Japan’s first lady, Akie Abe, joins crowds at Tokyo gay pride parade

  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Apr 27, 2014 5:54 PM GMT
    Japan’s first lady joins crowds at Tokyo gay pride parade

    Akie Abe wore rainbow badges and appeared on a float at Tokyo’s annual gay pride parade

    Story Here
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 9:00 PM GMT
    I wonder if the Abe's will pin rainbows to themselves as they rearm Japan, and make it once again a regional military power, increasing tensions and the threat of a major regional war, very possibly with China, increasingly taking up the militaristic slack on behalf of the American Empire. It's only the biggest and most worrying development in Japanese history in the past 70 years, but hey, Abe's wife wore a rainbow flag at a gay pride event, so... let's just ignore substance for the sake of symbols.


    "Abe's Military Push May Please U.S. but Rattle Neighbors"
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049904579516803544613502
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 9:36 PM GMT
    wordwarrior saidI wonder if the Abe's will pin rainbows to themselves as they rearm Japan, and make it once again a regional military power, increasing tensions and the threat of a major regional war, very possibly with China, increasingly taking up the militaristic slack on behalf of the American Empire. It's only the biggest and most worrying development in Japanese history in the past 70 years, but hey, Abe's wife wore a rainbow flag at a gay pride event, so... let's just ignore substance for the sake of symbols.

    "Abe's Military Push May Please U.S. but Rattle Neighbors"
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049904579516803544613502

    And what has your support of world-wide revolution (per your RJ profile) got to do with Abe's wife's support of gay rights? Do you oppose it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 10:00 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    wordwarrior saidI wonder if the Abe's will pin rainbows to themselves as they rearm Japan, and make it once again a regional military power, increasing tensions and the threat of a major regional war, very possibly with China, increasingly taking up the militaristic slack on behalf of the American Empire. It's only the biggest and most worrying development in Japanese history in the past 70 years, but hey, Abe's wife wore a rainbow flag at a gay pride event, so... let's just ignore substance for the sake of symbols.

    "Abe's Military Push May Please U.S. but Rattle Neighbors"
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049904579516803544613502

    And what has your support of world-wide revolution (per your RJ profile) got to do Abe's wife's support of gay rights? Do you oppose it?


    I actually don't mind the non-sequitur from WordWarrior as it's actually a sign of creativity and trying to make disparate connections to seemingly unrelated things. A person here has faulted me on my own use of non-sequiturs, which are actually do on purpose in order to reveal a different perspective on the same topic of conversation that fellow RJ members may be oblivious to. Hmm, if he was to apply his own views of what constitutes a "disordered mind", which includes the use of "non-sequitur statements or thinking", I wonder then, if he would be willing to apply it to WordWarrior?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2014 11:12 PM GMT
    It is a positive sign to see the Japanese first lady publicly support and endorse LGBT issues by standing with the community during the annual parade.

    The number of out Japanese politicians is still extremely modest compared with other countries, so I am delighted that Mrs. Abe, although not an elected official, chose to participate.

    Unlike traditional Japanese first ladies, Akie Abe has spoken her mind on a host of issues, many of which have resonated with large numbers of the Japanese public. Very often, her opinions have been in direct contradiction to her husband's more conservative views.

    Attempting to cynically and sarcastically connect Mrs. Abe's positive participation in this parade with her husband and the Liberal Democratic Party's position on regional defense is absurd.

    If you want to engage in a discussion about Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution and whether or not it permits the right to collective self-defense by keeping a standing military http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution, then why not start a separate thread and discuss it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 2:06 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    wordwarrior saidI wonder if the Abe's will pin rainbows to themselves as they rearm Japan, and make it once again a regional military power, increasing tensions and the threat of a major regional war, very possibly with China, increasingly taking up the militaristic slack on behalf of the American Empire. It's only the biggest and most worrying development in Japanese history in the past 70 years, but hey, Abe's wife wore a rainbow flag at a gay pride event, so... let's just ignore substance for the sake of symbols.

    "Abe's Military Push May Please U.S. but Rattle Neighbors"
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049904579516803544613502

    And what has your support of world-wide revolution (per your RJ profile) got to do Abe's wife's support of gay rights? Do you oppose it?


