[skhr0680]

I'd question if public sentiment was ever pro-Abe; he regularly antagonized and taxed the middle class while doing little or nothing to help them, even during the COVID pandemic. His connection to the Moonies is just the icing on the cake. Everyone has a relative or knows someone who lost all their money to a cult.

[yorwba]

The Abe cabinet had approval ratings above 60% in 2013, but the trend from then on was mostly downwards, with disapproval at times exceeding approval. https://www.nhk.or.jp/senkyo/shijiritsu/ Approval is red, disapproval blue; Abe is 安倍

[maybelsyrup]

Don't forget his strong family ties to psychotic Japanese fascism and racism [1,2], and his personal affinity for heinous war crimes and human experimentation in Imperial Japan [3].

Imagine your next door neighbor going out in public wearing a Dr. Mengele t-shirt and you start to get Abe's vibe. Complete ghoul.

I know the Japanese aren't exactly excited to take responsibility for their role in WW2, but good for them all the same for seeing through this guy's bullshit. Every now and then these lone nuts get it right, I guess?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shintaro_Abe

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi

[3] https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.as...

[Laaas]

I don't think these ties make him as unpopular as you think. The third link is also from a heavily biased source.

[yongjik]

Not commenting on the article itself, but in general Joong-ang Ilbo is right in the center of conservative, pro-chaebol, pro-trade political section. It's owned by members of Samsung's royal family.

If anything, I'd expect Joong-ang Ilbo to be biased toward Japan.

[rayiner]

> but in general Joong-ang Ilbo is right in the center of conservative… If anything, I'd expect Joong-ang Ilbo to be biased toward Japan.

That’s not how conservatism works. The in-group bias overcomes common alignments on other issues. E.g. Muslims and evangelical Christians agree on a lot of things, but they certainly don’t get along.

[yongjik]

In general, you're right, but the difference is that evangelical Christians normally don't go around telling how Muslims are their brothers in the holy fight against the evil of atheism.

One of the historical core tenets of South Korean conservatism is that the Free World(TM) should stand together against the evil of communism, which is going to enslave all of us "any time soon," unless we stay eternally vigilant. And by the Free World(TM), they mean South Korea, America, and Japan.

[naniwaduni]

... as opposed to Japan, which concretely did inflict national traumas that broadly the entire rest of East Asia aren't really over?

Banding together and liking the fact that you have to live in the same tent aren't quite the same thing.

[throwaway123989]

> The third link is also from a heavily biased source.

The link referred to: https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.as...

Wow, "biased source", what a word!

I think aside from the universal "China is bad" theme, the other theme closely related in Asian political discussion in HN, is that "Japan already did her part for their WWII and imperialism war crimes"...

Unfortunately, no.

Japan has never addressed the issue with any nations that they invaded in WWII. Literally, each and every suffered from Japanese imperialism invasion still have deep and broad hostility towards Japan whenever the topic start to divert to WWII and the era.

I have no idea was it Japan government intentionally doing this inadequate job, or are they simply incompetent on this matter.

But to call this website "heavily biased"... Bravo, this is borderline racism towards the people living in the nations suffered from Japanese invasions.

[nickff]

>"Japan has never addressed the issue with any nations that they invaded in WWII"

The Japanese made peace with and paid reparations to the vast majority of (but not all) allied countries, including Korea.

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

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

[throwaway123989]

Yeah, and you wonder why paying money to the descendent people raped/killed/mutilated/{and many other horrendous anti-human barbarism brutality} [0] is not enough to get peace.

Turns out, people are not stupid.

If the wrongdoers are not sincere, money never suffices. For example, you'll need a court to uphold an apology [1], then what is the substance of the apology anyway?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/20/review-...

[maybelsyrup]

> The third link is also from a heavily biased source.

Say what you mean.

[mrcheesebreeze]

he means its obviously biased, a korean publication will clearly try their best to portray the events as they see it.

