![theviveen:
“ EPSON QC-10 [1983]
”
The fun part is all that fancy writing to the right of 日本語 just says “paasonaru konpyuuta”.](https://78.media.tumblr.com/084878d2eb8081e821fd9baca0618d26/tumblr_mmkfcx3Ou21ra380fo1_1280.jpg)
EPSON QC-10 [1983]
The fun part is all that fancy writing to the right of 日本語 just says “paasonaru konpyuuta”.
btw what is the Official Counterpoint to Japan not taking immigrants?
is it that their circumstances are different, or that they’re just super racist and not an example to emulate?
Japan is super racist.
I honestly did not think this point was up to any debate at all.
I deal with this problem by not trying to move to Japan, they can be as racist on their own island as they want.
Yeah, but that hits a wall under the modern moral climate, where it’s implicitly argued that foreigners have a right to immigrate to, essentially, anywhere, but particularly to developed nations. The idea of “the Japanese on their own island” has the audacity to suggest collective ownership of a nation-state for the benefit of an exclusive group - the old Nationalist model.
A model that I actually approve of, minus the racism, but one that now would mark me as right-wing, even though I don’t consider myself right-wing.
btw what is the Official Counterpoint to Japan not taking immigrants?
is it that their circumstances are different, or that they’re just super racist and not an example to emulate?
Japan is super racist.
I honestly did not think this point was up to any debate at all.
I deal with this problem by not trying to move to Japan, they can be as racist on their own island as they want.
Yeah, but that hits a wall under the modern moral climate, where it’s implicitly argued that foreigners have a right to immigrate to, essentially, anywhere, but particularly to developed nations. The idea of “the Japanese on their own island” has the audacity to suggest collective ownership of a nation-state for the benefit of an exclusive group - the old Nationalist model.
A model that I actually approve of, minus the racism, but one that now would mark me as right-wing, even though I don’t consider myself right-wing.
Yes, this is my view.
The Japanese don’t have the “right” to “be racist on their own island”, if that means excluding immigrants. All this amounts to is placing the whims of the collective (the alleged ownership of the islands by the Japanese race as a whole) over the rights of the individual: i.e. the right of individual Japanese to invite immigrants to work for them and to sell or rent property to them.
Suppose a group of Japanese racists get together and start a corporation. That corporation buys a small island, and and allows its owners to live on the island, so long as they are Japanese. Land is portioned out based on stake in the corporation.
This is not a covenant, because owners of the corporation can sell to whoever they want. Similarly, the corporation could, by majority vote, sell the island, or allow non-Japanese owners to live there. There is no condition that restricts the use of the land in perpetuity ( @theunitofcaring raised this objection the last time this came up).
However, so long as a majority of the owners of the corporation don’t want non-Japanese living on the island, they can’t. And practically, the rule won’t change unless the owners become less racist over time and generations, or wealthy anti-racist activists buy them out, fairly compensating the racists for being prevented from satisfying their preference. Or somewhat fairly, anyway; I’m not quite sure how only needing a majority stake affect the cost of buying them out. That’s a question for someone in murders and executions.
Do the Japanese racists have the right to do that? If not, why not? And what is the minimum change to the scheme that would make it within their rights, in your opinion?
Conversely, if your do think that would be within their rights, I suppose your objection to the current restriction on immigration to Japan is that it’s not the Japanese’s island?
That would be fine, if they acquired the land voluntarily.
What’s not fine with the Japanese government doing that is that it didn’t acquire the land that way.
And a big difference is that if they are restricted to acquiring the land voluntarily, that would greatly limit the amount of it that they could practically obtain. But supposing hypothetically that this weren’t true and that freedom of contract led to one private “government” owning all the land, then that would be a strong point of having a “public” government to limit their ability to do that.
By that logic nearly all land on Earth in private hands could not be considered “voluntarily acquired”.
amazing how no one is fat in the dark cyberpunk future
dark cyberpunk future, Neo-Tokyo, neon, sun never comes out, black leather, mirrored shades, jacking in to the matrix, corporations, syndicate, retro phones,
No no no you’re missing the plan here.
