How Progressive Is Japan

bgbrendan said:

the problem with overtime stats is the jp goverment cracked down on overtime so people just clock out and keep "working" cause the boss is still there. at my workplace people supposed to finish at 5, but on our "No overtime day" people are finishing at like 7. I always go home right on time (cause im foreign and dont get the culture )but i get messages from my direct supervisor at like 7pm or whatever

To answer the OPs question. LGBT in japan is kinda in a weird place in that its kinda accepted on TV etc (lots of gay/crossdressing celebs) but in daily life its kinda shameful and misunderstood. A friend of mine decided he wanted to come out at work and people thought that it meant he was a pedo too. But that's just par for the course in japan with cutting edge technology and everyone still using fax machines.

Click to expand...

Dont get me started with fax machines or bank booklets or stamps instead signatures I could go on forever xD

Panzerfaust said:

How I like that simple logic by people, who mean, that accepting gay marriage / propaganda means progression...maybe it's just a western thing...b4 you attaking me for my opinion: i dont care you can feel superior or whatever you think to be and beeing super duper progressive...just stop dictating your anti natural "progressive opinion" to others...same poison as bringing your "democracy" to other countries.

Click to expand...

I'll take this one.

First, homosexual behavior is natural. You can see it all over the animal kingdom. You can see it with bonobos, penguins, ... (dont want to read on to get another example, but you certainly can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals )

Then there is the point, that LGB interest groups have actually fought years for their societal recognition, and they have done successfully so. And good on them - that actual change politics, the way it should be done.

Then there is the issue, that people see "data" as a future market, and you find out if someone is gay, basically based on 10 of their facebook likes within a week. So if we are going "privacy is a thing of the past" - we have to make quite a few more things normal - otherwise we'll end up in societies, where people are an open book to everyone - but a bunch of them will still hate others for what they are. Thats idiotic, bordering on impossible.

I mean, hey - we now have homosexual relationships in western sitcoms for 30 years, its a bit late to announce to the world, that you are going into an entirely different direction on your own. Of course because you are morally superior in your anger.

*mep*

erikas said:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

Click to expand...

Its my family. Hard to call that anecdotal.

Once, when I grew up...

You were in gamblers fallacy territory before, but for your main arguments issue, the site has no section for.

The issue in your argument is akin to overgeneralization while employing follow up reasoning. And then a no other way out fallacy.

This works as follows - you perceive an abstract issue (population decline), to be overly caused by a single cause (feminism - not birth control, not social security, not new ways of life that had people not wanting to stay a home giving birth for 4 years in a row, ...) - although there is really no obvious causality.

Then you insist, that the issue can be fixed, by the adverse treatment of what you claim is causing it - namely to denounce female and male equality, and have women birth more children, by treating them as lesser humans again.

I don't know where on earth you want to raise up your cult compound, but you arent saving culture, or the world with your line of thinking.

You've hardly even identified a problem. (The world needs more people of my culture!? Why?)

If someone is feeding you that logic - try to distance yourself a little. Get some other ideas in your mind as well. Do it at your pace.

Some of the issues regional population decline causes are pretty real - so your sense of urgency isnt entirely wrong. Its just that your proposed solution isnt a solution at all.

("I know how to fix the economy! Lets go back to slavery, and then.."
Same logical fallacy. And single solution thinking.

Thats on the other side of trying to explain complex issues as simple as possible. More people think they can grasp them - more people can be mislead by BS - because they now have the idea, that they could grasp them...

If you never actually ask yourself "could it actually be more complex" - chances are, that someone is taking you along for the ride... It doesnt always have to be - but at least dont always negate the thought experiment. Reverse reasoning logic, is almost never the solution to larger problems. ("If the people are starving, they should eat more..." ))

And on the logic level. If people have too few children, they should f*ck more (got that part) - by denouncing womens equality in terms of being equal humans, and see them as the weaker sex again and... What? And then you'd get a partner as well? Or two?

