Good luck with this. Because youtube literally had tons of spoilers about anime,manga and light novels. Is like trying to drain water from the ocean. Guess doesn’t hurt for the lack of trying.
They can always hope for the chilling effect.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Why should the Japanese government have to pay the compo, should it not down to the US government to pay out as it THEM that make the noise?
Pragmatic reasons aside, from a legal angle it is For the same reason the South Korean supreme court verdict over the forced labor issue is incorrect - international obligations being separate from domestic ones.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Ultimately, the issue at hand is not one of facts: whether there are victims, or how many, how badly they are treated. The issue here is very simple one of law: whether settlements by treaty are final.
If we are intellectually honest about it instead of backing Korean sophistry, that treaty settled all claims. That's what a literal reading of the wording (at least in English) would say and what was clearly meant (Korea didn't nearly have the oompf to force Japan to sign a treaty that not only makes it cough money, but doesn't end the issue).
If you allow pathetic little outs like "individual" claims, then what you are saying is that even after a treaty is signed and the agreed-upon amount coughed up, the courts can still unilaterally and arbitrarily demand any amount of money they want, and even repeatedly, so long as they are willing to sink low enough to sign off on the necessary "verdicts".
There is clearly something inequitable and hooliganistic (as in, contemptuous of international order and relationships) about such a thought pattern.
And when I said the West should assess priorities, I'm saying that they should have considered that allowing this contempt to international law and the sanctity of treaties is a greater threat to the international order than any dispute of facts, or "those poor victims".
6 ( +8 / -2 )
Typical Korean lack of respect for the rule of law. Blame must go to the West who is unable to assess priorities on this issue.
11 ( +27 / -16 )
Is it absolutely necessary to interject politics into a sports story?
Maybe not, but I suspect that's really how the Chinese saw it...
2 ( +3 / -1 )
All of this goes down to not having enough child care institutions.
You can have all the child care institutions in the world, but as long as we have biological tendencies, more women will want to leave work to care for the newborn children.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Burning BushToday 12:10 pm JST
Other drivers will quickly learn that the AI is programmed to yield in every single case to avoid a collision at all cost. Everybody will take advantage of this flaw.
There are two things you might consider:
1) The program may be designed to yield, but immediately upload video evidence of your trangressions. A ticket might be sent by mail to your home.
2) If you fail and bump the vehicle, they might decide you are not partially, but 100% at fault. Further, should you kill someone, your careless driving leading to death (negligence) charge might be upgraded to a homicide charge due to your clear indifference to safety.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
@HARRYOToday 10:45 am JST
Here are some other outcomes:
1) The bullies also have weapons, and they thrash him even worse.
2) They don't, so they retreat, but they complain to the boss THEY were threatened with a weapon. The boss sides with them.
3) They retreat, but they NEXT time they bring more buddies with weapons.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Well, Wolfpack. They sent the Americans home. Now they are completely unable to resist China.
-5 ( +5 / -10 )
nitpickynedToday 06:48 am JST
「いかなる場合も女性が不当に差別されることはあってはならない」seems to be the quote. This begs the question of 'what is their definition of 'fair discrimination' (正当な差別）?
AFAIK, it is a phrasing that puzzles Japanese as well, but I think what he's shooting for is a zone of discriminations that are unworthy but might just have societal pluses that outweigh the negativity.
It isn't something like test grades, or really high strength requirements for a job that indeed requires them, because the word 差別 implies unworthiness.
It is something like a women's only car. Now, it is undoubtedly a favorable measure for women at the expense of men (how big or small aside) and implies certain negative assumptions about men as a whole, but do you support them? Would your answer be the same regarding trains in states other than Japan?
As to whether this case is justifiable, I'll side on no, but I do feel the problem is a bit more multi-faceted than just a hard No. The raw statistics are indeed that women leave more than men. The causes are complex and theoretical. Not every cause is under the control of the school or hospital, and even if every humanly soluble cause is handled, as long as we have families in our current mold it's likely more females than males will leave their jobs once the baby comes out.
To take an extreme example, suppose that 100% of women will statistically leave at age 30. So accepting women, regardless of their grades will mean you get a doctor who works for less than 10 years, making them significantly less worthy as Return on Investment and may make them completely useless in roles that require a lot of experience. Will a quota then be justified? If yes, then at some point of difference between female and male retention you will have to allow for some discrimination.
And if you won't even in such a circumstance, then there is also a negative consequence involved here in that you are knowingly putting money into people who won't stay. To knowingly ignore such statistics also has a certain cost.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
@MrBumAug. 9 10:38 am JST
Japan seems to care a lot. They protest every time SK brings up the issue, and that in turn angers SK and causes them to talk about it even more.