    Abe's wife's support of gay rights is a calculated political move to manipulate voters and the public, just like Obama's support of gay rights. I don't oppose "support", I oppose manipulating the public for political capital. If any of these people actually cared about "gay rights" or more importantly, human rights, would they be pursuing militaristic and imperialistic foreign policies? I don't think so. In that sense, their "support" (read: symbolic gestures, in this case, literally a little flag!) are meaningless. Her husband's increased militarism (and madness!) speaks more volumes about Japan's changing place in the world today - along with Obama's support for the increased militarism - than it does about either political figures' apparent "support" for gay rights.

    It just goes to show, as long as politicians engage in petty displays of symbolism and political theatre, they will be able to manipulate their political bases into granting them support, while they pursue objectives that blatantly oppose any actual substance related to caring about human welfare and rights.

    And so long as people narrow-mindedly adhere to "identity politics" (aka: I am gay, therefore my entire world view is based upon being gay, and my politics are 'gay politics' - I support those who support gay rights, and ignore EVERYTHING else they do), then we will not have much of a chance of breaking free from being manipulated by little symbols, lacking all substance.

    That's what I think about Ms. Abe's "support" for "gay rights." No doubt calculated by some behind-the-scenes political strategist, just as every word a politician speaks, every "thought" they hold, and every move they make is calculated by unseen individuals, designed to present symbols, messages and provide meaning and facilitate manipulation. In a field built almost entirely upon lies, deceit and manipulation, it truly AMAZES me to see that people still mistake silly symbols as actual substance.

    So the bitch wore a little flag. Who gives a shit? Her husband - with US support - is leading East Asia ever-more-rapidly to a major regional military confrontation and potential war. But hey, she wore a flag, so now I'm sure the Japanese will get increasing support from the U.S. Oh what a wonderful country, and how "progressive" the leadership is!

    And fyi: for those who don't care about anything that isn't "gay politics", in the event of a regional war, gay people will die too. What then, is the substance of that little fucking flag?

    Symbols only have meaning if you let them. And if you give them undeserved meaning, you undermine the potential - and need - for actual substance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 2:11 AM GMT
    Unnamed5 said
    Art_Deco said
    And what has your support of world-wide revolution (per your RJ profile) got to do with Abe's wife's support of gay rights? Do you oppose it?

    I actually don't mind the non-sequitur from WordWarrior as it's actually a sign of creativity and trying to make disparate connections to seemingly unrelated things. A person here has faulted me on my own use of non-sequiturs, which are actually do on purpose in order to reveal a different perspective on the same topic of conversation that fellow RJ members may be oblivious to. Hmm, if he was to apply his own views of what constitutes a "disordered mind", which includes the use of "non-sequitur statements or thinking", I wonder then, if he would be willing to apply it to WordWarrior?

    One of the more rambling but creative non-answers I've read here. Congrats!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 2:18 AM GMT
    osakarob saidIt is a positive sign to see the Japanese first lady publicly support and endorse LGBT issues by standing with the community during the annual parade.

    The number of out Japanese politicians is still extremely modest compared with other countries, so I am delighted that Mrs. Abe, although not an elected official, chose to participate.

    Unlike traditional Japanese first ladies, Akie Abe has spoken her mind on a host of issues, many of which have resonated with large numbers of the Japanese public. Very often, her opinions have been in direct contradiction to her husband's more conservative views.

    Attempting to cynically and sarcastically connect Mrs. Abe's positive participation in this parade with her husband and the Liberal Democratic Party's position on regional defense is absurd.

    If you want to engage in a discussion about Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution and whether or not it permits the right to collective self-defense by keeping a standing military http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution, then why not start a separate thread and discuss it?


    I don't think it's absurd.

    Whenever Obama does anything remotely symbolic or says anything half-way decent about gay rights, he gets unrestrained praise and joyous congratulations and endless support from the gay community. The same goes for Hillary Clinton.

    That, I think, is absurd.

    The absurdity lies in the fact that these WAR CRIMINALS and violators of human rights and crimes against humanity around the world - these family friends of dictators (as Hillary referred to Mubarak) - and these mass murderers make statements and give symbolic gestures of support to the gay community to manipulate their public bases into supporting them, while they violate very basic human rights around the world - AND at home! That... is absurd. And when they get the support of the gay community, I can't think of anything more absurd or narrow-minded.

    So why should such hypocrisy and manipulation be pointed out only when it comes to U.S. leadership?

