Great Bird comments

Virusrex, the back and forth with you "dismantling" my arguments (by changing what I say, by putting words in my mouth at times, not understanding what an opinion is (it's not an attempt to force somebody to do something). brings nothing, so I'll refrain from quotes (also because I seem unable to them properly) and just post a probably last anwer. Probably.

Your argument basically is: The locals wanted the ban, the representatives implemented it. So the decision is right. Locals demand, representatives follow their lead. And with that you then regard every additional individual opinion as irrelevant. (If you're consistent, both supporting and opposing, both local and of outsiders.)

Did I get your argument right?

The problem then is: If that's the whole argument, then the point you have to prove is that this is what the locals wanted. You claiming it isn't enough. You seem to feel "the representatives did it, there's no (widespread) protests by locals" is enough. I don't. If a whole argument depends on that part being right, I need more to accept that. More wasn't provided.

You seem happy with your conclusion, happy to ignore the obvious gap in your circular argument (why is it right? Because that's what the locals wanted. How do we know that's what the locals wanted? It was implemented, so that must be what the locals wanted). Ok, can't change that. But in the end with this absolutist attempted "impersonal" analysis of the situation you close yourself off from exploring other options, it's unnecessary since what is done is right, from seeing something between right and wrong, from seeing an issue from different points of view and from learning new information. That's why in the end you failed miserably in the discussion with Kazuaki Shimazaki. He brought forward interesting points. You just rephrased the same unproven absolutist claim (locals want it like this) over and over and of course couldn't help yourself and misrepresented what Kazuaki said too. In the end I'm still on Hasebe's side on Halloween in Shibuya, but Kazuaki surely made some very interesting points. Unlike you.

Yet you assume the opinion must be different from what their representatives are saying, which again makes no sense. The representatives are there for a reason, and without an obvious declaration they can be validly assumed to reflect the opinion of the locals, yet you blindly assume this must not be the case just because it is the only argument you can make, this remains baseless.

And here's the whole problem. I don't assume the opinion of the locals must be different from what the assembly decided. I'm fully capable of distinguishing between my opinion, which I posted, and the opinion of the locals. Where I asked for something to substantiate your assumption. It's you that seems to have trouble to make that distinction, opinion and assumption, not me. It's you that have repeatedly stated with absolute certainty that the locals saw a problem, the representative took action, reflecting the wishes of the locals. Without ever providing any evidence for it, in whatever form. Your whole argument is based on this assumption. I'm asking for evidence. You, as an outsider, since you made that a topic, and here's where your outsider status comes into play despite your attempts to keep it out of it, make an assumption about the locals opinion. You have the exact same information I have (an assumption, true) but unlike me you confidently assign the locals an opinion. I'm asking for evidence for that claim.

If you want to know what I assume, you could just have asked: You didn't I'll still tell you: Halloween I actually assume that the locals support the "no Halloween campaign". For the general street drinking I'm much less confident in my assumption, but assume that the majority is in the "oh well, I don't really care, but why not ban it" camp. A rather low importance topic for most of the locals. (Which since you seem to be unsure about what is means, I'm not) My assumption is that it's a top down decision as well not a reaction to a widespread grassroot movement that demanded it, but a top down decision (possibly influenced by some complaints) that is now supported by a majority. A majority that wouldn't be upset if the ban wasn't there either.

But my assumption is rather irrelevant to the discussion, which is about your unsubstantiated claim, that's what the whole (pointless since you're unable or unwilling to provide evidence for your repeated claim) discussion is about.

> what argument can you bring that demonstrate that buying one-cups at the convini is at least as profitable as ordering cocktails or glasses of wine in the restaurants?

I don't need to bring any arguments for that. Because you went from "no benefit" to "at least as profitable". Goalpost moved, intellectual honesty missing.

there is a huge difference between you openly accepting you have very little understanding of the situation (something that can be used as an argument against your postion) and thinking this must apply to everybody else as well, specially when the arguments are purposefully made so my place of residence becomes inconsequential.

