Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Novus America]

Yeppers. My main point is that we haven't really been dramatically pro-Israel in our foreign policy. We've prevented the UN from interfering and we've sold weapons to Israel, but our foreign policy doesn't really center around their security needs because the recent instability in Syria, Egypt, and Iraq is not ideal for Israel, especially not when it strengthens Iran and creates a bunch of Sunni militants.

It's extremely ideal for Israel.

Favorable, but not ideal. We do often have foreign policy disagreements with Israel, even if we favor them on many things.

[Fahran]

A united Egypt, Syria and Iraq can present a realistic strategic threat to Israel but disunited, like as right now, they can't. There is a reason Israel never really did much about ISIS.....

Yes, but the Muslim Brotherhood, which has led the opposition in Egypt and Syria, does not have an ideology that predisposes them to a more positive outlook on the West. The same goes for Iran. Beyond that, Israel has no vested interest in opposing ISIL until they become a more viable threat to Israeli interests. In fact, even if they wanted to oppose ISIL, doing so openly would likely increase local support for them.

[Fahran]

Honestly should've thrown Israel under the bus to keep the Arabs on side.

The Arabs states were never going to be consistent allies. Nasser was dedicated to playing both us and the Soviets. We could have plausibly supported a few of the Baathist dictators and monarchs, but the Arab Spring was never going to result in a plethora of pro-American governments. And we can still count on the Egyptians, Jordanians, Turks, and Saudis as occasional albeit unreliable allies. Really, Israel isn't the point of division so much as Iran and its allies are. If we're going to play in the region, which I would not suggest doing at all, we should support the Saudis against the Iranians - which is, more or less, what we're doing across multiple fronts.

[Hanafuridake]

Saying that Abe Shinzo is an ultra-nationalist is giving him way too much credit.

[Novus America]

Honestly should've thrown Israel under the bus to keep the Arabs on side.

The Arabs states were never going to be consistent allies. Nasser was dedicated to playing both us and the Soviets. We could have plausibly supported a few of the Baathist dictators and monarchs, but the Arab Spring was never going to result in a plethora of pro-American governments. And we can still count on the Egyptians, Jordanians, Turks, and Saudis as occasional albeit unreliable allies. Really, Israel isn't the point of division so much as Iran and its allies are. If we're going to play in the region, which I would not suggest doing at all, we should support the Saudis against the Iranians - which is, more or less, what we're doing across multiple fronts.

Also the Arabs are not at all united. They spend most their time fighting other Arabs.
And like you said we have several Arab countries on our side already (even if few can be trusted)..

[Fahran]

Saying that Abe Shinzo is an ultra-nationalist is giving him way too much credit.

Hana would support him if he was more nationalist. :^)

Also, I'll respond to our DM's on Buddhism and poetic epics soon. I'm being lazy and weird this week.

[Duvniask]

I'm quite skeptical of this notion. It is not as if it was "necessary" to be an ultra-nationalist before, in order to get elected.


You don't "change" a conservative society, with archaic views on women and family matters, by doubling down or pretending to enact change. His policies (along with those of the rest of the LDP) on this area have mostly been a failure. The economy is still in a slump, the average real wage keeps falling and the planned tax hike is most likely gonna screw things up even more.

The worst thing is that he most likely won't suffer any repercussions because of it, because the Japanese election system is fucked beyond belief; it's one of the most disproportionate systems out there among the "democratic" countries.

Abe is not an ultranationalist. And Japan has never been willing to come to terms with its history.

Being a member of an ultranationalist organization (Nippon Kaigi), denying the forced sexual slavery by Japan during WW2, being actively involved in the effort to change the history books, etc. etc.
...not an ultranationalist, apparently.

And he has proposed many positive policies and worked to implement them, and has made some real improvements.

Sure he has been stymied by a culture opposed to the changes. He is not an awesome leader, not a great leader, but there is also only so much he can do.

