[The E]

I tried to formulate a response to that bunch of ... questionable statements, but I failed. I can't formulate arguments that can get through to someone like you.

[Lorric]

I tried to formulate a response to that bunch of ... questionable statements, but I failed. I can't formulate arguments that can get through to someone like you.

Someone like me? I don't think you know me very well. Although you're learning I think, you've made some wrong assumptions about me in the past.

[The E]

Going by your past posts, you are either very young, or very naive, or both. You exhibit a marked tendency to not think about what you post. I have no good way of talking to someone like that without resorting to language I'd rather not use, because you've also remarked in the past that you do not react well to people flat out stating that you are wrong.

So I am not going to try.

[Lorric]

Going by your past posts, you are either very young, or very naive, or both. You exhibit a marked tendency to not think about what you post. I have no good way of talking to someone like that without resorting to language I'd rather not use, because you've also remarked in the past that you do not react well to people flat out stating that you are wrong.

So I am not going to try.

I guess if you're not in a good mood we shouldn't talk about this then. If I get going, it might not end well. If I get going I'll want to keep going. Maybe another time.

[Mebber]

Hitler from what I understand largely got people on his side due to his ability as a speaker. He could just say things and make people believe it. That won't fly today, we don't have to just take someone's word anymore. The people in power are no longer the only ones who can reach a global audience. Anyone can do it. And the past is on our side. Everyone knows about the nazis. The nazis still exist today, but they're a joke.

A major part of Hitlers success was his exploition of peoples' fears, prejudices and wishes, something still absolutely common and easy to abuse in modern society. It's an easy way to get public appeal. That's just one factor of his success, but this particular one functions today just as well as it did 80 years ago, and all the ages before. The digital age and the fact that every idiot can spread his view of the world doesen't change this. We don't have to just take someones word, that's right, the digital age gives us plenty of options to recherche things or to obtain different, opposing opinions on a topic to build a own, differentiated view, but unfortunately many people just don't do this. Maybe because it is very easy and comfortable to believe in simple and appealing explanations, like blaming others for whatever (now how common is that? You can see it everywhere).

[Lorric]

Hitler from what I understand largely got people on his side due to his ability as a speaker. He could just say things and make people believe it. That won't fly today, we don't have to just take someone's word anymore. The people in power are no longer the only ones who can reach a global audience. Anyone can do it. And the past is on our side. Everyone knows about the nazis. The nazis still exist today, but they're a joke.

A major part of Hitlers success was his exploition of peoples' fears, prejudices and wishes, something still absolutely common and easy to abuse in modern society. It's an easy way to get public appeal. That's just one factor of his success, but this particular one functions today just as well as it did 80 years ago, and all the ages before. The digital age and the fact that every idiot can spread his view of the world doesen't change this. We don't have to just take someones word, that's right, the digital age gives us plenty of options to recherche things or to obtain different, opposing opinions on a topic to build a own, differentiated view, but unfortunately many people just don't do this. Maybe because it is very easy and comfortable to believe in simple and appealing explanations, like blaming others for whatever (now how common is that? You can see it everywhere).

I can certainly agree with this. Especially that last line. I liked your post at the end of pg5 as well.

[MP-Ryan]

That won't fly today, we don't have to just take someone's word anymore.

*snort*

Ever paid attention to an election in a democracy?  Know how many people do their own research?  Here's a hint - the proportion is so tiny that it makes zero difference to an election outcome.  People are inherently inclined to believe those in power, and furthermore the beliefs of those in power are reflective of the citizenry that put them there.  I could point to a half-dozen countries off the top of my head where some element of the citizenry have education and access to the Internet, and irrational and hateful beliefs still permeate their elected representatives (a couple of these are democracies on the African continent), and the citizens that put them there.

There's also the issue of selective instruction.  Japan is one example of a country that skips over entire periods of its history because it is embarrassing, which in turn allows bull**** like that which started this thread to arise because people are not educated - and indeed, show no signs of educating themselves on the subject.

You are demonstrating a spectacular level of naiveté for someone who has purportedly studied history.  You continually fail to grasp that politicians do not come up with or espouse ideas in a vacuum - they are derived from the people that give them political support.  In the case of these Japanese politicians, there are obviously enough people who put up with these things that they feel comfortable making outrageous and historically-inaccurate remarks.