Because if we don't do it, the others will do it. (Islam?) On the same logic level, the moment islamist women enter open societies (think France), they first and foremost become liberated, because every other women they come in contact with is. Until their brothers kill them for family honor, of course - which is just proper darwinistic thinking, because then they have fewer women, and then surely they take over and become the master race... Ah - sorry, where were you going with the argument? Oh I know - becazse that generates an aura of fear, that means that their women can now stay at home for four years and - we as societies can do nothing against that sense of fear based life decisions? Or do you expect free women to be so weak, that they fall over and get captivated by the first real male with an urge to birth him four children again. No - I know, its the long game - so the islamic women in fear birth children, that are then not educated in western schools and dont come in contact with others, oh wait, they are doing that, arent they...

Its almost like social integration actually usually works, and doesnt automatically fail, because of genes? Testosteron? Supreme fear based cultures?

I like my logic of "forbid dating apps" because people then arent caught in FOMO-something better cycles for years much better. But I dont think that thats a sound argument. I just use it to provoke..

notimp said:

Just in overall work hours per year. (What the ranking statistic you linked measured.) US has much less vacation time compared to european countries, at least that much I know of the top of my head.

Click to expand...

Japanese and U.S. cultures are different too. More women are starting to work in Japan, but it’s still mostly women that are homemakers.

Japanese tend to stay after work even when their work hours are done, they can afford to do this since they have a female at the house to get things done.

But in U.S. men come home to do more work. Since women also work their isn’t anyone to do house chores, so instead of coming home to a clean house with food in the fridge they have split chores between their wives to do a little shopping and cleaning, this is also accounted for in statistics. So work time is accounted for in different ways.

notimp said:

Its my family. Hard to call that anecdotal.

Once, when I grew up...

You were in gamblers fallacy territory before, but for your main arguments issue, the site has no section for.

The issue in your argument is akin to overgeneralization while employing follow up reasoning. And then a no other way out fallacy.

This works as follows - you perceive an abstract issue (population decline), to be overly caused by a single cause (feminism - not birth control, not social security, not new ways of life that had people not wanting to stay a home giving birth for 4 years in a row, ...) - although there is really no obvious causality.

Then you insist, that the issue can be fixed, by the adverse treatment of what you claim is causing it - namely to denounce female and male equality, and have women birth more children, by treating them as lesser humans again.

I don't know where on earth you want to raise up your cult compound, but you arent saving culture, or the world with your line of thinking.

You've hardly even identified a problem. (The world needs more people of my culture!? Why?)

If someone is feeding you that logic - try to distance yourself a little. Get some other ideas in your mind as well. Do it at your pace.

Some of the issues regional population decline causes are pretty real - so your sense of urgency isnt entirely wrong. Its just that your proposed solution isnt a solution at all.

("I know how to fix the economy! Lets go back to slavery, and then.."
Same logical fallacy. And single solution thinking.

Thats on the other side of trying to explain complex issues as simple as possible. More people think they can grasp them - more people can be mislead by BS - because they now have the idea, that they could grasp them...

If you never actually ask yourself "could it actually be more complex" - chances are, that someone is taking you along for the ride... It doesnt always have to be - but at least dont always negate the thought experiment. Reverse reasoning logic, is almost never the solution to larger problems. ("If the people are starving, they should eat more..." ))

And on the logic level. If people have too few children, they should f*ck more (got that part) - by denouncing womens equality in terms of being equal humans, and see them as the weaker sex again and... What? And then you'd get a partner as well? Or two?

Because if we don't do it, the others will do it. (Islam?) On the same logic level, the moment islamist women enter open societies (think France), they first and foremost become liberated, because every other women they come in contact with is. Until their brothers kill them for family honor, of course - which is just proper darwinistic thinking, because then they have fewer women, and then surely they take over and become the master race... Ah - sorry, where were you going with the argument?