    My political views are based on substance, not symbolism. Symbols are used to manipulate people. So when there is discussion of the "positive sign" made by the wearing of a flag and attendance at a parade, I like to counter such symbols with a little substance. I just find it confusing and absurd that these people can get such praise for symbolism when the substance of their actions is deserving of a great deal of criticism, opposition, and enormous concern. I like to encourage people beyond thinking and talking about symbols, and thus, giving symbols meaning and power, and instead, push toward thinking and talking about substance, with the hopes of encouraging actual changes in substance, not symbols. Hence, why this forum is the perfect place to raise the issue of Abe's militarism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 2:20 AM GMT
    wordwarrior said
    Abe's wife's support of gay rights is a calculated political move to manipulate voters and the public, just like Obama's support of gay rights. I don't oppose "support", I oppose manipulating the public for political capital.

    OK, so do you endorse anyone like Abe's wife who supports gay rights? Or are they all frauds? Does NO ONE support us?

    Why do you dismiss the gay rights advances we're had under President Obama? It's not just rhetoric - these are the greatest achievements for gay rights we've had in US history.

    And you say it's all just a "manipulation"? Well, the Republicans have been trying to "manipulate" gays back to being criminals. Please explain the choices we have, and why Obama and Democrats are not a good one, versus Republicans. In the US these are the only choices we have, disregarding the "total revolution" and anarchy you espouse in your RJ profile.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 2:33 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    wordwarrior said
    Abe's wife's support of gay rights is a calculated political move to manipulate voters and the public, just like Obama's support of gay rights. I don't oppose "support", I oppose manipulating the public for political capital.

    OK, so do you endorse anyone like Abe's wife who supports gay rights? Or are they all frauds? Does NO ONE support us?

    Why do you dismiss the gay rights advances we're had under President Obama? It's not just rhetoric - these are the greatest achievements for gay rights we've had in US history.

    And you say it's all just a "manipulation"? Well, the Republicans have been trying to "manipulate" gays back to being criminals. Please explain the choices we have, and why Obama and Democrats are not a good one, versus Republicans. In the US these are the only choices we have, disregarding the "total revolution" and anarchy you espouse in your RJ profile.


    Are there moves in the right direction for gay rights? Sure. Is that good? Obviously. But there are bigger issues, that matter much more, and have far more profound consequences. And pursuing those issues, could do a lot more to advance 'gay rights' than focusing narrowly on identity politics.

    For example: does it matter if gay rights are advanced in the US, while the Obama administration simultaneously undertakes the largest assault on basic civil liberties (aka: for ALL people, gay or not) on record? Or what about his unprecedented war on whistleblowers? Or what about the massive surveillance and police state he is helping to construct, and protect? Or the aggressive military imperialism abroad? The massive war crimes, crimes against humanity, the constant violation of international law? The steady erosion of democracy at home, and increased international violence abroad?

    In short: gays get more rights... sure... but simultaneous to that process, ALL basic human rights and civil liberties are increasingly destroyed at home and abroad. Thus, this renders gay rights null and void. What does it matter if gays can marry, if all people increasingly lose basic rights to freedom of speech, association, assembly? The only reason gay rights have ever been able to be advanced is because THOSE basic rights and liberties exist in the first place. So, identity politics that advance right only for a specific group, while ignoring essentially everything else going on in this planet, is a little counter-productive, to say the least.

    A good degree of the origins of the gay rights movement in the US sprung out of direct cooperation with the radical black power movement, Indian movement, and other similar movements which espoused concepts and actions of solidarity, and these were very successful... hence, why the FBI declared the Black Panthers to be the primary "national security threat" to the US, and undertook a nation-wide assassination program against key BPP leaders, as well as major political trials of the era.

    I think finding ways to move toward more radical politics, and to cooperate and work with other similar groups, pursuing similar objectives, will have far more profound and positive developments than voting for Coca-Cola or Pepsi, considering that while one may have a 'preference', both are, in actuality, poison.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 2:35 AM GMT
    Wordwarrior is correct.

    I've been told I'm a second class citizen by persons touting similar symbols for political favor.

    Do not give support freely else you find your platform erodes beneath your feet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 2:41 AM GMT
    Simultaneous to the marriage acts is a enabling of reliance upon government for social security rather than local communities. Networks of individuals being literal social security vs social security as an institution that occassions shame - hmm a literal meaning social security - social/socializing vs financial government institution capable of shaming

    Those that reside outside marriage paradigm become vilified to pressurize an entitlement to aid or social mobility not worked for - all enabled by marital constructs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 2:52 AM GMT
    osakarob saidIt is a positive sign to see the Japanese first lady publicly support and endorse LGBT issues by standing with the community during the annual parade.