So what has he actually done that has fundamentally changed things for the better (especially for the common person) and wasn't just some half-assed attempt at rectifying the enormous challenges that Japan faces?

[Novus America]

Abe is not an ultranationalist. And Japan has never been willing to come to terms with its history.

Being a member of an ultranationalist organization (Nippon Kaigi), denying the forced sexual slavery by Japan during WW2, being actively involved in the effort to change the history books, etc. etc.
...not an ultranationalist, apparently.

And he has proposed many positive policies and worked to implement them, and has made some real improvements.

Sure he has been stymied by a culture opposed to the changes. He is not an awesome leader, not a great leader, but there is also only so much he can do.

So what has he actually done that has fundamentally changed things for the better (especially for the common person) and wasn't just some half-assed attempt at rectifying the enormous challenges that Japan faces?

Ultra is relative. He is pretty mainstream in Japan.

And he has worked to improve the Japanese military a lot,
And has actually done so.

As far as the common person directly
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegr ... lture/amp/

He has done things. You can argue fairly he has not done nearly enough (although again this is not entirely on him) but he has not been all bad either.

And what is the alternative?

[Hanafuridake]

Saying that Abe Shinzo is an ultra-nationalist is giving him way too much credit.

Hana would support him if he was more nationalist. :^)

He's no Tokugawa Tsunayoshi, but he'd do.

[Also, I'll respond to our DM's on Buddhism and poetic epics soon. I'm being lazy and weird this week.

Take all the time you need.

[Hanafuridake]

Ultra is relative. He is pretty mainstream in Japan.

He sticks his stupid foot in his mouth to the point where it actively hurts his cause. The war crimes issue would've been considered settled in the nineties if he hadn't started denying them when he became prime minister. Although denying, or refusing to apologize for, atrocities doesn't make someone an ultra-nationalist, lots of country's leaders have trouble admitting to past injustices.

[Novus America]

Ultra is relative. He is pretty mainstream in Japan.

He sticks his stupid foot in his mouth to the point where it actively hurts his cause. The war crimes issue would've been considered settled in the nineties if he hadn't started denying them when he became prime minister. Although denying, or refusing to apologize for, atrocities doesn't make someone an ultra-nationalist, lots of country's leaders have trouble admitting to past injustices.

Yes, he certainly should just shut up on the matter. I am hardly a big fan of his, but I do not think he is horrible either.

[Nova Cyberia]

Being a member of an ultranationalist organization (Nippon Kaigi), denying the forced sexual slavery by Japan during WW2, being actively involved in the effort to change the history books, etc. etc.
...not an ultranationalist, apparently.


So what has he actually done that has fundamentally changed things for the better (especially for the common person) and wasn't just some half-assed attempt at rectifying the enormous challenges that Japan faces?

Ultra is relative. He is pretty mainstream in Japan.

And he has worked to improve the Japanese military a lot,
And has actually done so.

As far as the common person directly
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegr ... lture/amp/

He has done things. You can argue fairly he has not done nearly enough (although again this is not entirely on him) but he has not been all bad either.

And what is the alternative?

Give all power to the emperor.

[Duvniask]

Being a member of an ultranationalist organization (Nippon Kaigi), denying the forced sexual slavery by Japan during WW2, being actively involved in the effort to change the history books, etc. etc.
...not an ultranationalist, apparently.


So what has he actually done that has fundamentally changed things for the better (especially for the common person) and wasn't just some half-assed attempt at rectifying the enormous challenges that Japan faces?

Ultra is relative. He is pretty mainstream in Japan.

"This Mussolini guy aint no ultranationalist, he's mainstream in Italy"

I aint buying it.

And he has worked to improve the Japanese military a lot,
And has actually done so.

As far as the common person directly
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegr ... lture/amp/

It's not very good.

It sets the cap at 100 overtime hours a month during "busy periods", which is above the maximum threshold (80 hours) that Japan's own Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare recommends for avoiding overwork that is damaging to mental and physical wellbeing, increasing the chances of karoshi (過労死) or "overwork death". How great.