I never said I have little understanding of the situation. As a matter of fact I think I have a better understanding of the situation than you have. I said I have little first hand experience at night in Shibuya and accept that I can't be regarded as the ultimate authority on that. First hand experience, not understanding of the situation. Different things. Your status as an outsider (assumed outsider) becomes a topic the moment you fail at making your place of residence inconsequential, which is the moment you assign the locals a position without being able to back it up. Either by data, or to a much lesser degree by claiming to be a local. (Which actually doesn't make you an authority on what the other locals think) Which is all I'm really asking. Show me the opinion polls or evidence supporting your claim, which is the cornerstone of your whole argument.

> That is not a valid interpretation

For once you're right. Not a native English speaker, somehow I took "for all anybody knows" as meaning the same as "as everybody knows". Right only on that sentence though, disagree with the next one again, but will let it be.

Your whole argument is basically circular. There was a problem in the view of the locals, the assembly acted. So it's the right decision. How do we know it's the right decision? Because the assembly acted, and it acted because the locals saw a problem. If that's the whole argument, nothing more, then the basis of that argument, the locals had a problem with it, needs to be supported by some evidence. And they are the representatives, so we can validly assume the represent the opinion of the locals doesn't cut it, if that's the center piece of the argument. Without that evidence, you're whole argument becomes worthless.

Apologies for still not being able to make the quotes properly, half my comments in quotes. Someday I'll learn. Maybe.

Clarification on overtourism: The 2 mayors bring that up, I (as an outsider) just question how much Halloween actually has to do with overtourism and come to the conclusion: very little.

The locals obviously are in the place continuously

Actually they are not, since most of them leave the area where the ban now is in place as well. Or do you have any data suggesting that there's people who are in center gai and surrounding areas 24/7?

> The local government is representing the locals, specially those directly affected,

The first part I mentioned in my post myself, good to see you agree. There was no need to repeat it though, since I made it clear that I was interested in data or opinion polls by actual residents, businesses in the area. Not their representatives.

This is more indicative of lack of empathy than an actual lack of a problem.

Not necessarily. That's just your interpretation.

The locals are the ones that support the measure, they obviously think there is a problem even if you, completely on the outside can be free from it. They have a problem, enough to make the local government do something about it.

Again, are you aware of any opinion polls on Halloween and street drinking in general that shows that the people, not their representatives actually have a problem with it? I'm not aware of any, but then I haven't looked for it long and Japanese reading skills aren't all that great either anyway. You keep stating with certainty that they have a problem. Why should we take your statement, that of a completely unaffected outsider, as representing the residents/businesses in the area? You're right, we shouldn't.

> The locals have a problem with specific actions by the visitors, so they ban these specific actions. They have no need or desire to accommodate things to allow the visitors to engage in public drinking since it brings no benefit for them, so why pretend they have to do it? It is not underservice when the site is not offering that service and it is just making that clear.

We're still in that circle. The claim that the locals have a problem with it at some point needs to be supported by some evidence. I'm not claiming there isn't, but as an outsider I don't feel comfortable simply assigning the locals an opinion. As you do.

The claim that public drinking brings no benefit btw is highly doubtful as well. Don't forget you're an outsider too, just because you claim something without substantiating it doesn't make it true. I can see benefits from public drinking to the local economy. Outsider? Yes, but interestingly enough I can see the same benefits where I live, not an outsider.

The measure obviously is going to make people avoid going to Shibuya and Shinjuku to drink on the streets, that is not a problematic side effect but actually the objective of the measures.

Obviously? In an answer to "street drinking in general". Do people now go to Shibuya and Shinjuku specifically to drink on the street? Or do they enjoy a drink on the street when they are there anyway? If it's the latter then what you just wrote is utter nonsense. Your phrasing implies Shibuya has no problem with people drinking on the street as long as they don't come to Shibuya for that purpose. I can assure you, even as an outsider (like yourself) that this isn't the case. This answer btw is indicative of a lack of understanding of what the measure is for. It's not there to have people not come to Shibuya to drink on the streets, but to have people not drink on the streets in Shibuya. Different things. Please inform yourself a bit before commenting.

