I don't want to extend it to "Eastern" because I don't know) ways of thinking are "superstitious" from any rational standpoint. Even in non-religious contexts, it's common to believe in things like being careful not to accidentally invite a ghost to stay at your house during ghost month. Or take something like blood types, a Western medical discovery. Many people In Taiwan and Japan believe blood types can say something about your temperament or use it for match making.
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 think a huge source of confusion around East Asian cultures and rituals/religions is that this religion-culture has no formal names, definitions, structures and boundaries. There is no church or a verse responsible for the upside down 福 on a wall of a downtown Chinese restaurant, but there is it, and the only word applicable is superstitions. On the other hand there are Christ-mas cakes with a smiling figurine of a Saint standing on it.
The thing about polling people about superstition is that people generally believe their own beliefs, so you're only going to conclude that other people are superstitious when they believe things different from you. So at best you have a noisy metric of ~religious tolerance.
It’s the same in India, except the superstitions are more codified and all wrapped up within Hinduism. I don’t know if a lot of Hindus believe there is a god but it’s a heady mix of hero and ancestor worship and modes of good living brought to life as a religion.
The level of confusion and arrogance to call other religions than your own "superstition" is mind boggling. Especially since one of those religions is Buddhism which quite literally doesn't even believe in gods!
I'm the one you're replying to. I don't have a religion, but was raised somewhat culturally Buddhist.
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!
Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at school, or singing national anthems at non-national events come to mind as rituals not affiliated with the supernatural[1]
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
+ 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.
That also came much later and if we take it in the same sense many of the founding fathers used the word "God", it would not be compatible with mainstream Christian theology.
I have noticed, anecdotally, that the non-religious tend to be more superstitious, but no that's not really what I mean.
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.
> Japan just has a lot of rituals that people do daily and ~seasonally
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.
Superstition and Gnosticism go hand in hand in many ways, chiefly in the belief that matter or identifiable bits of matter are or can be corrupted on an essential level. In Japanese, the word “汚れ” has this nuance and you see it reflected also in any societies built on caste structures.
The basic tenets of "faith" of buddhism are literally
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.
Belief in gods and participation in rituals are different things. Japanese people are very traditional, they like to maintain the rituals of their predecessors. However, this doesn't imply that they believe in traditional gods. This may be strange for people that grew up on Christianity, but it is natural once you stop believing in supernatural beings.
Does a ritual, if performed with some expectation of it having an effect on your life beyond the act of its own doing, not also imply a belief in supernatural entities?
I'm not seeing a meaningful difference since the boundary between a passive or active supernatural force is not always clear in any regional belief system.
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.
It's not a difference. Take a look at proposed mechanisms of fan death, and consider, does that seem like a belief in the supernatural? Or a belief in a natural process that, incidentally, shouldn't actually be true?
People generally believe their own beliefs, and this includes believing that the way they think the world works is natural, not supernatural.
Christmas as "celebrated" by atheists is not a religious ritual. We gather (sometimes), eat, drink, and give presents to kids. Just like in birthdays (also not religious).
Any party or celebration is in some sense a ritual, just not necessarily a religious ritual.
Indeed, most religious-origin festivals are celebrated by atheists as well.
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.
> 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 don't think that's what I was saying. It was a comment on how when a religious celebration is still celebrated but the religious part has been hollowed out, you can't really find true meaning it anymore. Today it's just a commercial event where we stand around a dead tree and exchange presents for some reason. We are acting out the celebration of Christmas but we aren't actually celebrating it. It's a completely inauthentic event and at best a pastiche of the actual thing.
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.
Why does the removal of religion sudden transform an event into a commercial event. And how does removing the religion make it commercial, but not having it in the first place does not (Thanksgiving/Independence), I do not get that seemingly popular opinion. I am not religious, though I was raised in a somewhat religious family, and Christmas has always been a good family holiday.
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.
The religious rituals they participate in are things like going to the shrine at New Years to pray, paying money to the local shrine for blessings for birth, new house, etc.
Not something like putting up a Christmas tree and giving presents, maybe more like going to Christmas Eve and Easter sermons.
Modern Christmas is essentially a non-religious celebration, unless if you go to church. It is mostly about family gathering and gift giving, so even atheists have no problem with that.
Christmas itself has its roots in "pagan" tradition not Christian. More aptly Old Norse. During the conversion of Scandinavia is when this change occured. Though it appears in every cultural group similarly as the winter solstice which is not religious.
Christmas celebrations far predate the conversion of Scandinavia. The early Christians in the Roman Empire were celebrating Christmas on December 25 since the second century or so. It was officially marked on the church calendar in the fourth century after Christianity became the state religion of Rome.
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.
That piece just uncritically reiterates the precise things the McDaniel piece I linked rebuts.
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.
GP's point is that you don't have to be superstitious to perform religious rituals. Many Japanese people are superstitious though, just not in the pray to a deity form that we are used to in the West.
Doing something that has religious roots doesn't automatically make it religious. The question is: what are you getting out of it? We're setting up a (now fake) tree during holidays, but treat it as tradition and a nice decoration for winter. Another example: Halloween.
> A low faction of Japanese people claim to "believe in God" but Japanese participate in religious rituals at a high rate
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.
> ...but the LDP has been in power since WWII almost continuously.
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)
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".
One of the reason is election system is bad. People in 1990s wanted to have two big party like US so they introduced single-seat constituency system but it's failed. One big party (LDP) and other smaller parties is current situation. One big party don't want to change current system for obvious reason.
>Because Japan is so culturally homogeneous I think they'd have a very easy time picking an outgroup to blame for problems.
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.
less strange, more that you are projecting when you say a country with behaviors that appear like unfamiliar paradoxes to yourself is itself a strange place, instead of it being yourself that is the stranger
As is often mentioned in motorsport: "To finish first, first you must finish".
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.
Is it that unusual? LDP is a conservative party that holds a majority with the voting public, and the opposition to conservatives everywhere is often much more fractured.
Seeing it from the outside, the LDP seems like Japan's Republican party, Komeito is the Evangelical Christian bloc, and Abe is your basic Conservative running on American exceptionalism and traditional cultural values.
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.
Britain lurched to the right after Margaret Thatcher but that didn't keep Labor from being in power for a few years (by co-opting the Tory program the same way Clinton co-opted Reagan) Germany, Israel, France, and numerous countries with parliamentary systems have power alternate between parties.
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.
I've lived here for close to a decade and was stunned by the reaction from the press. Even the NHK (which is a well known LDP mouthpiece) started covering the Unification Church angle early on. People like to bash the state of journalism here but I think this shows it to be worthy of more credit.
An adjacent mental leap is to recognize how much power workers and the poor can have over corporate and politician behaviors (doesn't have to be violent assassination like this, that's besides the point - what was effective came from the resulting widespread awareness of the subject matter brought to attention). Hopefully LDP isn't able to whitewash it through mild reform.
He was very conservative even in the party, but what he did as a prime minister is not much conservative (than expected) and some work are liberal-ish. He was very good at show himself conservative, so he was supported by conservatives.
A just over 50% approval rating, in a vote largely based along political party lines, does not a vast majority of opposition make.
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.
I don't know why do you push this foreign view on their country (i kind of know, i'm just trying to be playful, hopefully you got the reference), maybe you have a specific agenda, i won't comment on it
However i'll remind you that for the majority of Japanese, Abe is a 'traitor' (their word) [1]
No, it's the proper article, journalist covering an information, up to various investigators to figure out the links
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
