4 ms·

> After the war, they were taught to redirect their devotion to the nation from its military expansion to economic expansion. They were constantly exhorted tha

> After the war, they were taught to redirect their devotion to the nation from its military expansion to economic expansion. They were constantly exhorted that they were a homogeneous people and superior to all other Asians, and superior even to the whites. To establish their national position in the postwar world, they should not be very concerned about individual well being, thus should not mind the high cost they have to pay for consumer goods that cost less abroad. It would be nice to have a shred of evidence for claims like this. "Constantly exhorted ... that they were superior to all other Asians" is almost certainly pure fiction.

jamesrcole 9y ago
> It would be nice to have a shred of evidence for claims like this. "Constantly exhorted ... that they were superior to all other Asians" is almost certainly pure fiction. I'm not an expert, but it is consistent with cultural and historical details I've heard. It's ironic that you say "It would be nice to have a shred of evidence for claims like this" yet don't attempt to provide any evidence for your claim that it "is almost certainly pure fiction".
- Safety1stClyde 9y ago
  > I'm not an expert, but it is consistent with cultural and historical details I've heard. I've heard several times that people born under the astrological sign Pisces tend to be confused because their symbol is two fishes going in opposite directions. > It's ironic that you say "It would be nice to have a shred of evidence for claims like this" yet don't attempt to provide any evidence for your claim that it "is almost certainly pure fiction". Even Alanis Morissette could not claim that it is in the slightest bit ironic. The person making the claim is the person required to come up with evidence for it, not the person disputing the claim. What evidence do you have that Pisces people are NOT confused and lacking direction?
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    "I'm not an expert" means "I am not an expert", not that I know nothing on these matters. I've read about Japanese culture quite a few times in the past. There's a lot of information out there about historical and present Japanese attitudes towards other races and cultures. Regarding your second point, you made the positive claim that it's "almost certainly pure fiction". If you're going to make a positive claim and not provide any evidence, while criticising other people for doing the same thing, then that's ironic.
    - Safety1stClyde 9y ago
      > "I'm not an expert" means "I am not an expert", not that I know nothing on these matters. I've read about Japanese culture quite a few times in the past. There's a lot of information out there about historical and present Japanese attitudes towards other races and cultures. Then perhaps you can provide a shred of evidence that the Japanese people in postwar Japan were "constantly exhorted" that they were superior to other asians. > Regarding your second point, you made the positive claim that it's "almost certainly pure fiction". If you're going to make a positive claim and not provide any evidence, while criticising other people for doing the same thing, then that's ironic. The claim that people born under the star sign Pisces are easily confused is almost certainly pure fiction. Confabulating the words "almost certainly pure fiction" into a positive claim on my part is pointless semantic game-playing.
      - jamesrcole 9y ago
        I am more than happy for you to think that I am ignorant and that there is no evidence out there. I'm not here to go dig up details for you. This all started with you saying that it was "almost certainly pure fiction" without providing any evidence for that claim, while at the same time criticising someone for providing no evidence for the opposite view. You still haven't given your evidence for saying it's almost certainly pure fiction. If someone said that the idea that people have walked on the moon was "almost certainly pure fiction", and that person also complained that people saying that people have walked on the moon haven't given a shred of evidence, then it'd be reasonable to ask them what their evidence was for it being almost certainly pure fiction. Why is it almost certainly pure fiction?
user982 9y ago
> "Constantly exhorted ... that they were superior to all other Asians" is almost certainly pure fiction. It's not. The Japanese race is a unique isolate, having no known affinities with any other race. In some extreme versions, the race is claimed to be directly descended from a distinct branch of primates. "First, they implicitly assume that the Japanese constitute a culturally and socially homogeneous racial entity, whose essence is virtually unchanged from prehistoric times down to the present day. Secondly, they presuppose that the Japanese differ radically from all other known peoples. Thirdly, they are conspicuously nationalistic, displaying a conceptual and procedural hostility to any mode of analysis which might be seen to derive from external, non-Japanese sources."[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihonjinron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihonjinron
- Safety1stClyde 9y ago
  Saying the words "It's not" then quoting an almost entirely irrelevant Wikipedia article is not an effective way to convince me that I'm incorrect.
  - hackits 9y ago
    Hes not saying your incorrect hes just pushing his own agenda.
  - user982 9y ago
    You stated that the claim of a Japanese narrative of their own superiority was fiction. I linked to an article that directly demonstrated the existence of, and examined the effects of, that exact narrative. Given that you consider that "irrelevant," I agree that I will not convince you of your incorrectness, since there is clearly no good faith or intelligent discussion to be had with you.
    - Safety1stClyde 9y ago
      > You stated that the claim of a Japanese narrative of their own superiority was fiction. I did not. > I linked to an article that directly demonstrated the existence of, and examined the effects of, that exact narrative. You may have linked to an article that directly demonstrated that, but since I did not state that the claim of a Japanese narrative of their own superiority was fiction, whether or not your article demonstrates that is irrelevant. > Given that you consider that "irrelevant," It is irrelevant since I did not say that "the claim of a Japanese narrative of their own superiority was fiction". I did not even say anything remotely similar to that. > I agree that I will not convince you of your incorrectness You will not be able to convince me of my incorrectness in saying something which I did not say. Since I did not even say the thing that you claimed me to have done, it is very hard for me to become convinced that I was or am incorrect about what you claim I said. The only logical way out of this conundrum is for you to go back to what I wrote, and notice that I didn't say what you seem to think I did. > since there is clearly no good faith or intelligent discussion to be had with you. Now, if you have a new-found desire for an intelligent discussion, the jumping off point for you, to try to make your future discussions more intelligent, is to actually read the words the other person has written, then respond to them. If you respond to something the other person has not written, that will not result in an intelligent discussion. The failure of intelligence here is not the failure of the other person to say something intelligent, but a failure of yours to read the other person's words.

jamesrcole 9y ago

> It would be nice to have a shred of evidence for claims like this. "Constantly exhorted ... that they were superior to all other Asians" is almost certainly pure fiction. I'm not an expert, but it is consistent with cultural and historical details I've heard. It's ironic that you say "It would be nice to have a shred of evidence for claims like this" yet don't attempt to provide any evidence for your claim that it "is almost certainly pure fiction".