Perhaps you should be a little more concerned about South Korea's contempt of an agreement that was actually beneficial to it and was unforced? Maybe it reveals a certain hooliganistic sentiment in South Koreans about agreements in general? What's cute when it happens to Japan might not be so cute when it happens to you.
If you need live examples, think about Japan and China. Since the 1980s, the Chinese have been interfering in Japanese affairs. And you, the West, let it happen. You thought it was cute. You thought it was OK to make Yasukuni a bigger deal than entire missile brigades being built... You let yourselves think being a bit light in coverage on Nanking in a high school textbook is worse than China's own extremist indoctrination of its citizenry.
Fast forward to 2018, and countries like Australia and the US are feeling the interference. Not so much fun now, isn't it. Maybe if you should had taken a principled stance from the start, we could have avoided this.
So perhaps we should be more principled here as well... and prioritize telling South Korea, a deal is a deal.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
South Korea, the nation without credibility, yet few would care because "Poor Comfort Women".
21 ( +28 / -7 )
I think having something unconditional was agreed by china, the UK, US, and Russia, and they all had their reason to ask for that. After all Japan wanted all those countries to submit to Japan conditions.
After all Japan wanted all those countries to submit to Japan conditions.
IMO, it is a flawed approach to compare "submitting to [certain] conditions" and "unconditional surrender", which was something relatively groundbreaking in modern history, and was also basically not done again.
But perhaps the more relevant words are "reason". In other words, they want to. It is something desirable. It is not something they need. It is not necessary.
Since they had a choice, and it can hardly be considered a case of self-defense or whatever by that point, they purposely killed civilians to get what they want, not what they need. In other words, they killed to Feel Good.
I'll also point out that it is not atypical for a weak country to deliberately fight a war against a stronger one. If every weak country had to assume every brush will lead to strong country dedicating 100% of its national power and won't stop until it is completely ruined, every weak country will be unconditionally submissive to the strong state. That's clearly not the case.
-4 ( +5 / -9 )
@Ike-in-Tokyo-from-89Today 04:48 pm JST
To Japanese air defenses the three plane formation appeared to be yet another reconnaissance flight, hence no attempt to intercept. Not an indication of inability.
Recce flight or not, no country likes the idea of another country's military planes over its airspace, peacetime or wartime. They might be saving up for "real bomber attacks", but the fact they are not putting anything up is a strong sign of lack of capability.
The verge of capitulation? A significant portion of the high command wanted to continue the war even knowing the nature of the Hiroshima bomb before Nagasaki. Why do you think the peace faction had to hide Emperor Showa’s recording?
Quite frankly, I can hardly blame them. While its fashionable for Americans to think "Surrendering to us isn't so bad", at that moment, Americans to Japanese are a bunch of monsters that are perfectly happy to kill by the thousand, as long as it is with bombs (for some reason, they make a wierd distinction between using knives and bombs).
-7 ( +3 / -10 )
@BubblegunToday 12:38 pm JST
Here's a question for you. Why is the option of leaving well-enough alone and NOT pressing for unconditional surrender not even on your list of variants?
-6 ( +6 / -12 )
Interesting. Despite the weakness of the evidence, 5 out of 7 of the first commentators here seem to completely go on the assumption he did it. Do they know something that's not apparent in this article?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
This case is pretty blatant. Oh, I'm sure it has been going on. In for example essay questions, there's quite a bit of discretion to rate one person's essay over another's. But multiple choice? That's a whole new level. We are going from the "residual discrimination" in a modern society to something more akin to the 19th century.
SchopenhauerToday 09:58 am JST
Why does Japan have to adjust to the western standards? We have different ideas to view the world.
Then at least have the conviction to admit the facts - the women were just as good as the men (at least according to the test you devised to guess at their future potential), but you aren't accepting them at the proportionate rate because...
9 ( +9 / -0 )
@AgentXToday 11:27 am JST
The schools do have pictures of their leaders and teach the history of North Korea. But that is no different to Japanese private schools in other countries having pictures of Abe or the Emperor hanging up and teaching their own language and history. Which they do.
Except, AgentXToday, they are teaching North Korean history in Japan, instead of Japanese history in Japan. Which leads to the problem of why Japanese should pay to have a bunch of Koreans teach North Korean history in Japan instead of Japanese history.
As for whether it is "hate education", I don't have such great sources either. What IS known, however, is that even in South Korea, education quickly gains an "anti-Japanese slant"
(The link includes some of those infamous pictures drawn by South Korean children several years back, which if I remember correctly were blamed on a North Korean affiliated school or somesuch).