    The number of out Japanese politicians is still extremely modest compared with other countries, so I am delighted that Mrs. Abe, although not an elected official, chose to participate.

    Unlike traditional Japanese first ladies, Akie Abe has spoken her mind on a host of issues, many of which have resonated with large numbers of the Japanese public. Very often, her opinions have been in direct contradiction to her husband's more conservative views.

    Attempting to cynically and sarcastically connect Mrs. Abe's positive participation in this parade with her husband and the Liberal Democratic Party's position on regional defense is absurd.

    If you want to engage in a discussion about Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution and whether or not it permits the right to collective self-defense by keeping a standing military http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution, then why not start a separate thread and discuss it?



    Since when is Good cop/Bad cop "absurd" if not typically methodical.
    Additionally your dismissiveness of this thought does not coincide with your dislike of provincial thinking..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 3:07 AM GMT
    wordwarrior said
    A good degree of the origins of the gay rights movement in the US sprung out of direct cooperation with the radical black power movement, Indian movement, and other similar movements which espoused concepts and actions of solidarity, and these were very successful...

    Where the HELL are you getting that??? Stonewall happened because of a bunch of enraged drag queens and other gays, traumatized by the funeral of Judy Garland a few days earlier, rebelling against an unwarranted police raid on the Stonewall bar. THAT'S when gay rights began nationally in the US.

    NOBODY embraced the gay rights movement when it started, and to this day other US minorities are only just now beginning to offer tentative support. On the contrary, many Black leaders rejected the connections bewtween the struggle for Black civil rights and the gay rights movement.

    No, for the first decades the gay rights movement was on its own. Especially after the HIV/AIDS epidemic hit, and everyone ran for cover. Long before you were born.

    But I know you're young, and apparently influenced by some bad revisionist history you've read. Sit back and listen here. You might learn something.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 3:17 AM GMT
    ^^
    One historical inaccuracy does not discredit this arguement's entirety which is contemporary. Nor is proof of no support verifiable so much as waivering and fearful support.

    Need not sit back and learn about what was when facing what is. Only need face what "is" objectively. Duplicity is undoubtedly a common vantage of politics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 3:25 AM GMT
    Snaz said^^
    One historical inccuracy does not discredit this arguement's entirety which is contemporary.

    A contemporary argument based on historical errors still has no validity, and does discredit it. I'd have vaporized you in one of my college history classes. Is this what passes for academics today? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 3:28 AM GMT
    Touting your academics and your age, which you are of fond of doing does little to dissuade the conspicuous pairing of a social magnate with a militaristic imperialist.
  • starboard5

    Posts: 969

    Apr 28, 2014 3:56 AM GMT
    wordwarrior saidI wonder if the Abe's will pin rainbows to themselves as they rearm Japan, and make it once again a regional military power, increasing tensions and the threat of a major regional war, very possibly with China, increasingly taking up the militaristic slack on behalf of the American Empire. It's only the biggest and most worrying development in Japanese history in the past 70 years, but hey, Abe's wife wore a rainbow flag at a gay pride event, so... let's just ignore substance for the sake of symbols.


    "Abe's Military Push May Please U.S. but Rattle Neighbors"
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049904579516803544613502


    I thought their constitution (drawn up during the occupation, of course) specifically forbid or at least limited their rearmament?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 3:58 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    wordwarrior said
    A good degree of the origins of the gay rights movement in the US sprung out of direct cooperation with the radical black power movement, Indian movement, and other similar movements which espoused concepts and actions of solidarity, and these were very successful...

    Where the HELL are you getting that??? Stonewall happened because of a bunch of enraged drag queens and other gays, traumatized by the funeral of Judy Garland a few days earlier, rebelling against an unwarranted police raid on the Stonewall bar. THAT'S when gay rights began nationally in the US.

    NOBODY embraced the gay rights movement when it started, and to this day other US minorities are only just now beginning to offer tentative support. On the contrary, many Black leaders rejected the connections bewtween the struggle for Black civil rights and the gay rights movement.

    No, for the first decades the gay rights movement was on its own. Especially after the HIV/AIDS epidemic hit, and everyone ran for cover. Long before you were born.