Not to mention the expansion of the discretionary labor system was/is being promoted on the grounds of faulty data. There is reason to be worried about its expansion.

Furthermore, from what I garner, especially with the existence of the so-called "black companies", labor laws in Japan have many issues with enforcement and implementation, especially when the government concerns itself with "naming and shaming" them, as if that's solving the problem.

He has done things. You can argue fairly he has not done nearly enough (although again this is not entirely on him) but he has not been all bad either.

And what is the alternative?

There is pretty much no realistic alternative; partly because of the election system itself, partly because Japanese opposition parties are largely ineffectual. I would dare say Japan has failed as a democracy.

[Northern Davincia]

Abe-san is alright.

[Hakons]

There is pretty much no realistic alternative; partly because of the election system itself, partly because Japanese opposition parties are largely ineffectual. I would dare say Japan has failed as a democracy.

"The people I don't like keep winning elections, therefore it's a failed democracy"

[Northern Davincia]

There is pretty much no realistic alternative; partly because of the election system itself, partly because Japanese opposition parties are largely ineffectual. I would dare say Japan has failed as a democracy.

"The people I don't like keep winning elections, therefore it's a failed democracy"

I'd say it depends on whether or not opposition parties are systematically unable to win, but nobody likes a one-party state.

[Diopolis]

"The people I don't like keep winning elections, therefore it's a failed democracy"

I'd say it depends on whether or not opposition parties are systematically unable to win, but nobody likes a one-party state.

It seems fairly common in east Asia for a single party to consistently dominate elections while still playing by the rules, at least compared to Americans or the ANC.

[Duvniask]

There is pretty much no realistic alternative; partly because of the election system itself, partly because Japanese opposition parties are largely ineffectual. I would dare say Japan has failed as a democracy.

"The people I don't like keep winning elections, therefore it's a failed democracy"

If there's one way to make my blood boil, it's to snidely and obnoxiously mischaracterize what I've said, portraying about as much nuance as a white canvas. Studying these things is part of my discipline, so shut the hell up with that nonsense. It has nothing to do with my personal preferences in terms of party and candidates; it has everything to do with the system, of which any casual analysis suggests a jumble of problems.

The election system results in massive amounts of malapportionment and consistently places into power a party that the majority of the people didn't vote for. Not only that, it gives the governing coalition a super-majority (which is necessary to alter the constitution), whilst it gets less than half of the votes. The Supreme Court is toothless: it has declared recent elections to be "in a state of unconstitutionality", yet it refuses to nullify the election results. The party in power is also deeply intertwined with the bureaucratic and corporate establishment (the so-called "iron-triangle"), resulting in lots of corruption, pork-barrel spending, and general rule by vested interests without the input of the people as a whole. Freedom of speech is also troubled: The state applies political pressure on journalists and generally seems to want to stifle criticism covertly. That is not even mentioning the whole issue of the kisha-club system, with which the media and politicians are placed in a symbiotic relationship completely detrimental to critical journalistic practice.

Thus, Japan has a dominant-party system with the same party almost without fail being in power for the last half century, while the opposition is fractured and incapable of mounting any challenge. This has also made apathy widespread: in opinion polls you'll generally see a great mass of people saying they support "no party", sometimes even with this group being the largest. Add to all this a widespread culture of hereditary politics where elites essentially "inherit" their positions of power via their family and class connections and you have quite the democratic challenge.

More reading about Iron triangles and Japanese politics in general. While it is somewhat dated, and getting to the sources can be a bit tricky, I find that it is useful reading.

[Cappuccina]

Abe-san is alright.

Abe is a step in the right direction for Japan, imo.

[Hakons]

"The people I don't like keep winning elections, therefore it's a failed democracy"

If there's one way to make my blood boil, it's to snidely and obnoxiously mischaracterize what I've said, portraying about as much nuance as a white canvas. Studying these things is part of my discipline, so shut the hell up with that nonsense. It has nothing to do with my personal preferences in terms of party and candidates; it has everything to do with the system, of which any casual analysis suggests a jumble of problems.

