It certainly is that way in Ace Attorney, but that game told me it took place in 100% America.
8 People Killed In Atlanta Massage Parlor Shootings
- Thread starter Cicada 5
- Start date
Literally what?
First World Countries 2024
worldpopulationreview.com
Japan is 5th on the human development index. This means their culture with all its ills is still the 5th most advanced. Clearly they are not such a barrier to advancement, despite being politically unpalatable over here.
I don't think you understand what first world country means. When people bring up human rights in its context, it's about there not being things like civil wars and massacres of civilians by a totalitarian dictator and other such real things. Not this random stuff you wish being a first world country was about. Japan may not be great for gay folks but an actual third world country pushes em off of roofs, that's the distinction here.
Uhhh you know the human development index has nothing to do with rights, right? Its about education, life expectancy and GDP, and that's it. And I don't know where you're getting data, but as of 2020 Japan was ranked 19th and as of 2020 the Inequality Adjusted Human Development index puts Japan at 18, and according to the Gender Inequality Index Japan is 24th, according to the Social progress index its 13th, and in terms of gender pay gap Japan is ranked 106th.
So Japan is a really rich nation of wealthy educated men dominating women, and no wonder that appeals to Western incels.
The factors that make a country first world is economy and GDP, educational level, technology, political stability, such things. What you're complaining about is irrelevant to whether a country is a first world country. It doesn't have to do with the subjects you bring up.
First world countries are just successful at advancing humanity into the future, creating new ways for people to be, new sciences and technologies and medicinal advancements. Nothing to do with all this cultural stuff and social stuff.
What we're debating isn't whether Japan is wealthy, its whether its sexist and dominates women. YOU brought up that it can't be sexist because its wealthy, as if that's an indicator.
You can't bring up its a first world nation as an alternative normal to Western ideals when it comes to gender equality, and then say well first world has nothing to do with gender equality so don't bring up gender.
Japan is a first world nation when it comes to economics. Japan is also horrific when it comes to gender equality, racial diversity, social mobility, and human rights.
And seeings how the topic is the treatment of Asian women as lesser people by Asian men and fetishized by Western incels, I'd say the gender equality part matters a lot more to the topic at hand than their ability to make high speed trains.
So you mean Japan can be highly advanced and yet completely backward on gender rights?
Great. Now do you see the point?
"Human rights, equality and all that garbage has nothing to do with a nation being great. It's all about who's got the most money and the shiniest gadgets."
Your justifications for Japan being advanced can easily be applied to Dubai as well.
What I said was that because it is so successful and advanced, their way is a valid way, just as valid as the way that includes less of what you term as sexism, a concept they do not abide by, and that due to the fact that the metric of whether something is valid or not is the stuff that make a country belong in the group of first world countries, you can't just colonize them with your values like they're savages, but instead have to respect the results their system has generated.
By virtue of success and prosperity, their to you social ills are de-facto cleansed and incarnated into a different, valid normal.
I am not 100% on this but I believe Dubai has a much higher wealth disparity than Japan, with a small plutocracy owning most everything. In japan it's a lot more evenly spread among the population.
A plutocracy is a bad sign for the economy, whereas more people being pretty well off is a good one. A big part of whether a country is advanced is the average standard of living and I don't believe it is that high for most people who live in Dubai.
By virtue of them being advanced, their stance on gender rights can't be called backwards, because you don't get to declare your equals backwards. It has to be just a different way of being that is just as valid. Cultural diversity is a good thing. You don't need a planet-wide monoculture to create human progress. As long as a country keeps advancing that's good enough.
Last edited:
That is absolute horseshit. By that logic slavery is a good idea because its profitable, and the profit motive alone absolves them of any racial no-nos.
No one gets a pass on sexism or racism simply because they have money. And as I pointed out the gender pay gap is ranked 106th, which means the people with the money are men. And then those self same men then determined it was a good system. Simply being profitable does not make a system moral, or equal, it makes it profitable. And I should point out this purely capitalist point of view eventually leads to no rights at all and human slavery because money is the great cleanser.
Japan does not have a valid social structure and valid gender/sex relations simply because a bunch of wealthy men got together and decided it was okay. I mean that's not even a logical stance, its purely defining rights as a form of commodity, and saying that Japan got wealthy without needing rights, therefore having rights is a poor commodity. And that's just wrong, that is not any way to think of a country or people.
I mean seriously if the American South started slavery again and increased profits by not having to pay the slaves, would you defend it, because technically it doesn't effect the Human Development Index.
Slavery actually stopped being profitable which is why they abolished it, the industrial revolution outperformed it. The cost of enslaving people and having to keep them trapped and guarded and all that was higher than just letting them work for you and paying their wages. They still do the work either way cause they still have to eat. It wasn't abolished just because it was morally evil.
A lot of women become housewives which is a big part of why men have all the money, way more so than gender pay gaps.
It's not just wealth, it's progress, technological advancements, stuff like that. Coming up with new technologies advances humanity by leaps and bounds, just think of how much life expectancy has increased in the last century. These are the big things you get to be a first world country for advancing. These are the actually important things that truly matter.
Here's an example, you know Covid? How you have to shut down businesses? Well, in Japan, if you own a small business that was temporarily shut down because of covid, the government pays your wages, 100% of them, each month. If you have a large firm, the government pays 80% of their wages.