    But I know you're young, and apparently influenced by some bad revisionist history you've read. Sit back and listen here. You might learn something.


    Stonewall did not occur in a vacuum. There was a slow development of a Gay Liberation movement which was taking place prior to Stonewall, and they were taking rhetoric and even ideology directly from the Black Power movement, which was also heavily influencing women's liberation movements and the Indian movement, among others. Further, Huey P. Newton, a major Black Panther party leader, spoke and wrote in favour of supporting gay and women's liberation movements.

    And you talk about the gay rights movement being on its own? Well, they weren't alone, on their own. As AIDS hit the gay community, the Black Power movement had already been virtually destroyed, either by targeted assassinations, arrests and political trials, or by heroin and later crack (both, courtesy, of the CIA - the Cocaine Import Agency, this is no historical secret, and is widely documented, by the way).

    And the term "revisionist history" is one that is eternally confusing. As history continues to unfold in the present, and as we gain more access to more information than ever before in human history, we should add to our understanding of history. And yes, that means "revising"! Heaven forbid that we adapt our understanding and knowledge to the ever-expanding wealth of information. One might dare refer to this process as "education". And thankfully, history is continually revised, otherwise, we would still be reading the history books from centuries and decades past, replete with all the racism and horrors they sought to justify.

    Ever heard of the "new historians" in Israel? After a wave of declassification of old government documents dating back to the origins of Israel as a state, many prominent historians in the country went through the treasure-trove of documents and began to 'revise' the history of Israel, according to the new information made available. The conclusions of the new historians has been so damaging to the propaganda system and legitimacy of the state of Israel that the government has been moving to re-classify everything. That is a good type of revisionism that is necessary, and only made possible by expanding the information we base our understandings upon.

    Your statement that "no one" supported gay rights early on neglects the influence that Black Power politics had in the very origins of organizing the Gay Liberation movement (some of which predates Stonewall, I might add). And over time, that translated into other forms of support, despite your claims to the contrary. Further, your comment, I found, to be most interesting, was thus: "and to this day other US minorities are only just now beginning to offer tentative support."

    Okay, so you expect all other groups to come to the defense of 'your group' and to fight for 'your cause'. Okay, fine. Now, tell me, what have you done to end the modern slavery system that is the U.S. prison-industrial complex, the drug war/prohibition, and all of the other institutional and ideological structures of oppression against so-called 'minority' groups? If they should come to your cause, should you not come to theirs? That's the principle of solidarity to which I was referring, and which was articulated by Huey Newton, I might add. But that sense of solidarity requires one to break out of "identity politics" and move into radical politics to find solutions of substance, more than symbols.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 4:03 AM GMT
    starboard5 said
    wordwarrior saidI wonder if the Abe's will pin rainbows to themselves as they rearm Japan, and make it once again a regional military power, increasing tensions and the threat of a major regional war, very possibly with China, increasingly taking up the militaristic slack on behalf of the American Empire. It's only the biggest and most worrying development in Japanese history in the past 70 years, but hey, Abe's wife wore a rainbow flag at a gay pride event, so... let's just ignore substance for the sake of symbols.


    "Abe's Military Push May Please U.S. but Rattle Neighbors"
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049904579516803544613502


    I thought their constitution (drawn up during the occupation, of course) specifically forbid or at least limited their rearmament?



    It does, notably Article 9. And there is nothing subtle about it's language. But a few years after the US occupation forces wrote the Constitution, the US then forced Japan to violate it, by establishing a major domestic "police force" (as the US strategy in Japan shifted in light of the Korean War, prompting the US to support former war criminals and the Liberal Democratic Party, with heavy CIA financing).

    Over the years, that developed into the so-called "Self Defense Forces." And from the late 1970s up until, essentially, the present, the US applied almost continuous pressure on Japan to amend its constitution and join the "industrial democracies" of the world in dominating the world through not only economic power, but military might. France largely had the job of being war-monger in Africa during the Cold War (on behalf of the EU and US/NATO powers), hence why France has undertaken literally over 70 military operations in sub-Saharan Africa since World War II; but Japan could not "pick up the slack" - from the US view - because of its pesky, pacifist constitution.

    Japan's elites had been slowly changing the 'interpretation' and application of the constitution over the years. But it's been slow, because every time they attempted a quick overhaul, mass domestic opposition arose and multiple governments collapsed.