The election system results in massive amounts of malapportionment and consistently places into power a party that the majority of the people didn't vote for. Not only that, it gives the governing coalition a super-majority (which is necessary to alter the constitution), whilst it gets less than half of the votes. The Supreme Court is toothless: it has declared recent elections to be "in a state of unconstitutionality", yet it refuses to nullify the election results. The party in power is also deeply intertwined with the bureaucratic and corporate establishment (the so-called "iron-triangle"), resulting in lots of corruption, pork-barrel spending, and general rule by vested interests without the input of the people as a whole. Freedom of speech is also troubled: The state applies political pressure on journalists and generally seems to want to stifle criticism covertly. That is not even mentioning the whole issue of the kisha-club system, with which the media and politicians are placed in a symbiotic relationship completely detrimental to critical journalistic practice.

Thus, Japan has a dominant-party system with the same party almost without fail being in power for the last half century, while the opposition is fractured and incapable of mounting any challenge. This has also made apathy widespread: in opinion polls you'll generally see a great mass of people saying they support "no party", sometimes even with this group being the largest. Add to all this a widespread culture of hereditary politics where elites essentially "inherit" their positions of power via their family and class connections and you have quite the democratic challenge.

More reading about Iron triangles and Japanese politics in general. While it is somewhat dated, and getting to the sources can be a bit tricky, I find that it is useful reading.

Sorry for mischaracterizing! Thanks for explaining more on why you think Japan's democracy is sub par.

[Duvniask]

Abe-san is alright.

No.

In typical lolbertarian fashion, you come out in favor of an authoritarian* that, to the extent the system allows it, cracks down on free speech. A man who worships the imperial system. A man who is part of an organization that essentially engages in the East Asian equivalent of Holocaust-denial. I could go on, but I don't think I need to say any more.



*He isn't a dictator, nor am I suggesting he wants to be one, but that does not mean his politics and style of governance aren't authoritarian, even in the context of a democratic system.

[Farnhamia]

Abe-san is alright.

No.

In typical lolbertarian fashion, you come out in favor of an authoritarian* that, to the extent the system allows it, cracks down on free speech. A man who worships the imperial system. A man who is part of an organization that essentially engages in the East Asian equivalent of Holocaust-denial. I could go on, but I don't think I need to say any more.



*He isn't a dictator, nor am I suggesting he wants to be one, but that does not mean his politics and style of governance aren't authoritarian, even in the context of a democratic system.

"Lolbertarian"? Tsk.

*** Warned for trolling. ***

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Abe-san is alright.

No.

In typical lolbertarian fashion, you come out in favor of an authoritarian* that, to the extent the system allows it, cracks down on free speech. A man who worships the imperial system. A man who is part of an organization that essentially engages in the East Asian equivalent of Holocaust-denial. I could go on, but I don't think I need to say any more.



*He isn't a dictator, nor am I suggesting he wants to be one, but that does not mean his politics and style of governance aren't authoritarian, even in the context of a democratic system.

A lolbertarian is usually defined as a libertarian who is far more socially liberal than they are fiscally conservative.

[Kowani]

Abe-san is alright.

Abe is a step in the right direction for Japan, imo.

Nah.

[Farnhamia]

No.

In typical lolbertarian fashion, you come out in favor of an authoritarian* that, to the extent the system allows it, cracks down on free speech. A man who worships the imperial system. A man who is part of an organization that essentially engages in the East Asian equivalent of Holocaust-denial. I could go on, but I don't think I need to say any more.



*He isn't a dictator, nor am I suggesting he wants to be one, but that does not mean his politics and style of governance aren't authoritarian, even in the context of a democratic system.

A lolbertarian is usually defined as a libertarian who is far more socially liberal than they are fiscally conservative.

But it's a pejorative and as such, trolling or flaming.