We have to struggle to get a one-time stimulus, but Japan gives people their wages each month for free. How's that for backwards? (and don't let me get on the mask thing, how we have to argue with mask Karens for days, while in Japan they were already wearing masks before covid even was a thing cause it's rude to spit your germs on people when you're sick...truly an unenlightened and savage folk)
Last edited:
Did you seriously just suggest gender rights and equality aren't important and don't matter because space tech is cool? Like if nothing else that alone is a backwards way of thinking, and one 50% of the world wouldn't agree with. Technological advancement is not the only important thing. Life expectancy isn't the only important thing, especially if you're a woman living a shit life.
And actually as far as Southern slavery it was very profitable thanks to the invention of the cotton gin, and the North objected to slavery not as a moral issue, but as an unfair economic advantage that they couldn't compete with. Before that the founding fathers took out abolishing slavery in the original drafts of the constitution because they believed it would die out naturally because the cotton gin hadn't been invented yet.
That was actually brought up regularly both before the war, during the war and during reconstruction, that the North wanted to abolish slavery purely because the South was so profitable. And there was a serious concern Europe would enter the war on the side of the South because slavery was so profitable and let them have cheap cotton. In fact as study by the Economic History Association found that "Slave agriculture was efficient compared with free agriculture. Economies of scale, effective management, and intensive utilization of labor and capital made southern slave agriculture considerably more efficient than nonslave southern farming."
"It doesn't matter that entire demographics are second-class citizens relegated to stereotypical roles with little chance for self-determination, as long as we have all the shinies! What's that? You'd be one of those second-class citizens? Sucks to be you! How do you like my new phone?"
No all that stuff is what really matters because cultures change and transform and who knows what gender norms will be like in 500 years but if we are wiped off by global warming in the meantime none of it will have amounted to shit. Once we solve all of the world's issues like global warming and hunger and wars and sicknesses and so on, we can get to your boutique issues. To do so now while a billion people or something like that are below the poverty line is decadent and aristocratic. It'll be much easier to solve once human lifespan has been extended and there's not a ton of other worries to get in the way.
And I was talking about Britain which was the first place to come up with ending slavery, not the US. Back then the US wasn't as industrialized so yeah they definitely were still profiting handsomely from it but in Britain it wasn't efficient any longer.
A second class citizen in a top tier society has a much better life than a first class citizen in most of the rest of the world. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
ITS NOT GOOD! Being a second class citizen who can't earn as much, and is a broodmare for the state isn't a good life just because other women get set on fire. Its not a boutique issue to want to help half of the population, its critical path to become a good, not great merely good, society. A society that treats half its population like shit is better than one that treats 75% like shit, but that doesn't make the 50%ers good, it makes them slightly less shit.
You know what we get when we treat an entire gender like second class citizens who don't deserve as much because they don't make as much? A mass shooting when 8 people are dead, 6 of them Asian women because the shooter thought of himself, the white man, as having more important problems than the Asian women. Yeah they have their own hopes and dreams and struggles, but the white man was really horny and was just having a bad day, so it was really more economical to gun down the women rather than seek treatment for himself.
That kind of logic where we dismiss women as not as important as economics or "male" problems is exactly how backwards bullshit sexist technophile countries like Japan come to think their shit doesn't stink because half of their population isn't allowed to have a shit smell opinion.
And answer this for me, do you think America should have outlawed slavery if slavery was the more economic and profitable system?
Pretty sure no such mass shootings happen in Japan, or in most of the rest of the world. It's just an American phenomenon, mainly due to a lot of guns being in the hands of random crazy people.
That's actually another cool thing about Japan which makes it more advanced, they don't allow random people to own guns, even cops don't always carry guns, and hardly anyone ever gets shot there.
When you have such a safe society, the risk of something like what you're describing happening goes away, even with the cultural kindling you're alluding to being there, as long as the spark is removed there is no issues.
In my mind America hasn't outlawed slavery, it has just reconfigured it into wage slavery. But yeah sure, it should have. You need your people to voluntarily participate in society. Cultural pressures that limit your options naturally forming as a consequence of a system running efficiently is one thing but having someone with a whip smacking you around for disobeying is wrong.
Last edited:
"Be grateful, peasant! You should be happy you're not in a place that's even worse. Now stop trying to be my equal."
-Literally every oppressor ever
The difference is the peasantry weren't free to do anything they wanted, if they disobeyed they would be punished like criminals. And the oppressors were like, a couple dozen nobles. Not literally half the rest of the country. You can't have such a dynamic when power is dispersed among the population. There's nobody actually holding the reins and nobody is being criminalized. Everyone is just working together in that direction.
Wait wait wait, how can you possible hold the contradicting opinions that wage slavery has continued in the United States, but sex slavery isn't a thing in Japan because women are socially conditioned to want to be mothers? And women in Japan are paid less than men, way worse than in America, how is that wage slavery that forces women to be dependent on husbands?
As to guns, they can't possible be bad for American, because American has a GDP of 23 trillion and Japan only 5 trillion, and the Economic Freedom index of Japan is 23rd compared to the United States at 19th, and the First Would Countries Index puts the United States at 3rd, and Japan at 19th. So clearly guns are an economic boon to the United States, therefore the United States is absolved of the sin of gun violence, and Japan is a lesser country for not having guns.