I like my logic of "forbid dating apps" because people then arent caught in FOMO-something better cycles for years much better. But I dont think that thats a sound argument. I just use it to provoke..

Click to expand...

Oh boy, I'm going to go through every point.

Your family is anecdotal just as my family is, i can boast about how great my mother is, your average woman is borderline useless.

We are speaking about population decline and you're saying I'm "overgeneralizing"? This is once again the anecdotal fallacy. When we are speaking about a problem in a society, the only way to treat it is to generalize. Bringing up specific examples serves no purpose, i can find you families with over 10 kids, that doesn't make the birthrate above 2.

Birth control, social security, women having careers, unfair divorce courts, rampant infidelity, women not being held accountable for their actions and many more issues neither of us have named contribute to birth decline. All of these issues are caused by feminism. Feminists are the ones who demanded women be given education, demanded contraception research, demanded bigger government and a bigger welfare state(which overwhelmingly favors women), demanded women always be given full custody(also never complained about alimony being unfair, even though women can work), got universities filled with BS subjects that are nothing more than marxist propaganda and so on.

Let me explain what my solution actually is. 1. Only people who pay taxes get to vote, people who get welfare do not get to vote even if they have a job. 2. No gender quotas in either universities or workplaces, let the free market do it's thing. Women who are "strong" as you put it, and actually able to compete with men will manage if they want to, the rest don't have to. 3. No marxist propaganda in universities, should be self explanatory. I could add more if if i was describing my ideal state, but this is enough to just fix birth rate.

As for why does the world need more people of my culture? Are you a cultural relativist who thinks all cultures are equal? If you actually think that, look at some african communities who kill people for witchcraft, and i'm being very mild with my example, because if i made a list of top 10 worst cultures, all of them would probably have something worse. And i will say that western culture has done the world the most good. It brought about technological advancement(you can list inventions by early muslims or chinese if you want, Tesla, Edison, Newton, Einstein were all from Europe) and was the only culture to even come up with the idea of "human rights" as we know them.

I do know how to fix the economy: less government, abolish the welfare state, you're done.

Of course it "could" be more complex, but are you saying my suggestion would not solve the problem? There's no need to account for every single possible variable, just the biggest one. And if it turns out not to be enough, then you can look for others. Also, giving women money to have children doesn't work. All you're doing is making people who were going to have children anyway have them sooner. And women who weren't going to aren't going to change their minds because they're also getting money to study.

Women are weaker by every objective standard. I do not think they are lesser human beings for that, but women are the ones who can give birth and we do not have a replacement for that, and even when we do it will be too expensive in the foreseeable future and we still need the egg cells from women so it's not a viable option considering the urgency.

Muslims women do not become liberated, muslims in the west form ghettos and do not integrate, they do not let their women out or let them interact with the local population. Now yes, there are some who do get liberated (and become just as insufferable in the process), but they are a minority. I think muslims are doing the right thing not to get cucked, i dislike their culture because it's a dead end for any kind of progress.

They are not. You win on a few technicalities (I had two weak points. ), you loose, because I got you talking in specifics about how women are useless again.

Here is the deal - they are not. Really. I promise. Anecdotally (I thought for a minute on how to produce statistical proof, then I laughed... ).

Try to get away from this being the cause of the big issues. I promise you, it is not.

Part of your parents economical wonderland was, that they raised productivity by having women entering the work force in large numbers. Companies want predictable productivity - so if we follow your "plan", and have women with mandatory (more or less) three children again, you get a productivity loss as a result - which probably would kick the entirety of europe into a serious recession. For the most part, companies wouldnt want to employ them - because of higher uncertainty in planning and projection.

Complex issues.

notimp said:

They are not. You win on a few technicalities (I had two weak points. ), you loose, because I got you talking in specifics about how women are useless again.

Here is the deal - they are not. Really. I promise. Anecdotally (I thought for a minute on how to produce statistical proof, then I laughed... ).

Try to get away from this being the cause of the big issues. I promise you, it is not.