The megacorporations license you a gene mod which keeps you skinny so you can fit the image their advertising sells, and it boosts your metabolism so that you must eat more food to survive, helping to sell you large amounts of highly-branded junk food while you take on more and more debt.
In the cyberpunk future, the Coca-Cola™ flowing through your veins is the only thing keeping you alive.
that isn’t voxels. Hmm.
still something I’m chewing on
modern game development is all about finding coherent aesthetics that allow you to eschew realism because god damn realism is expensive.
hence MineCraft, the 8-bit retro craze, Undertale, even polished cartoony looks like Witness and Firewatch.
I think stylised game art has gotten significantly better looking since 2015.
Oh man you aren’t wrong, do you know how many hours it would have taken me to “realistically” model those tiny houses? And that would make the renders less understandable instead of more understandable.
bluepill: superficial and commodified weeb idea of animeland japan
“redpill”: balanced and informed perspective on japan
redpill: tradweeb who fully embraces esoteric state shinto and pilgrimages to yasukuni shrine from akihabara and recognizes karafuto and chiishima as primordially japanese
Wired: paleoweeb fetishizing Jomon era pottery and lacquerware, thirsting after brow ridged waifus
exalted: jomon irredentist ainu cartoon enthusiast who understands that the only tradnat path for japan is the physical removal of all bearers of yayoi genetics, all traces of rice cultivation, and all political systems not founded on bear worship
Anonymous asked:
Contrary to conspiracy theories circulating in some parts of this website, I am not secretly an official within the Japanese government, nor the child of any such official, nor a contractor hired on their behalf, my darling Anon. (I consider myself an American. This nation’s fate is my fate.)
So let’s go farm Wikipedia:
In 1873, following the Meiji Restoration, the ban was rescinded, freedom of religion was promulgated, and Protestant missionaries (プロテスタント Purotesutanto or 新教 Shinkyō, “renewed teaching”) began to proselytise in Japan, intensifying their activities after World War II, yet they were never as successful as in Korea.
Today, there are 1 to 3 million Christians in Japan, most of them living in the western part of the country, where the missionaries’ activities were greatest during the 16th century. Nagasaki Prefecture has the highest percentage of Christians: about 5.1% in 1996.[39] As of 2007 there are 32,036 Christian priests and pastors in Japan.[26] Throughout the latest century, some Western customs originally related to Christianity (including Western style weddings, Valentine’s Day and Christmas) have become popular among many Japanese.
About 2.3% of Japan identifies as Christian.
A number of Asian-Americans within America are Christian, but that does not necessarily apply to the ancestral countries.
Korea, on the other hand, is far more Christian for some reason.
According to the national census conducted in 2015, 19.7% of the population belongs to Protestantism, 15.5% to Buddhism (Korean Buddhism), and 7.9% to the Roman Catholic Church; in total Christianity is the religion of 27.6% of the Korean population.
I can’t pretend to see inside the minds of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, but apparently, while it is showing signs of strain, the LDP is in a coalition with another party closely aligned with a Buddhist religious movement…
So I’m going to guess that no, they won’t push Catholicism to try to increase birthrates, that it isn’t really part of the vision of Japanese national identity the ruling classes in Japan have.
But someone currently living in Japan would be better to ask.
With that said, given the outcomes for Protestant countries vs Catholic countries, that certainly isn’t a tradeoff I’d make until after I’d exhausted other options, like getting Japanese people to spend less time at work so they can actually meet members of the opposite sex and form families.
Anonymous asked:
argumate answered:
That’s why most Japanese stuff is anime instead of live action: too expensive to fake the backgrounds and keep finding Chinese actors who can pretend they speak “Japanese”.
I can’t believe you would publish such a slanderous ask against the country that was once the 大日本帝国, you treacherous kangaroo farmer, the light of their mighty rising sun nearly covered all of Asi–
* gasping *
* coughing *
* wheezing *
Phew, don’t know what came over me, there. One moment I was just reading Tumblr and then I just… blacked out. It was almost like that time a foreign hypernationalist ideo-virus got past my memetic barriers and infected my cyberbrain. But fortunately I got that removed. No traces left.