So prima facie, I don't find such a claim that unreasonable.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
No surprise here. Also no surprise the government completely lied when it said it would NEVER restart NPPs without the complete support of the local residents.
Well, I forgot exactly what they promised by now. But if they literally said the same thing as you, no one should ever have taken it seriously, for the simple reason you can't get 100% of a large body of people to agree on anything.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
To be fair to that guy, here's what he said:
However, as the amount of discussion on severe sexual harassment increases on (my?) timeline, (I) start wanting to say "My hobby is sexual harassment. Doesn't it feel good?"
(After all,) saying is not the same as doing it, and some statements of "I don't sex harass" can be taken like my above statement - meaningless.
21 ( +24 / -3 )
@papigiulio Today 05:57 pm JST
IMO, the most dangerous thing to free speech is when people try to rationalize and categorize away little portions of it in salami-slicing tactics. And I think we should applaud a country that's willing to stand up to that populist pressure (the international pressure on this topic is populist) and favor the defense of the more fundamental, universally useful right.
@borschtToday 07:34 pm JST
Sorry, this position is fundamentally wrong. When speech has consequences, it is no longer free. The government is only the most major threat to freedom of speech, but in most first world countries, they retreat to the background, and the main challengers become either major corporations (like Youtube) or populist movements.
@thepersoniamnowToday 08:03 pm JST
This mayor needs to explain once again why he let a hate group setup shop and then when asked about it, referred to regular meetings and how they are allowed by the city.
What he said is that as a rule, the government permits gatherings, without being very picky about their content. Which is exactly what a government should do.
@IloveCoffeeToday 09:14 pm JST
Not only is that school pretty picked, but what's so bad about the content?
Line 1: Adults should ensure Japan shouldn't lose to other nations and defend the Senkakus, Takeshima and the Northern Territories.
Line 2: China and Korea, who treat Japan as evil, should change their hearts
Line 3: and stop lying in their textbooks.
Line 4: Go go, Abe!
Line 5: It's good the Security legislation passes.
Really, what's so horrible? Yeah, I'm sure they didn't really understand the content of the security legislation, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad idea. Chinese and Koreans aren't exactly being asked to die or leave, just to stop a perceived wrongdoing.
Recently, the term "weaponized narrative" has shown up in the West, basically about how China exploits Western fears of racism to delay their taking defensive actions against a very clear propaganda and sharp power offensive effort. Hmm, haven't we seen this before? In Japan? It was so cute when it was only Japan, wasn't it? Not so cute when their claws are coming for you...
0 ( +8 / -8 )
@papigiulio Today 04:35 pm JST
Should've given the guy a ribbon instead.
Sorry, no. 67-year-old fulfilled the definitional elements of a crime while 52-year-old was a victim while trying to exercise his free speech rights as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Japanese constitution. There is no reason to not arrest 67yo here.
-2 ( +10 / -12 )
@gogogoToday 06:27 pm JST
Focus on the economy and jobs not 17 people missing decades ago.
I find it enormously hypocritical for people to think so little of the crime of a state kidnapping 17 people who even by their own acknowledge are hardly "terrorists" or "dissidents" or anything of that sort.
-6 ( +3 / -9 )
1) For all the complaints about this law not being binding or not mandating punishments, I must wonder whether a law that explicitly mandates a certain percentage of women with punishments for failure will pass the constitutionality test.
2) It is not quite as useless as people make it out to be. It establishes new duties and declares certain things to be right. The duties aren't bound by mandatory fines, but they do provide a legal basis and justification for any party that wants to set internal policies to follow it, without fear they'll be hit by a countersuit. It also means that a party not fulfilling this duty can theoretically be sued for civil damages.
Basically, think of the Kimigayo law - that also did not specify any punishments, but it did tilt the deck.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
@clamenzaToday 08:52 am JST
Perhaps you could at least start by being honest enough to note that you cite came from a "Jewish News Syndicate" and the title of the relevant article was "Hamas paying protesters to charge Gaza border, Israel reveals", which should be translated as "Israel claims".
5 ( +6 / -1 )
@maybeperhapsyesToday 12:53 pm JST
Trust me...it's there.
I acknowledge its significant and there. But the figures commonly rolling around suggest it IS indeed a much lesser problem in Japan, by an order of magnitude:
That said, drug use in Japan appears to be significantly lower than the figures reported abroad. According to statistics compiled by the health ministry in February, 0.4 percent of the Japanese population aged between 15 and 64 years old have tried stimulants at least once in their life. In the United States, 5.1 percent of the population over the age of 12 has tried meth at least once. Meanwhile, 41.9 percent of Americans have tried marijuana at least once in their life, compared to 1.2 percent of the Japanese population.