South korea is very anti-japan, not that I blame them, but its bad enough that I wouldn't trust news from it unless it has proved itsself to be particularly trustworthy.

This goes the other way around too, to this day koreans in japan are mistreated and japan is always putting propaganda especially in relation to disputed areas like dokdo.

from the recent japan olympics we see they are okay with pissing off all their neighbors as well as being two faced regarding these disputes.

korean and japanese news don't act unbiased at all in relation to eachother.

[maybelsyrup]

Assuming this is what they meant by "biased", it doesn't actually say anything.

> a korean publication will clearly try their best to portray the events as they see it.

This is true of anyone, anywhere, ever.

> South korea is very anti-japan, not that I blame them, but its bad enough that I wouldn't trust news from it unless it has proved itsself to be particularly trustworthy.

So South Korea has reasons for being not too keen on Japan, which you understand, but you also wouldn't trust them to talk about that? Does anyone with any grievance deserve trust, in your eyes?

Also, your issue is that ... a South Korean newspaper exists, and publishes things?

> korean and japanese news don't act unbiased at all in relation to eachother.

First, why should they? You've just given plenty of reason for each side to be biased. Second, the hidden expectation that people ought to act "unbiased", whatever that means, is trying (and failing) to do a lot of heavy lifting here. It says "I want more ____ before I believe the claim", but you don't say what that is, and I get the impression that nothing would be enough.

All you need to do here is look at the photo.

[viridian]

Should I trust the Russian press on the topic of Ukraine or NATO?

i.e.

"So Russia has reasons for being not too keen on Ukraine and NATO, which you understand, but you also wouldn't trust them to talk about that? Does anyone with any grievance deserve trust, in your eyes?"

In my view, no, I would not trust or give much positive weight to Russia's opinions on Ukraine and NATO.

[numpad0]

I think the expression he opted not to use is that SK-Japan relationship is toxic. There is a misunderstanding that SK and Japan are in good terms as strategic partners with similarly developed societies, more like a divorced couple after couple 911 calls and court visits.

[least]

> So South Korea has reasons for being not too keen on Japan, which you understand, but you also wouldn't trust them to talk about that? Does anyone with any grievance deserve trust, in your eyes?

Trust in the matter that they’ve grievances with? Not really. It’s already a chore trying to discern biases in media and cross check facts across multiple sources. I don’t think it’s particularly useful to spend time giving much credence to a source that you know is biased. It’s like getting all my news about Joe Biden from Fox News and the Daily Caller. Why waste my time?

[pessimizer]

So it's purely that the source is Korean, and nothing specific about the source or its reputation. No need for all the verbiage. The paper can't be trusted due to the nationality of the people who publish it.

[lostlogin]

Can you explain this further? That article is pretty damming and includes a photo.

[actually_a_dog]

Be careful saying things like "psychotic Japanese fascism" here. You can expect @dang to slap your hand for spreading "nationalistic flamebait." Why they don't put something like this in the guidelines is beyond me.

[Bakary]

These rules mostly exist not because there is a grand plan to stifle discussion, but because time and time again you see these sort of arguments devolve into low quality material that takes over the entire space.

[actually_a_dog]

I don't have a problem with the rule. I have a problem with it not being part of the guidelines. Besides, I've seen threads labeled "flamebait" that have more and better discussion than the main thread. That's not how it's supposed to work.

[Bakary]

That prompted me to read the guidelines for the first time, and I'm seeing multiple relevant rules, such as asking not to fulminate, eschewing flamebait, avoiding ideological battlegrounds etc.

[actually_a_dog]

I've been warned for this for stating and sourcing true facts from fairly unbiased sources, while this person calls the entire country of Japan "psychotically fascist" and nothing happens? What's wrong with this picture?

[maybelsyrup]

No thanks. I trust dang to function in the way he sees fit. And because I meant what I said, and chose those words carefully, I'll trust myself to do the same.