Part of your parents economical wonderland was, that they raised productivity by having women entering the work force in large numbers. Companies want predictable productivity - so if we follow your "plan", and have women with mandatory (more or less) three children again, you get a productivity loss as a result - which probably would kick the entirety of europe into a serious recession. For the most part, companies wouldn't want to employ them - because higher uncertainty on productivity returns.

Complex issues.

Click to expand...

I am not asking for mandated quotas for how many children a woman should have. I want less government not more. Government caused the problem by appealing to women voters. Also i'm not american, my parents grew up in the soviet union. And no you would not get a productivity loss, i didn't say women should be banned from working, i'm saying companies shouldn't be forced to hire them. And the reason companies don't want to employ women are: 1. they aren't qualified(marxist indoctrinates bitching about how there aren't enough women in stem) 2. they take maternity leave which bleeds the company money, 3. #metoo lawsuits. The last one already made all women unemployable without government intervention and it's their own fault.

P.S. if women were equal, they could have made women only companies, and competed with men, but these companies are nowhere to be seen.

notimp said:

They are not. You win on a few technicalities (I had two weak points. ), you loose, because I got you talking in specifics about how women are useless again.

Here is the deal - they are not. Really. I promise. Anecdotally (I thought for a minute on how to produce statistical proof, then I laughed... ).

Try to get away from this being the cause of the big issues. I promise you, it is not.

Part of your parents economical wonderland was, that they raised productivity by having women entering the work force in large numbers. Companies want predictable productivity - so if we follow your "plan", and have women with mandatory (more or less) three children again, you get a productivity loss as a result - which probably would kick the entirety of europe into a serious recession. For the most part, companies wouldnt want to employ them - because of higher uncertainty in planning and projection.

Complex issues.

Click to expand...

That is true. Household earnings went up since women entered the workforce. 2 pay checks are better then 1.

notimp said:

Its my family. Hard to call that anecdotal.

Once, when I grew up...

You were in gamblers fallacy territory before, but for your main arguments issue, the site has no section for.

The issue in your argument is akin to overgeneralization while employing follow up reasoning. And then a no other way out fallacy.

This works as follows - you perceive an abstract issue (population decline), to be overly caused by a single cause (feminism - not birth control, not social security, not new ways of life that had people not wanting to stay a home giving birth for 4 years in a row, ...) - although there is really no obvious causality.

Then you insist, that the issue can be fixed, by the adverse treatment of what you claim is causing it - namely to denounce female and male equality, and have women birth more children, by treating them as lesser humans again.

I don't know where on earth you want to raise up your cult compound, but you arent saving culture, or the world with your line of thinking.

You've hardly even identified a problem. (The world needs more people of my culture!? Why?)

If someone is feeding you that logic - try to distance yourself a little. Get some other ideas in your mind as well. Do it at your pace.

Some of the issues regional population decline causes are pretty real - so your sense of urgency isnt entirely wrong. Its just that your proposed solution isnt a solution at all.

("I know how to fix the economy! Lets go back to slavery, and then.."
Same logical fallacy. And single solution thinking.

Thats on the other side of trying to explain complex issues as simple as possible. More people think they can grasp them - more people can be mislead by BS - because they now have the idea, that they could grasp them...

If you never actually ask yourself "could it actually be more complex" - chances are, that someone is taking you along for the ride... It doesnt always have to be - but at least dont always negate the thought experiment. Reverse reasoning logic, is almost never the solution to larger problems. ("If the people are starving, they should eat more..." ))

And on the logic level. If people have too few children, they should f*ck more (got that part) - by denouncing womens equality in terms of being equal humans, and see them as the weaker sex again and... What? And then you'd get a partner as well? Or two?