> We have two sides on this, on one side is the local government that we can validly assume represent the wishes of the local population (since that is the general situation and there is no source that contradicts this assumption) on the other hand we have you that have limited experience on the problem. It should be very clear which side actually knows if this is a problem or not.

Just between us, from outsider to outsider so to say, the whole "you're an outsider so you don't know" smells like avoiding the actual arguments or opinions of the other side. As stupid as my opinion might be, not being a resident of center gai (does that even exist) doesn't invalidate it. 721 people a day drinking in public to me simply doesn't seem a problem, instead of telling me "your opinion doesn't count" you could have told me why you think it is, or why you think the people of Shibuya think it is. Or simply disagree and tell me I'm an idiot. All more honest then "outsiders don't count".

As for "we can validly assume represent the wishes of the local population". That's a bit of a slippery slope, since then every decision by democratically elected parliaments gets the same treatment. It's what the people want. Western governments not doing enough against global warming? Can't criticize it, it's what the people want (We're all stake holders? Well, only people that can't vote in any national elections then are allowed to criticize those decisions, since we can and hopefully do vote in our elections and then have to accept that our opinion is the one that's being implemented.) Tax hike? It's what the people want. State funeral for Abe? It's what the people wanted. Helmets on bicycles? It's what the people want (but weirdly enough don't do)

Why? he is free to do it, specially when he sees benefits when doing locally. If as you say this is not a problem except on certain locations it will not result in a national (or even Tokyo only) ban, but for all anybody knows there are a lot of localities where it is actually a problem and the petition gain traction because the problem was there all along, just not recognized.

Being free to do it doesn't mean it's sensible. I am free to pee beside the toilet at home, but it certainly would be idiotic and far from sensible. I wasn't commenting on his right to do it, but on how sensible it is. And stand by it's idiotic.

Second sentence, do you have an actual quote where I said that it's not a problem except for certain locations? No, you don't, so kindly refrain from changing what I said.

For all anybdy knows there are a lot of localities where it is a problem? After telling me quite a few times that as an outsider I don't really know what's going on, now you claim it's a problem in a lot of localities? I assume you're an outsider in all of them, except maximum 1, so ehm, well, some consistency? Applying your (weak) logic from the Shibuya example, since all those other localities DON'T have a ban in place, the non-ban represents the wishes of the people (we can validly assume according to you) so there actually are NO other localities except Shibuya where it is a problem.

> But then someone else can be made responsible for letting the costumers reach this state, making it more difficult for people to get drunk out of their wits

No idea if that's the case in Japan. And being drunk out of their wits btw is not forbidden, that I know, it's the behaviour when drunk that can be illegal. The same behaviour would also be illegal if you're completely sober. But, I dare to claim without any data, becomes more likely when you're drunk.

Argh, wrong quote above, the following shouldn't be quoted, my comment.

Do we have any data on that? Yes, I know how it works, they elect an assembly, the assembly votes, they represent the people, so in that sense yes. But are there any opinion polls on that?

Virusrex

While I generally agree with 95% or so of what you write (thanks for being a voice of reason on Covid, etc etc.) on this one, I don't really see it the way you do.

You keep repeating things like

The locals don't want the problem

Do we have any data on that? Yes, I know how it works, they elect an assembly, the assembly votes, they represent the people, so in that sense yes. But are there any opinion polls on that?

Now I would make a distinction between Halloween and the new ban now. Halloween, ok, after the truck incident years ago, was clear that something had to be done. Interesting that Hasebe said that they tried with Yoyogi park, but that of course people want to take their picture with the scramble crossing and center gai, so go there anyway. Makes sense, hard to move it. And makes sense to try to get rid of wild "Halloween in Shibuya". (Actually it might be easier to just get rid of the scramble crossing, that's what attracts tourists to Shibuya in the first place, build an overpass, covering the whole intersection, put Hachiko up there too and be done with that)

But the rest of the year? Now I'm not in Shibuya in the evening all that often, but I really haven't noticed any big difference in public drinking (or in general, except of course Yamashita Koen where now you feel on a different planet if you're over 25 years old) compared to 20 years ago. The mayor in the FCCJ press conference said street drinking in center gai increased from 250 per day one year ago to up to 721. After the ban on the weekend 217. That's per day and to be honest I don't really see the problem even with the higher number. Do the locals? Specifically the businesses in center gai and the people that walk through going home? Not the person living in Sasazuka,

To me the ban seems pretty pointless, it's a solution to a non-existing problem. Or a very very minor problem.