(not exactly the most pro-Japanese paper)
1 ( +1 / -0 )
@DisillusionedToday 08:32 am JST
It is in quotation marks, that's why. I'm actually not as against the idea as you. Unfortunately, the West DOES have a bigger drug problem than Japan, and it is not impossible they could have been the motivation. Sometimes, people do have to recognize that they have disadvantages, rather than insisting that those disadvantages are not used against them...
-4 ( +3 / -7 )
BungleToday 09:52 am JST
Speaking of apartheid, try being a Jew in a Muslim majority country. See how this works? Israel is the only, and will remain the only, secular democracy in the Middle East.
While I imagine it is not pleasant, I cannot remember the name of a Muslim majority country where a Jew would have to face the armed forces everyday...
13 ( +15 / -2 )
@quercetumMay 14 10:22 am JST
It should. In fact, the whole ignorance of the law is no excuse has always been something of a theoretical thorn in the side. There are a number of rationalizations for it which basically come down to We have to Pretend it is Such because otherwise criminal law won't work.
Amusingly, while we teach calculus that few would use, history that few would remember ... and even a smattering of the Constitution, nobody feels the need to make even the basics of criminal law part of compulsory education.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
@Simon Foston Today 08:52 am JST
I don't see how one law aimed at protecting life can be equated with another aimed at ensuring appropriate behaviour from public servants.
They both concern rights. One is the right to life, and the other is the right to free speech.
So do you think they should change the law so SDF personnel can say what they like about the elected representatives of the public they serve
I actually do, and so far you have not been presenting me with reasons to think otherwise. The people of Japan certainly have no reservations dissing the SDF, the moreso in the past. In fact, being able to speak as freely as the regular person on this issue may actually prevent such incidents.
I would expect even a 17 or 18 year old to show a bit more maturity and restraint than this individual was capable of after almost two decades of service.
While I'll give you some points on that, perhaps then he should only suffer a similar level of consequences that would befall say a businessman of similar age for a similar act?
Yes, I feel a bit more sympathy for a young woman who isn't allowed to have relationships than for a whiny man-child who can't have a rant when he feels like it and should in fact be acting as a role model for the lower ranks.
Have you considered the possibility that it may be his sense of responsibility towards the lower ranks that has motivated this outburst?
What escapes almost all Westerners when they see the equipment and the men is how legally restricted the SDF is. Tom Clancy might have written Debt of Honor about aggressive Japanese, but real Japanese SDF officers tend to see the problem as whether they'll even be allowed to fight in self-defense given the current legal structure of Japan.
For a easily understandable example of the poor state of "legal preparation", in comparison to the medics in foreign militaries, the range of interventions (thus, the injured he can save) a SDF medic can administer is severely limited in comparison to his foreign counterpart because a lot of what his foreign counterpart can do is considered "medical acts" and can only be done by a doctor.
They also get allocated the worst frequencies, so the radios don't penetrate walls nearly as well as their foreign counterparts.
Live 20 years under such conditions, and you may want to throttle one of those opposition lawmakers whose inaction and resistance helps ensure none of this gets changed?
I think the main difference is actually that the SDF law applies whether SDF personnel are on duty or not. Doesn't it? Otherwise how could any disciplinary measures have been taken?
Again, you can't justify punishments for exercise of a freedom just by pointing to a law. Or do you agree with the Chinese government concerning the treatment of "dissidents" like Liu Xiaobo. They have a law they can point to too.
Maybe. I wouldn't presume any such thing about what another person was saying or thinking, personally.
Yet you presumed he is in "denial" or "ignorant" about what SDF personnel are and are not allowed to do? (Yes, you used an interrogative, but I really cannot say a reader would see it that way).
In official punishment terms, yes that was a slap on the wrist. I don't know if dcog9605 thought as far as to the realistic consequences of even a "slap on the wrist". However, either way, the only way to avoid a high probability of this outcome would be to completely fumon the entire affair, so he may as well be happy for what can be done.
I'm sure you've heard of the term zero defects, have you? The SDF isn't quite as competitive as the US military b/c something like half the SDF officers are from the ranks and those don't really get to promote past Major. Nevertheless that still leaves a lot of competition and few decisive ways to tell them apart. You can easily see how this little black mark would likely be the determinant, can you?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
What a bunch of hogwash. The only people that want to see them are the Democrats, https://thehill.com/homenews/house/397471-gop-lawmaker-renews-call-for-trump-to-release-tax-returns-following-putin other than that…