Because if we don't do it, the others will do it. (Islam?) On the same logic level, the moment islamist women enter open societies (think France), they first and foremost become liberated, because every other women they come in contact with is. Until their brothers kill them for family honor, of course - which is just proper darwinistic thinking, because then they have fewer women, and then surely they take over and become the master race... Ah - sorry, where were you going with the argument? Oh I know - becazse that generates an aura of fear, that means that their women can now stay at home for four years and - we as societies can do nothing against that sense of fear based life decisions? Or do you expect free women to be so weak, that they fall over and get captivated by the first real male with an urge to birth him four children again. No - I know, its the long game - so the islamic women in fear birth children, that are then not educated in western schools and dont come in contact with others, oh wait, they are doing that, arent they...

Its almost like social integration actually usually works, and doesnt automatically fail, because of genes? Testosteron? Supreme fear based cultures?

I like my logic of "forbid dating apps" because people then arent caught in FOMO-something better cycles for years much better. But I dont think that thats a sound argument. I just use it to provoke..

Click to expand...

Jesus christ my dude, you need to get out more.
.
.
.
On a more serious note, do you also live in good old glorious Nippon? You don’t sound like a native so I’m wondering.

I think they should encourage finishing work sooner and spending time with family.

radicalwookie said:

Jesus christ my dude, you need to get out more.
.
.
.
On a more serious note, do you also live in good old glorious Nippon? You don’t sound like a native so I’m wondering.

Click to expand...

Attack ad hominem.
I'm just writing fast, and am not opposed taking on/confronting more radical standpoints, simply because I dont like social media culture of ignoring them, and those people then being more siloed as a result.

If it was my last paragraph that triggered your response, that was tame trolling - why this should have to be followed up with personal attacks, escapes me.

Also no - I'm not living in japan, guess you took your 1:194 chance to figure that out, BASED ON THE WAY I SOUNDED.

Not angry - just miffed, that any effort you put into actually engaging with some more obscure opinions, gets struck down by yet another person thinking, that "lol, dude, are you even japanese" is a worthwhile response in a debate.

edit: Just noticed, that I have a japanese flag beneath by avatar. Now that part becomes more understandable..

Now why exactly do you think I should get out more? Hate those open motive derailment patterns. Hate them with a passion. Even if you confront them, the only thing that you get in return is another "Lol dude".

radicalwookie said:

Not a chance.


Why Are all westerners so orientalistic, thinking every move involves some zen shit mystic sense of honor or whatever?

I can guarantee you that honor has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it. It’s the exact same thing as every other developed country. Careers, money, free time and other factors that keep people from having kids. Having a kid costs a load of money. Japan especially because schools arent free (here are public schools but these are avoided like plague). Just giving a birth costs somewhere around $6k there (if i remember correctly).
Then theres the problem with the culture of men working and women being housewives. This has been changing drastically in the last 10 years but still one of the parents have to sacrifice his career (women in 99,9%) so that they can take care of kids and all. Pressure to provide enough money for 3+ people is big. Work hours suck ass. Wife usually has to get a “arubaito” working at supermarket, mr donut or some shit like that so that they can pay for everything. Apartments are expensive the closer you are to the cities where jobs are. My colleague had a family in Osaka and he worked in Aomori prefecture, only coming home for Sundays. On that note, fathers go to work at say 8 o clock and return at 9 or 10 in the evening. Many many fathers cant even meet their children unless its a weekend when they have a day off... then you have these “nomikai” which are pretty much required and can last all night to early morning.

People commit suicide because they are stuck in the routine, failing at life and such.
If you think that commiting suicide is considered to be fine in whatever aspect, you should stop watching samurai anime.

Jeez

Click to expand...

Oh yea because all cultures and people think the same in first world countries right? Then how do you explain the over 700,000 people who dont leave their homes? (japan is is very small population country)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-33362387 <-- read this.

There are a myriad of reasons people commit suicide, but japans is different, and although it is changing, japans history does change the reasoning for many.

notimp said:

Attack ad hominem.
I'm just writing fast, and am not opposed taking on/confronting more radical standpoints, simply because I dont like social media culture of ignoring them, and those people then being more siloed as a result.