Overtourism? First, overtourism in Japan in some cases could also be called "underservice".

On Halloween then I would guess the vast majority of foreigners that go to Halloween are residents. 1) Japanese 2) Foreign residents 3) Tourists With tourists likely increasing the longer it goes on. But when years ago I was forced to walk through center gai by a bunch of my wife's japanese friends, that wanted to see the zoo on Halloween, the vast majority were Japanese, that was unlikely to change. The connection to overtourism is very weak I think.

Street drinking in general. 2/3 foreigners Hasebe said, on some weekdays Japanese the majority, of course the data since the ban is basically non-existent and not very representative, he never really makes clear if he's talking averages, maximum etc. either. And yes, that's probably in large part tourists. But again, 721 people drinking on a street in a day, I fail to see the problem. They are loud? Center gai IS loud. Shibuya IS loud. The trash? Underservice, I don't think there's a law against trash cans on the street, I don't think they couldn't divert some of these great silver jobs that patrol the street with anti-smoking signs, check for illegal bike parking to trash bag changers. The tourists drinking block the street? First part of center gai is basically pedestrian, don't see the big problem. But yes, can happen, but it's not like Shibuya is the perfect place for speed walking anyway, if it's not public drinkers it's people taking pictures, high school students hanging out.

As for Shinjuku and Halloween. 3000 people came, IMO that would be no problem. But can understand that they don't want to get it started, this year 5000, next year 20'000 etc. The trash, Kabukicho is the last place in Japan that can complain about trash really. Ok, is cleaner than it used to be 25 years ago, but still. But can see they don't want to see it grow, makes sense. So block now.

So while I understand the Halloween issues, the yearlong drinking ban to me looks like an overreaction to a not really existing problem. And when Hasebe says that he wants to ask the Japanese government for a national ban on street drinking, sorry, that's just absolutely idiotic. Yes, used to live in Meidaimae, Friday evenings coming home used to be a hurdle course, in front of the station step over collapsed Meiji students and their puke, but in general public drinking in Japan simply isn't a problem. Conbini close to where I live has the occasional people, group of friends, couples in their 50es, almost any demographic really, sitting on nearby benches enjoying a cold beer in the 95% summer evening humidity. They don't bother anybody, puzzling that they prefer the humidity to the nice air conditioning at home, but as long as I'm not forced to join...The idea to forbid stuff like that is just idiotic. And it really wouldn't solve any problems with drunkeness, that do exist, either. It's not like if you get drunk in a bar you're then calmer on the way home.

Recently, South Korea, which has run out of topics about prostitutes and forced laborers, has started to claim that a massacre occurred during the Great Kanto Earthquake.

Have you learned to read just recently? Because the claim, supported by evidence, is far from new. To be precise, over 101 years old (Of course there was no South Korea then so the claim by South Korea is newer;) ). The denial by racist Japanese isn't new either, but is getting stronger. History hating racists can't see a single topic to leave alone. But of course there is no reason for non-racist Japanese to willlingly accept the lies and distortions by the racist Japanese.

Anyway, congrats for your achievement! Learning to read!

Reader's choice. Mostly Americans voting I guess.

Japan number 1, why not. It's still a fairly new destination, so interesting. Transportation is easy, it's safe, food, nowadays with the exchange rate cheap. And there is lots to see, although "historical buildings".... English is slowly slowly improving too, 20 years ago the only English you could find in parks, museums etc were the signs forbidding stuff, nowadays there's a bit more. Still surprisingly weak English generally of course.