[Phantom Hoover]

just because it's necessary to study history to learn the lessons of the past doesn't mean it's sufficient

[Mebber]

There's also the issue of selective instruction.  Japan is one example of a country that skips over entire periods of its history because it is embarrassing, which in turn allows bull**** like that which started this thread to arise because people are not educated - and indeed, show no signs of educating themselves on the subject.

What really makes me wonder aren't people who follow some sort of idea or opinion based on a lack of historical knowledge, but the ones who are actually supposed to have that knowledge, and still believe in something which completely neglects this knowledge. Denial of historical facts or historical relativisation isn't limited to people who simply"don't know better", educational wise. I'd count someone who is Prime minister among those people, although rank is no guarantor for a good education. Nikogori reported a little bit about japanese history lessons concerning this matter in this thread, and it didn't sound like japanese atrocities where disguised in school either. While education is important and the lack of it can really boost "wrong" or relativising views in public opinion, i think it is neither the main reason behind such statements, nor the way to avoid them (by improving said education).

It's like a guy in a local anti-neonazi group said once to me: "The real problem aren't the common uneducated thug-like neonazis you'll encounter on the street, the real problem are the people behind it - the guys who are actual lawyers, politicans and authors, the guys with the brains."

[Lorric]

That won't fly today, we don't have to just take someone's word anymore.

*snort*

Ever paid attention to an election in a democracy?  Know how many people do their own research?  Here's a hint - the proportion is so tiny that it makes zero difference to an election outcome.  People are inherently inclined to believe those in power, and furthermore the beliefs of those in power are reflective of the citizenry that put them there.  I could point to a half-dozen countries off the top of my head where some element of the citizenry have education and access to the Internet, and irrational and hateful beliefs still permeate their elected representatives (a couple of these are democracies on the African continent), and the citizens that put them there.

There's also the issue of selective instruction.  Japan is one example of a country that skips over entire periods of its history because it is embarrassing, which in turn allows bull**** like that which started this thread to arise because people are not educated - and indeed, show no signs of educating themselves on the subject.

You are demonstrating a spectacular level of naiveté for someone who has purportedly studied history.  You continually fail to grasp that politicians do not come up with or espouse ideas in a vacuum - they are derived from the people that give them political support.  In the case of these Japanese politicians, there are obviously enough people who put up with these things that they feel comfortable making outrageous and historically-inaccurate remarks.

Oh, politics... there is little in this World that I am more disillusioned with.

Perhaps I am giving people too much credit. Is there any way to find out how many people do their own research? A link to a poll or something? I’m not sure how to google such a thing. I would really like to know. I’m probably letting my experiences with people I have brought the subject up with get in the way too. More on that soon. I do know some people vote in a… less than educated way, shall we say, but I would have thought more people would research, even if just a little. Are you sure about those in power? The impression I get is most people don’t believe politicians at all, they think they’re liars and scum. They are not trusted. I never like to let the views of politicians influence my views of the people of a country, but I can see how some people would. Also, in general people I have talked to when the subject has come up (which is rare, I don’t like politics, so it usually only ever comes up around an election) take voting seriously. Yet at the same time usually end up taking my view in the end that no one is worth a vote. The people I refer to there are in my country. A friend of mine a few months ago spoke of his first vote. He lives in the US, and it was Obama vs. McCain. He had been very excited at finally getting to vote and had gone to great lengths to research the two men. He had started out wanting to see every debate, to grab every piece of information he possibly could. And much like me the experience sapped away his enthusiasm, he went from being extremely passionate about being able to vote to feeling next to nothing. Which is making me really very sad just thinking back to it. And they say the young don’t care. There’s a reason for that, they don’t have a reason to care. I know the type of person my friend is, and I know he would have given it everything to choose correctly. If only politics could get you excited. Like my friend, I had all this passion about voting the first time. Gone. The vote is important to me. It’s the single most influential thing I can do. But I wonder if there’s anywhere in the World where you can experience being torn over who to vote for, not because you can’t decide who’ll do the least damage, but because you can’t decide who’ll do the most good. Damage limitation is always the mentality I have when it’s time to think about a vote, not who’s the best, even though it’s one and the same, it’s the negative feeling.

Wouldn’t you need a strong element of the people, like a first World country, to have access to the internet and education? Surely just an element isn’t enough?