A-argumate, why are you looking at me like that?
Argumate-kun? Is something wrong?
The right praising Japanese failures is a recurring theme. They often laud Japan’s restrictive immigration policy despite the fact that it is a huge contributor to Japan’s economic problems at the moment. Of course, they would respond that the protection of national culture/race comes first, but that philosophy is a pretty good way to ensure your culture will very literally die
The thing is, from what I’ve seen, the dogmatic economists and the liberals and all the lot yelling at them have overstated their case on just how big this problem is for their economy, and they’re going very hard on automation which is about to push many people out of work in the West over the next few decades, and while we in the West are told we need to “get used to” Islamic terrorist attacks, and will probably soon be told we need to ignore FGM, etc, in the name of cultural diversity… they don’t have to deal with that problem essentially at all. (And that isn’t the only factor - there are social Rules Japanese corporations follow that would not be feasible under mass migration, for instance.)
Why should we have to get used to terrorist attacks? What on Earth is so bloody valuable about Islam that we can’t get a similar advantage from taking Hindus, Buddhists, etc instead?
“while we in the West are told we need to ‘get used to’ Islamic terrorist attacks”
No, we need to “get used to” terrorist attacks generally, which will be an inevitable consequence of asymmetric military conditions and technological development and can’t be fully prevented by any reasonable means
“will probably soon be told we need to ignore FGM, etc, in the name of cultural diversity…”
No, you won’t, but you’ll find a few anecdotes of people saying that and then use them to justify the belief that it’s a popular social narrative
“What on Earth is so bloody valuable about Islam that we can’t get a similar advantage from taking Hindus, Buddhists, etc instead?”
A few things here worthy of note: terrorism is an asymmetric military tactic utilized by radical groups regardless of ideology and belief and there are groups of both Hindus and Buddhists who are currently using terrorist tactics; immigration is not a primary contributor to terrorism and those who claim otherwise have an extremely weak case that they’ve made seem legitimate by repeating it over and over; and if you genuinely think that terrorism is an intrinsically Islamic phenomenon you have a tenuous grasp of both the nature of terrorism and global demography
“…utilized by radical groups regardless of ideology…”
“…can’t be fully prevented by any reasonable means…”
How many deportations would it take to make the means unreasonable?
Yeah, see, here’s the thing, I haven’t been functioning well for a long time, so I don’t have reams of papers put out by my ideological peers about how “no really, this is how it works, nothing to see here, please move along” but I know the data like this is out there.
The right praising Japanese failures is a recurring theme. They often laud Japan’s restrictive immigration policy despite the fact that it is a huge contributor to Japan’s economic problems at the moment. Of course, they would respond that the protection of national culture/race comes first, but that philosophy is a pretty good way to ensure your culture will very literally die
The thing is, from what I’ve seen, the dogmatic economists and the liberals and all the lot yelling at them have overstated their case on just how big this problem is for their economy, and they’re going very hard on automation which is about to push many people out of work in the West over the next few decades, and while we in the West are told we need to “get used to” Islamic terrorist attacks, and will probably soon be told we need to ignore FGM, etc, in the name of cultural diversity… they don’t have to deal with that problem essentially at all. (And that isn’t the only factor - there are social Rules Japanese corporations follow that would not be feasible under mass migration, for instance.)
Why should we have to get used to terrorist attacks? What on Earth is so bloody valuable about Islam that we can’t get a similar advantage from taking Hindus, Buddhists, etc instead?
“while we in the West are told we need to ‘get used to’ Islamic terrorist attacks”
No, we need to “get used to” terrorist attacks generally, which will be an inevitable consequence of asymmetric military conditions and technological development and can’t be fully prevented by any reasonable means
“will probably soon be told we need to ignore FGM, etc, in the name of cultural diversity…”
No, you won’t, but you’ll find a few anecdotes of people saying that and then use them to justify the belief that it’s a popular social narrative
“What on Earth is so bloody valuable about Islam that we can’t get a similar advantage from taking Hindus, Buddhists, etc instead?”