If it was my last paragraph that triggered your response, that was tame trolling - why this should have to be followed up with personal attacks, escapes me.

Also no - I'm not living in japan, guess you took your 1:194 chance to figure that out, BASED ON THE WAY I SOUNDED.

Not angry - just miffed, that any effort you put into actually engaging with some more obscure opinions, gets struck down by yet another person thinking, that "lol, dude, are you even japanese" is a worthwhile response in a debate.

edit: Just noticed, that I have a japanese flag beneath by avatar. Now that part becomes more understandable..

Now why exactly do you think I should get out more? Hate those open motive derailment patterns. Hate them with a passion. Even if you confront them, the only thing that you get in return is another "Lol".

Click to expand...

You are one passive aggressive dude arent you?
I just thought you live in Japan because of your “extensive knowledge” and strong opinions. I legit wondered, theres no need to go nuke mode on me...

Ericthegreat said:

Oh yea because all cultures and people think the same in first world countries right? Then how do you explain the over 700,000 people who dont leave their homes? (japan is is very small population country)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-33362387 <-- read this.

There are a myriad of reasons people commit suicide, but japans is different, and although it is changing, japans history does change the reasoning for many.

Click to expand...

I lived in Japan for 20 years, I still live there temporarily during summer and autumn.
What I was saying was based on experience, observation and local news.

Not all cultures think the same but they still are human. Stress, lack of free time, lack of goals, love life etc has a big impact no matter the culture.
Japan is a small population country? I hope you are kidding. 128 million people is not a small population....

Paolosworld said:

*insert horrible joke about gay people here*

Click to expand...

They were gonna legalize gay marriage, BUTT FUCK IT!

DKB said:

Might get some hate for this, but the motherfuckers ain't breeding. If they're not breeding, and people also want to be gay as well, well, the government is going to go into panic mode.

Which, this seems like why they banned it.

..Not sure actually why but I feel like this may be one of the reasons.

Click to expand...

Well, it's true that the native population of Japan is more or less going extinct because they don't procreate to bring new Japanese babies to life.

There are also the Ainu population in Japan, Ainu people are half-Japanese and half-European. I suppose you can call them "Euranese" to shorten it.



She was beautiful.

A country that cherishes its identity, people, culture and values might not exist in the future or as we know it.

@Saiyan Lusitano I probably won't, due to the fact they are not reproducing at replacement levels.

It is currently at 1.42 when it needs to be at 2.1

radicalwookie said:

You are one passive aggressive dude arent you?

Click to expand...

Thats a language I can deal with. Everythings forgiven. Liked your prior input in this thread. Cheers.

notimp said:

Thats a language I can deal with. Everythings forgiven. Liked your prior input in this thread. Cheers.

Click to expand...

You are one odd lad, almost as much as myself haha. Cheers mate

Panzerfaust said:

How I like that simple logic by people, who mean, that accepting gay marriage / propaganda means progression...maybe it's just a western thing...b4 you attaking me for my opinion: i dont care you can feel superior or whatever you think to be and beeing super duper progressive...just stop dictating your anti natural "progressive opinion" to others...same poison as bringing your "democracy" to other countries.

Click to expand...

Well, with democracy it means that almost anyone from X country is eligible to vote even if he/she is completely clueless and votes on the politician X, Y or Z because he finds her pretty or what have you. God bless democracy, what would we be without it, eh, Panzerfaust.

On a serious note, did you know that one of the founding fathers who created the EU organization was a "Euranese" like the Ainus? He's commonly known as Richard Kalergi (short name) but his full name was actually Richard Nikolaus Eijiro, Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi.

I suppose that in this case it's progressive to think of miscegenation as progressive because a group of people end up mixed while those who want to remain pure as their ancestors were, may be labeled racist for not getting into the melting pot. I'd call it a preference for each their own but hey, how dare I make my own choices.