Outside a train station near Tokyo, hundreds of people cheer as Sohei Kamiya, head of the surging nationalist party Sanseito, criticizes Japan’s rapidly growing foreign population.

As opponents, separated by uniformed police and bodyguards, accuse him of racism, Kamiya shouts back, saying he is only talking common sense.

Sanseito, while still a minor party, made big gains in July’s parliamentary election, and Kamiya’s “Japanese First” platform of anti-globalism, anti-immigration and anti-liberalism is gaining broader traction ahead of a ruling party vote Saturday that will choose the likely next prime minister.

  • MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I keep hearing racist nationalists say stuff like this worldwide, and not matter how hard I squint it remains a non sequitur.

    I mean, “we have a population crisis” and “don’t let people come here” seem entirely contradictory unless you are… well, a supremacist.

    Which they are, it’s just the leap that gets me. So obvious, so rarely called out and never addressed.

    • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Without getting into discussion about how right or wrong they are those people are primarily worried about the identity of their country. They believe that sustaining the population growth by letting in big numbers of foreigners will destroy their culture. They prefer to suffer the consequences of population crisis than live in a country with different values and traditions. Is it supremacy? Sure it is. But it’s also logical.

      • fluxion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Logical if you believe your race/identity are superior to others, which is an illogical starting premise and the root of why conservatives are always on the wrong side of history.

        • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Doesn’t have to the superior, but one of personal preference. You like the current cultural values and know other cultures don’t necessarily share them and so fear a cultural shift.

          In this case though I think you’re right that there’s a strong superiority aspect.

          • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Recognize that it is an opinion that some people may disagree with, not a fact that everyone has to accept, and act accordingly. In this case, that means not using the force of government to persecute people who disagree with your opinion.

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        It is only logical if you’re… well, a supremacist.

        I mean, it requires a mental framework of how culture and identity work that is fundamentally supremacist.

        Culture works by aggregation, it’s entirely unrelated to borders and it is in perpetual shift. This assumption requires misunderstanding culture from a very specific perspective.

        So no, not logical.

        Internally consistent, yes: make women into reproductive vessels and men into the defenders of a fossilized culture enforced through violence. That’s a consistent worldview.

        But not a logical one if you apply it to reality. The difference matters.

        • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          It matters if we’re arguing who’s right. If you just want to understand their mental jump it doesn’t. Of course those people are ignorant, misinformed or have ulterior motives but their believes are often logical. It’s like not vaccinating your kids because you believe vaccines are more dangerous than the disease. Or course it’s wrong but if you really believe it, being anti-vax is logical. Where it stops being logical is in the MAGA movement. They want to drain the swamp by voting for a criminal and want to fight pedophiles by electing one. It’s just a cult, there’s no logic there. The far right movements in Europe/Japan are build on misinformation but still need to invent logical arguments.

          • MudMan@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Sure, but that’s taking the concept of what’s “logical” to absurd extremes. Any sort of paranoid delusion is logical if you accept all of its premises.

            Is being antivax logical? Not at all. It requires amazing mental gymnastics to ignore centuries of scientific research. Things that are “logical if you believe them” is a great way to describe things that aren’t logical. Vaccines do not, in fact, by all available measures, cause more dangerous issues than the diseases they prevent. If your “logic” requires a rejection of the entire epistemological framework upon which shared scientific kknowledge is established it’s not “logic”, kind of by definition.

            This is the same thing. Its internal consistency isn’t “logic”. It can be shown to not be logical. If you suspend yourself from that conversation, deny the parameters of anybody who disagrees with you and cherry pick your values to specifically support your instinctively desired conclusion, then it doesn’t matter how well you can through your train of thought, it’s still indefensible.

            I think that’s why the MAGA thing stumps you a bit. Their train of thought isn’t any better or worse than this. It’s, in fact, identical. Information that supports it gets magnified, information that disrupts it is ignored. They are fun about it in that they add this cool temporal dimension, where that selection is applied regardless of how it was applied before, so they’re all for free speech when people tell them to shut up, all for limiting speech when people criticise them. But that’s not different to the fundamental contradiction of being concerned about a population crisis when you are trying to turn women into walking incubators but concerned about the massive influx of people when you’re trying to be racist.

            It’s a lot of things, but it’s not logic.

            • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Sure, but that’s taking the concept of what’s “logical” to absurd extremes.

              No, it’s just what logic is. Anti-vaxer doesn’t have to know the science. Not knowing something doesn’t mean my reasoning lacks logic. I can invent some facts and then apply logic to them. Logic doesn’t have to operate on true statements. “All unicorns are pink and all pink animals eat clouds hence all unicorns eat clouds”.

              • MudMan@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                28 minutes ago

                That’s… not how that works when you make statements about the world. Your unicorn example is all well and good in a universe where there are only hypothetical animals, but you’re eliding big chunks of that chain. “Unicorns are pink” is a valid statement in the abstract, but if you’re arguing about animals in the real world that’s not where the chain starts. The chain goes: unicorns exist, unicorns are pink, all pink animals eat clouds.

                And of course in this situation you need to evaluate each statement. Unicorns exist is going to be a big fat FALSE, which means you can’t claim all unicorns eat clouds and argue it’s a logical statement. It’s a meaningless statement by itself because it depends on a false assumption.

                Which is my exact point. You are claiming the argument is logical because you’re assuming the only requirement is that it is internally consistent when all their premises are accepted. But the premises are false, so it’s not. I appreciate that you’re getting stuck when the chain of statements they cherry pick changes over time (see the free speech example), but they’re not meaningfully different. If you let them cherry pick the clauses they need to verify and ignore everything else they can make a consistent argument in the moment about anything, including vaccines and flat planets and jewish space lasers.

                I mean, no they can’t because they suck at this. But still, they can make something close enough to one that if they speak fast and loudly enough on the Internet they can get more morons to follow their channels than to block them, so… here we are, I suppose.

              • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                47 minutes ago

                Logic doesn’t have to operate on true statements.

                Logic is based on facts, ie: if you jump into a pool > you will get wet.

                Believing that logic is not factually-based is absolutely off-base.

                • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  34 minutes ago

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

                  Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how conclusions follow from premises based on the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content.

      • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        If your culture can’t stand up to outside influence was it really that great? Also, the door to the world has been opened. There’s no closing that one it’s been open. So they’d rather crash into civil unrest because ignorant people have a hard on for the old days?

        • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          So they’d rather crash into civil unrest because ignorant people have a hard on for the old days?

          Yes, exactly. That’s a perfect summary.