A few things here worthy of note: terrorism is an asymmetric military tactic utilized by radical groups regardless of ideology and belief and there are groups of both Hindus and Buddhists who are currently using terrorist tactics; immigration is not a primary contributor to terrorism and those who claim otherwise have an extremely weak case that they’ve made seem legitimate by repeating it over and over; and if you genuinely think that terrorism is an intrinsically Islamic phenomenon you have a tenuous grasp of both the nature of terrorism and global demography
No, we need to “get used to” terrorist attacks generally, which will be an inevitable consequence of asymmetric military conditions and technological development and can’t be fully prevented by any reasonable means
Look man, you might come back and say that “well the IRA used terrorist attacks”, and yeah they did, and they killed people, but they also would give warning allowing evacuations before blowing up something big and expensive and not end up killing anyone. Why?
Because they were national separatists. They had a far more specific and measurable goal, which they were arguably more successful at. In other words they had a different ideology, and different ideologies produce different behavior, which is the entire reason anyone cares what ideology someone follows to begin with. And religions are very much like ideologies.
Much like FGM is cultural, and cousin marriage is cultural, and different cultures produce different behaviors besides what food you eat and what rug you put in your house.
So I’m going to ask a test question here to see how serious you really are: Are you willing to ban cousin marriage, or would you argue that doing so is a form of unfair ethnic discrimination?
No, we need to “get used to” terrorist attacks generally, which will be an inevitable consequence of asymmetric military conditions and technological development and can’t be fully prevented by any reasonable means
So do we need to get used to #PrayForEngland being renewed each year, or sometimes more than once a year? Or does the difference in the rate of terrorism between different groups mean that we might only need #PrayForEngland about once per decade?
Have you ever noticed that when we #PrayForJapan, it’s usually because of some enormous natural disaster that could not have been prevented, and not because of some massive terrorist attack? They have had terrorist attacks, but the frequency is much lower, and as such they’re not having to “get used to” it.
No, you won’t, but you’ll find a few anecdotes of people saying that and then use them to justify the belief that it’s a popular social narrative
I can see a push for the legalization of polygamy on the horizon, I’m confident it will start to come in about ten years, which we were promised would not happen. ‘Soon’ was probably overblowing it, the FGM thing will come in 20 if conditions don’t change, as demographic changes transform it into an issue that can be captured for votes by the larger political parties. After all, we already allow male ‘circumcision’, so what’s one more step? The law won’t stop such a political transformation because you get the laws that the culture supports, which is why Chechnya has Chechen laws and we don’t.
A few things here worthy of note: terrorism is an asymmetric military tactic utilized by radical groups regardless of ideology and belief and there are groups of both Hindus and Buddhists who are currently using terrorist tactics; immigration is not a primary contributor to terrorism and those who claim otherwise have an extremely weak case that they’ve made seem legitimate by repeating it over and over; and if you genuinely think that terrorism is an intrinsically Islamic phenomenon you have a tenuous grasp of both the nature of terrorism and global demography
It weren’t Hindus what blew up the fucking towers mate.
I’m going to guess that the Hindu terrorism is a result of some kind of spiraling ethnic tension (probably with Islam!) or national separatism, and that their tactics suit this. I’d also bet money that the rate of terrorist deaths caused per Hindu is lower by at least a factor of 2.
Now you might well point to US intervention in the Middle East, but you know what “Get The Fuck Out of the Middle East” would look like as a terrorist campaign intended to be actually successful? It would look more like the IRA, and less like this bullshit we’re getting now.
And yes, I don’t think cousins should marry, since that’s relevant to all of this apparently.
So you would support a law banning (let’s say new) cousin marriage, even if it would massively disproportionately effect only one ethnic group, who are predominantly non-white immigrants?
Because that would be a cultural change brought about by immigration, one that has non-trivial bad effects, one that has been stubbornly persisting, the kind you lot are always insisting isn’t real, and banning it would not be respecting cultural diversity and would mostly be dunking on one particular culture.
I would propose a series of bets with you, but I’m fairly confident that’s against some kind of American anti-gambling law.