Safety1stClyde 9y ago
> I'm not an expert, but it is consistent with cultural and historical details I've heard. I've heard several times that people born under the astrological sign Pisces tend to be confused because their symbol is two fishes going in opposite directions. > It's ironic that you say "It would be nice to have a shred of evidence for claims like this" yet don't attempt to provide any evidence for your claim that it "is almost certainly pure fiction". Even Alanis Morissette could not claim that it is in the slightest bit ironic. The person making the claim is the person required to come up with evidence for it, not the person disputing the claim. What evidence do you have that Pisces people are NOT confused and lacking direction?
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  "I'm not an expert" means "I am not an expert", not that I know nothing on these matters. I've read about Japanese culture quite a few times in the past. There's a lot of information out there about historical and present Japanese attitudes towards other races and cultures. Regarding your second point, you made the positive claim that it's "almost certainly pure fiction". If you're going to make a positive claim and not provide any evidence, while criticising other people for doing the same thing, then that's ironic.
  - Safety1stClyde 9y ago
    > "I'm not an expert" means "I am not an expert", not that I know nothing on these matters. I've read about Japanese culture quite a few times in the past. There's a lot of information out there about historical and present Japanese attitudes towards other races and cultures. Then perhaps you can provide a shred of evidence that the Japanese people in postwar Japan were "constantly exhorted" that they were superior to other asians. > Regarding your second point, you made the positive claim that it's "almost certainly pure fiction". If you're going to make a positive claim and not provide any evidence, while criticising other people for doing the same thing, then that's ironic. The claim that people born under the star sign Pisces are easily confused is almost certainly pure fiction. Confabulating the words "almost certainly pure fiction" into a positive claim on my part is pointless semantic game-playing.
    - jamesrcole 9y ago
      I am more than happy for you to think that I am ignorant and that there is no evidence out there. I'm not here to go dig up details for you. This all started with you saying that it was "almost certainly pure fiction" without providing any evidence for that claim, while at the same time criticising someone for providing no evidence for the opposite view. You still haven't given your evidence for saying it's almost certainly pure fiction. If someone said that the idea that people have walked on the moon was "almost certainly pure fiction", and that person also complained that people saying that people have walked on the moon haven't given a shred of evidence, then it'd be reasonable to ask them what their evidence was for it being almost certainly pure fiction. Why is it almost certainly pure fiction?

user982 9y ago

> "Constantly exhorted ... that they were superior to all other Asians" is almost certainly pure fiction. It's not. The Japanese race is a unique isolate, having no known affinities with any other race. In some extreme versions, the race is claimed to be directly descended from a distinct branch of primates. "First, they implicitly assume that the Japanese constitute a culturally and socially homogeneous racial entity, whose essence is virtually unchanged from prehistoric times down to the present day. Secondly, they presuppose that the Japanese differ radically from all other known peoples. Thirdly, they are conspicuously nationalistic, displaying a conceptual and procedural hostility to any mode of analysis which might be seen to derive from external, non-Japanese sources."[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihonjinron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihonjinron

Safety1stClyde 9y ago
Saying the words "It's not" then quoting an almost entirely irrelevant Wikipedia article is not an effective way to convince me that I'm incorrect.
- hackits 9y ago
  Hes not saying your incorrect hes just pushing his own agenda.
- user982 9y ago
  You stated that the claim of a Japanese narrative of their own superiority was fiction. I linked to an article that directly demonstrated the existence of, and examined the effects of, that exact narrative. Given that you consider that "irrelevant," I agree that I will not convince you of your incorrectness, since there is clearly no good faith or intelligent discussion to be had with you.
  - Safety1stClyde 9y ago
    > You stated that the claim of a Japanese narrative of their own superiority was fiction. I did not. > I linked to an article that directly demonstrated the existence of, and examined the effects of, that exact narrative. You may have linked to an article that directly demonstrated that, but since I did not state that the claim of a Japanese narrative of their own superiority was fiction, whether or not your article demonstrates that is irrelevant. > Given that you consider that "irrelevant," It is irrelevant since I did not say that "the claim of a Japanese narrative of their own superiority was fiction". I did not even say anything remotely similar to that. > I agree that I will not convince you of your incorrectness You will not be able to convince me of my incorrectness in saying something which I did not say. Since I did not even say the thing that you claimed me to have done, it is very hard for me to become convinced that I was or am incorrect about what you claim I said. The only logical way out of this conundrum is for you to go back to what I wrote, and notice that I didn't say what you seem to think I did. > since there is clearly no good faith or intelligent discussion to be had with you. Now, if you have a new-found desire for an intelligent discussion, the jumping off point for you, to try to make your future discussions more intelligent, is to actually read the words the other person has written, then respond to them. If you respond to something the other person has not written, that will not result in an intelligent discussion. The failure of intelligence here is not the failure of the other person to say something intelligent, but a failure of yours to read the other person's words.