I haven’t studied history in any way that would mean I can show off some fancy qualification, but it is something which genuinely interests me. Politics though? Politics turn me off. I don’t think there was any study at school either into Hitler’s actual rise into power, only what he did once he actually took it. I don’t like politics. It certainly stands to reason I could be naïve about the subject. I probably am. I pay little attention to politics when there isn’t a vote to be made. Only on the impact decisions these politicians make will have. Wouldn’t it be nice if people just put up their own beliefs? Step up to the crowd and talk about your own beliefs and ideas and goals. Everyone does it and the most compatible for the people wins the most votes. Imagine if two fantastic examples of humanity were what you had to choose from to become the most powerful person on the planet, the president of the United States. Imagine if voting was exciting. Listening to great people talk and determining which of them is the best. Yes, I know all that is a fanciful dream, before someone tells me I’m naïve again, thank you. Politicians won’t think like me. If it was me, hypothetically (because it would never happen) going into politics, my beliefs and policies would be entirely my own. I would simply step up and speak of them, and let the people decide if they were compatible with their own and vote.

Politicians turn me off. I can see in their eyes and hear in their voices, they have little or no passion, no conviction. Why am I going to listen to you if you aren’t speaking with passion or conviction? However, I don’t think the UK election system is as bad as the US one by a long shot. I’ve no idea what it’s like in Canada (you are Canadian, are you not, MP-Ryan?)

So you’ve managed to swing us back to the original topic talking about Japanese politicians. But could they really drum up any support from this kind of talk? I find it hard to believe that such a thing would be relevant to running a country and aid in an election victory. I could imagine it being an issue when it comes up that makes people just think “Oh, it’s just politicians talking about that old thing again.” and carry on with what they’re doing. I just can’t see how it could possibly swing someone to vote. I’d love to know what was central to his campaign victory.

I’m sorry this post hasn’t been more coherent. But thank you for what you said, it has made me think, even if my thoughts have wandered around somewhat. My brain hurts. I might be done for the day

[Mebber]

But could they really drum up any support from this kind of talk? I find it hard to believe that such a thing would be relevant to running a country and aid in an election victory.

Why do you find it hard to believe? For me, it's the most common thing in the world. Elections aren't about effective or reasonable programs, at least not in my experience. Elections are about popular programs or statements. By the way, i don't even think people like Abe make these statements out of pure calculation, i guess many believe in them for the very same reasons these statements are popular in public. And nationalistic statements and views, even if they are unreasonable, can be very popular to many people i guess. The reasons for this are complicated, but i'd dare to say it works in every country.

[Lorric]

But could they really drum up any support from this kind of talk? I find it hard to believe that such a thing would be relevant to running a country and aid in an election victory.

Why do you find it hard to believe? For me, it's the most common thing in the world. Elections aren't about effective or reasonable programs, at least not in my experience. Elections are about popular programs or statements. By the way, i don't even think people like Abe make these statements out of pure calculation, i guess many believe in them for the very same reasons these statements are popular in public. And nationalistic statements and views, even if they are unreasonable, can be very popular to many people i guess. The reasons for this are complicated, but i'd dare to say it works in every country.

Because I can't see why it would move someone to vote for Abe.

The rest of what you said is interesting though, I often can't understand why certain topics end up being discussed in an election cycle. But then, I can't understand why people follow the activities of celebrities the way they do either. But with some of these other things, I do at least know that they are important to some people, and I also know that the topics about running a country would connect with a smaller % of the voters, as many wouldn't understand what was being talked about. But I can't for the life of me imagine how Abe's stirring could make people think it was something to base your vote upon, or even be relevant to the decision.

"For me, it's the most common thing in the world."

Can you elaborate on that statement please? I want to know exactly what you mean.

[karajorma]

If you can't see why telling people "We should be proud of what we did in WWII rather than ashamed" might win you votes, you have no business talking about politics.

As for why you shouldn't elect someone who espouses a hugely hateful policy, look up the "Big Lie" concept in propaganda.

[Mebber]

Because I can't see why it would move someone to vote for Abe.