Nothing wrong with Japan as number 1 tourist destination.

Bad HaircutToday 11:32 am JST

I think weight is a less important factor than encroaching on neighbouring passengers' seats. Perhaps put in a frame at check-in that people need to walk through that is the width of the economy class seat between the midpoints of the armrests. If they can't get through when standing normally, they need to pay extra. Otherwise it's unfair on the people sitting next to them. Exceptions could be made in situations where there are adjacent empty seats, but on full flights it should be non-negotiable.

Are you sure you thought this through? How is it fair for neighbouring passengers if the guy who takes up parts of your seat has payed more money to the airline?

The far-right pretending not to know what far-right means is always a highlight here.

Bad news for everyone, visited Paris and London back in the early 90's had a blast with two friends, never felt threatened or in danger or even seen any trouble around.

And of course Paris is as safe now as it was then. Probably even safer.

I don't think anyone is buying the argument of these liberal Marxists.

Yeah, the liberal Marxists! Even though it remains an undiscovered species, they sure are a big problem. Work a bit on your labels please.

M3M3M3Today 02:16 pm JST

I used to be against the death penalty in my youth but as I grow older I now think it should remain in place, if only as a tradition that connects us to our past and a symbolic reminder that our very lives and continued existence depends partly on peaceful coexistence with other people who make up society. It is used so sparingly in Japan that it can only be symbolic.

A tradition that connects to our past? Kill people as tradition in the name of peaceful coextistence?

Ok, let's have some burnt witches (in the name of gender equality maybe) , the occasional holocaust (in the name of tolerance), hope for a comeback of the plague (to show the importance of vaccines). We need connections with the past. Unless we can come up with some better ideas.. Come on, let's just kill our taste buds and eat original Sushi, probably a more sensible connection to the past.

Give me a break. Go take a look at European cities, they are filled with crime and trash.

Actually they are not. Maybe you should go have a look? What the trash has to do with the death penalty is a bit mysterious though.

Yeah, liberals focus on Swift and abortion and Trump will focus on the US and the economy. Lol

Seems Trump is focusing on Swift. Lol indeed.

There was a time when Singers didnt get into Politics, it should stay that way, they know nothing about politics, they only know about overdose and bad sleep.

When was that time exactly? And why would singers, actors etc. be less informed about politics than let's say doctors, plumbers and businessmen?

As soon as a car comes along, the selfish driver will expect everyone to get out of its way. There are no pavements, no bike lanes, and no traffic calming measures. City planning at its very worst.

Not at its worst. By having the streets fairly narrow, lots of intersections without traffic lights, cars won't speed, makes it safer than the bigger 2 lanes each way roads for sure.

My personal read on this is that they fear an attack on Taiwan from China and are revising this make it easier to enter into armed conflict in the region without being actually attacked.

I could be wrong, but that's my reading of it.

Confirmed. Dead accurate. You interpreted it right. Japan recognizes that they need more wiggle room on the ability to defend itself and her allies. Not to make war. But to coordinate and lend a hand strategically.

Completely wrong. That has been taken care by Abe's re-interpretation of article 9 in 2014 or 15 or whenever it was.

This here is nothing but lip-service. To keep all the right-wingers in the LDP. To get donations. That's all. The constant call for the revision of the constitution has been here for decades. New plans every few years too. Now the newest plan. But it's only to give the impression that they are doing something. The LDP knows it has no chance in hell to touch article 9. And little chances to change anything else in the constitution, that was the plan a few years ago, change something else as a test run, to see if they manage to get the needed 50%+ in the referendum for something uncontroversial. But they never even tried that, suspecting that people would know it's a test run for the big article 9 attack, and vote against it anyway.

Same this time, just for show. If they were serious they could have tried this under Kishida. But they are afraid of the big defeat in a referendum, so they just keep it alive as a talking point, without any serious intention of actually trying. If and when they feel the need for some actual changes they just do it through legistlation, re-interprete the meaning of article 9. As was done under Abe.