    Now, it seems, Japan is ready to pick up its imperialist slack, once again. And history shows... not much good can come of this. It's already prompting a massive arms race in the region, which is good for America, the world's number one arms dealer, but bad for the region, and humanity. But then, that's never really a concern of the powerful.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 5:15 AM GMT

    "So the bitch wore a little flag. Who gives a shit?"


    Nice. Very sophisticated, Wordwarrior. Calling the wife of a major world leader a bitch might not be the most persuasive way to win readers to your perspective.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 5:32 AM GMT
    ^^

    You've been less persuasive

    He makes a strong point - people will pick at that to detract or clarify your view wordwarrior.

    Your statements call for more than verbal attacks. If she is a fake bitch or malicious person - reason will elucidate character beyond the need for verbalizing/writing it so starkly.. Less conveying to the very unobservant which only require slightly more attention.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 5:46 AM GMT
    wordwarrior said
    osakarob saidIt is a positive sign to see the Japanese first lady publicly support and endorse LGBT issues by standing with the community during the annual parade.

    The number of out Japanese politicians is still extremely modest compared with other countries, so I am delighted that Mrs. Abe, although not an elected official, chose to participate.

    Unlike traditional Japanese first ladies, Akie Abe has spoken her mind on a host of issues, many of which have resonated with large numbers of the Japanese public. Very often, her opinions have been in direct contradiction to her husband's more conservative views.

    Attempting to cynically and sarcastically connect Mrs. Abe's positive participation in this parade with her husband and the Liberal Democratic Party's position on regional defense is absurd.

    If you want to engage in a discussion about Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution and whether or not it permits the right to collective self-defense by keeping a standing military http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution, then why not start a separate thread and discuss it?


    I don't think it's absurd.

    Whenever Obama does anything remotely symbolic or says anything half-way decent about gay rights, he gets unrestrained praise and joyous congratulations and endless support from the gay community. The same goes for Hillary Clinton.

    That, I think, is absurd.

    The absurdity lies in the fact that these WAR CRIMINALS and violators of human rights and crimes against humanity around the world - these family friends of dictators (as Hillary referred to Mubarak) - and these mass murderers make statements and give symbolic gestures of support to the gay community to manipulate their public bases into supporting them, while they violate very basic human rights around the world - AND at home! That... is absurd. And when they get the support of the gay community, I can't think of anything more absurd or narrow-minded.

    So why should such hypocrisy and manipulation be pointed out only when it comes to U.S. leadership?

    My political views are based on substance, not symbolism. Symbols are used to manipulate people. So when there is discussion of the "positive sign" made by the wearing of a flag and attendance at a parade, I like to counter such symbols with a little substance. I just find it confusing and absurd that these people can get such praise for symbolism when the substance of their actions is deserving of a great deal of criticism, opposition, and enormous concern. I like to encourage people beyond thinking and talking about symbols, and thus, giving symbols meaning and power, and instead, push toward thinking and talking about substance, with the hopes of encouraging actual changes in substance, not symbols. Hence, why this forum is the perfect place to raise the issue of Abe's militarism.



    I don't think people in general will ever be satisfied no matter what "they" do. For starters you can't fix everything at once and there are certain things that are extremely difficult to "fix". Regardless, no matter what good they do "they" will always fuck up some other way, so any good done at all, will be seen as sign of manipulation rather than an honest intention. I prefer to believe that the good things done are a result of doing what feels right where it is easier to do so. I could be wrong but I'm not afraid of being wrong, I'm far more terrified of framing other humans are fully immoral, senseless and merciless. I don't think they are, I believe they care and that there is a way to make their actions show that they care, but for that to happen we have to see them as human first not murderers first.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 5:48 AM GMT
    ^^
    Since when is it not human to murder?

    They, being an external party from self, or group one identifies with are people first - people are murderers.

    Honest intentions are more definable by actions than symbols. One is irrelevant without the other.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2014 6:06 AM GMT
    Snaz said^^
    Since when is it not human to murder?

    They are people first - people are murderers.



    Im not semantically describing what a human is since technically speaking everything that humans do is human. In this case Im using the word "human" as a reference to what makes us care for one another, and to how your perspective towards other humans and the way you see them can have an impact on how we behave towards each other. Resent, intolerance, vengeance, jealously and hatred are not good qualities to have and it is your decision to make whether or not those should be part of the person you want to be. We can justify our imperfections by blaming it on others, but then how different are we really.