The rest of what you said is interesting though, I often can't understand why certain topics end up being discussed in an election cycle. But then, I can't understand why people follow the activities of celebrities the way they do either. But with some of these other things, I do at least know that they are important to some people, and I also know that the topics about running a country would connect with a smaller % of the voters, as many wouldn't understand what was being talked about. But I can't for the life of me imagine how Abe's stirring could make people think it was something to base your vote upon, or even be relevant to the decision.

That's a bit like asking why populism is popular, but i'll try to explain what i mean. Well, people do not make all their decisions only and completely based on neutral facts, even if it would be the wisest way to do it. They do make decisions based on what appeals to them personally. And again, i think nationalistic statements are something which appeals to quite a bunch of people, because many people have a strong emotional connection to their nationality. Just take this term of "national pride" - actually, pride is or should be something connected to a personal achievement, an accomplishment or performance connected to yourself, not to someone or something complety out of your area of influence, but still, people are "proud" of things they had no any influence in. And in the reverse, they feel downgraded by something "bad" in their nations' history.
And the very same mechanic works here. By challenging something like this - the matter of national guilt - you can reach many people who feel this way, because it increases and improves their own, personal feelings. And if you can manage to make people feel better, they will like you - and, in the case of an election, favor you. 

People are controlled and guided by their feelings, it takes quite an effort to control this and to let your rational mind do the deciding instead of your emotions. We like to think of ourselves as pretty intellectual beeings, but after all we aren't, at least not if we do not intentionally try constantly.

In the end, it's a question of how you view mankind and people. If you really think all or even the majority of people base their decisions and actions on rational thoughts rather than emotions, you're right, Abe's stirring would be completely irrelevant to the decision in an election. But if you think that people act mainly out of emotional and not very reasonable reasons, it is totally relevant. Personally, i'd say our history supports the latter view of mankind beeing the true one.

"For me, it's the most common thing in the world." Can you elaborate on that statement please? I want to know exactly what you mean.

That just means it is what i've experienced very, very often so far, immediately among the people i know and in general public.

[Lorric]

If you can't see why telling people "We should be proud of what we did in WWII rather than ashamed" might win you votes, you have no business talking about politics.

As for why you shouldn't elect someone who espouses a hugely hateful policy, look up the "Big Lie" concept in propaganda.

First sentence will be covered in Mebber's post.

I assume the 2nd is related to the Holocaust denier. Holocaust denial alone doesn't have to be rooted in hate. I would never elect a true nazi, or any hateful person.

Because I can't see why it would move someone to vote for Abe.

The rest of what you said is interesting though, I often can't understand why certain topics end up being discussed in an election cycle. But then, I can't understand why people follow the activities of celebrities the way they do either. But with some of these other things, I do at least know that they are important to some people, and I also know that the topics about running a country would connect with a smaller % of the voters, as many wouldn't understand what was being talked about. But I can't for the life of me imagine how Abe's stirring could make people think it was something to base your vote upon, or even be relevant to the decision.

That's a bit like asking why populism is popular, but i'll try to explain what i mean. Well, people do not make all their decisions only and completely based on neutral facts, even if it would be the wisest way to do it. They do make decisions based on what appeals to them personally. And again, i think nationalistic statements are something which appeals to quite a bunch of people, because many people have a strong emotional connection to their nationality. Just take this term of "national pride" - actually, pride is or should be something connected to a personal achievement, an accomplishment or performance connected to yourself, not to someone or something complety out of your area of influence, but still, people are "proud" of things they had no any influence in. And in the reverse, they feel downgraded by something "bad" in their nations' history.
And the very same mechanic works here. By challenging something like this - the matter of national guilt - you can reach many people who feel this way, because it increases and improves their own, personal feelings. And if you can manage to make people feel better, they will like you - and, in the case of an election, favor you. 

People are controlled and guided by their feelings, it takes quite an effort to control this and to let your rational mind do the deciding instead of your emotions. We like to think of ourselves as pretty intellectual beeings, but after all we aren't, at least not if we do not intentionally try constantly.

In the end, it's a question of how you view mankind and people. If you really think all or even the majority of people base their decisions and actions on rational thoughts rather than emotions, you're right, Abe's stirring would be completely irrelevant to the decision in an election. But if you think that people act mainly out of emotional and not very reasonable reasons, it is totally relevant. Personally, i'd say our history supports the latter view of mankind beeing the true one.

"For me, it's the most common thing in the world." Can you elaborate on that statement please? I want to know exactly what you mean.

That just means it is what i've experienced very, very often so far, immediately among the people i know and in general public.

Yes, I believe you're right. Lately in this thread some things are being said that I do know, but are buried so far down in my mind that I haven't been using them. It's been too long since I have had to.

Not only do I make my decisions based on neutral facts and logic, I always have. It is something that comes natural to me, though I also firmly believe in it. Take for example when I was very young indeed and people tried to explain the concept of racism to me. Over and over again I would reject it, because it was illogical to me. I would put the pieces together correctly, then toss them aside, believing it could not possibly be correct because it was so illogical, believing I had not understood, that I was missing something. It took a really long time for me to understand what racism was.

I do feel national pride if something happens to be proud of. Proud to be a part of. Otherwise, I am aware that I’m only British because I was born here, and it doesn’t make me any better or worse than anyone else. But also, I feel pride in as a nation acknowledging the mistakes of the past. Meeting them head on and ensuring they don’t happen again. I don’t feel proud as if I did something, but proud as you might feel proud of a person who matters to you who accomplished something.

“People are controlled and guided by their feelings, it takes quite an effort to control this and to let your rational mind do the deciding instead of your emotions. We like to think of ourselves as pretty intellectual beings, but after all we aren't, at least not if we do not intentionally try constantly.”

That sounds quite horrible to me. I am not immune to having my emotions distort my views, but for the most part it is quite effortless for me to stay logical and neutral, and I can exert effort against it when emotion gets involved. It makes me think of arguments where I remain rational even under great emotional stress, while others lose it, and I can’t reason with them. That’s something for me to think about too.

I think I’ve never thought of a political campaign being based on emotion, but it’s just so clear that they are now. It’s always seemed the only way to judge such a thing is with facts and logic for something so very important, but it seems so clear to me now it’s not the case. When the American politicians are rolling into towns with their massive entourages, setting up a huge stage and shooting off tons of fireworks, and talking about basically nothing of substance, I’m sat there rolling my eyes just seeing money going up in smoke and thinking why should people who waste money like that be running a country, while the other people are getting their emotions all stirred up and getting a feel-good factor which the politicians are going to benefit from in the elections. While I would think the most efficient way of going about it would be to just speak repeatedly on national TV, politicians are travelling across the country so they can get to the emotions of the people in the towns personally. Emotion is much stronger in person than on a TV. I imagine it’s more important just that they rolled into town, rather than what they actually said when they got there. It’s not about the substance, just whipping up the people. Obama basically won his first term with three little words.

So I guess I can understand now how Abe might be able to use this, with the population that has not been educated enough. I wonder if he actually did use it as part of his campaign and what he said. Surely you still couldn’t justify the “comfort” women.

Yes, I agree with you now. Emotion seems to rule a great many people.

You are helpful. You rarely talk on HLP. I hope you stick around.

[karajorma]

Lorric, this thread isn't your blog. Can you try to avoid this kind of stream of conscienceness post please?

[Grizzly]

Oh I wasn't certain you couldn't find a case. Hell, I'm sure you could find others. But notice I didn't say it never happens, I said it was pretty rare. I was certain that if you found a case, you'd be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I made the point that anybody making hugely offensive comments would be forced to apologise for them. Santorum's comment offended who exactly? You pretty much admit that you weren't offended. And agree that the Dutch weren't offended either. Who exactly demanded that he apologise? The comments I posted about are so bad that even the US started demanding the mayor take them back. While the Rick Santorum case, well the results speak for themselves.

This seems entirely too much like a "Let's see if I can finally prove Karajorma wrong about something" series of posts rather than trying to make any point related to what I was talking about.

I actually was pretty bloody offended, as were quite a few of our politicians. However, the dutch cabinet decided not to respond on the issue, citing that they did not want to involve themselves in any way with the US elections.

[karajorma]

Well there you go. You've given a reason why he wasn't forced to apologise. Not quite the one I was expecting but it still doesn't exactly counter my point really, does it?

If the Dutch had complained about it, do you believe he wouldn't have apologised?

[iVoid]

Saying those invasions didn't qualify as such is absurd. But I understand that the fact that japan's constitution is still the same that was forced upon them doesn't help them get over the war at all, like germany did. They have every right to make their own constitution.