This supposed question of mine (any dunce with the comprehension skills of an 8 year old can grasp why it's not a question, but don't tell these keyboard warriors that) has been met with a few replies consisting of the following thought process:
- Multiculturalism isn't running rampant in Japan, quite the contrary. Therefore the Japanese population is overwhelmingly comprised of racialists cut from the same cloth as the breed of white-only segregationists being addressed in the video. Japan's long term success in [insert applicable fields here] is all the demonstration one needs in order to understand how this question has already been answered.
Several problems with this. All of which, once explained, on more than one occasion, continued going over the heads of the people commenting. They got more trolly with each post, claiming to know the inner workings of my mind and how such workings don't translate over to my replies to them, effectively calling me a liar. It struck me as a typical baiting fest for more replies, so I hope they enjoy the attention they clamored for.
The problems? For starters, Japan's non-existent enforcement of anything that can even remotely be classified as a segregationist policy. This alone is enough to write off the notion that Japan is applicable to the targeted societies and subsequent thought experiments about the policies of such societies, posed in the video. For those who refuse to accept any definition of Segregation which explicitly outlines the enforced separation of different racial groups in a country, community, or establishment, and insist on cherry picking from definitions which cast it as voluntary: I'm not here to play word games. If your beef with the video is that I didn't preface each use of the word segregation with use of the word forced, you are wasting my time. The video largely revolves around application forms; Contracts to be acted upon if not met with discriminate analysis.
Ironically enough, it was then argued that policies are a non-factor in and of themselves. Some direct quotes:
"Policies that are not implemented are irrelevant".
Not when contingent upon the definition of a word placed in the very title of the video the commenter is posting on. The context is perverted anyway, since the spirit of his comment intends to paint a vague picture of separatist policies, as if to imply that they currently exist in a posed state, awaiting to be implemented any day now.
"Theory and practice are not the same"
This statement solidifies my suspicions that they're not even bothering to understand what I'm trying to convey to them and are in it mainly for the swagger by way of getting the last word.
"You can’t understand Japan by studying its laws"
The point of invoking laws into the conversation has to do with the fact that the video revolves around words that have precise and expedient definitions. By deviating from these definitions one deviates from the subject matter of the content itself. The cousin of this predicament is best illustrated with the following: If a given State imposes no legal restrictions on private ownership of industry, property and general free trade, while the vast majority of its citizens still opt to voluntarily organize and collectively invest their savings by funding co-ops, which end up dominating and ultimately buying out the few individually owned businesses leftover, it would still be a butchering of terminology to call the end result a Socialist State. If one were to critique this system under the guise of critiquing State Socialism, the critic would be doing the term a disservice. Trade would still be uninhibited by regulatory oversight, and ownership/wealth untamed by external forces of redistribution (be they corporate or populist forces). The fact that more individual owners split the ownership pie, business per business, compared to what tradition has generally been accustomed to, is a non-sequitur in so far as the system itself is concerned. The only trespass in definitions arises from suggesting that one ought apply these labels to areas where the policies contradict their very meaning, all because of massive increases in ownership counts, juxtaposed with labor counts.
Conversely, one can't pretend to know that a vast majority of Japanese people harbor racist views which match or boarder on matching the views of the actual segregationists I was referring to, simply because of Japan's low immigration count. To argue otherwise is to dogmatically assert that more people would have gone on to integrate or visit Japan had it not been for the prevailing racist attitudes in Japan which currently puts them off. As if this cautionary forward thinking plays a defining role in the decisions of would-be tourists to skip out on the old J. It's just another extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, especially in light of the fact that no Japan tourist within my scope, past or present, has ever complained about having been discriminated against while visiting Japan. Nor have any of them once pointed out how it's the hearsay of this discrimination which caused them to visit Hawaii instead.
Furthermore, it reeks of closed-mindedness to believe that Person A's flawlessly solid relationship with Person B must result in the 2 of them forming a shared hostility of Person C to such a contemptuous degree that they refuse to tolerate C's mere presence. There is no evidence of this in respects to Japan. Such evidence becomes apparent only once A and B build a wall prohibiting C from entering. Like actual Segregationists strive to do, with the wall being a metaphor for law. Capacity to get along with one's own doesn't necessarily lead to contempt of anyone who is different. The Japanese largely prove this, as they don't get their panties in a bunch over the prospect of their land being legally open for immigration, and thereby race mixing. Which it presently is. Unlike the individuals my video plainly intended to highlight, should actual attention to it have been paid.
Compatibility =/= hatred or intolerance of incompatibility. Not with civilized adults. An elementary example of this: I'm far more compatible with individuals who possess a fluid understanding/articulation of the English or Serbian languages, as those are the only 2 languages I speak. Does this mean that I am by virtue of this self-acknowledged compatibility incapable of recognizing that it would be highly irrational of me to advocate the deportation of those who speak/understand neither of these two languages all that fluidly? It doesn't. Why is it irrational to begin with? For many reasons, most discretely because a hefty dose of low paying positions would stand to see a massive drop in performance quality as immigrants typically occupy such gigs due to factors unrelated to intrinsic intellectual scantiness. Something that, generally speaking, cannot be said of the good old home grown guys and gals who'd fill up those job openings in no time, much like they did before the stamina of all these pesky fresh-off-the-boat competitors got a little too stiff for their upkeep. There's also the inevitably high turnover rate, which would prove disastrous for any environment where more than a few shaky English speakers worked prior to their collective deportation, effective immediately. This is a prime example of weighing the scales and coming to a conclusion where a lack of personal hands-on compatibility isn't always rational grounds for dismissal or deportation.
Imagine if I were to point to the happenstance of any given public school consisting mostly of white students and white personnel, with non-whites being allowed to enroll all the same, as proof of those white students and personnel being racists. Consider what would happen if I were to insist that the disproportionate number of black kids/adults in that institution are demonstrative of the axiomatic mechanics of intentional but voluntary separatism at work, where minorities are loathed, though not openly, and certainly not to the level where any of the whites would ask them to voluntarily leave and enroll elsewhere. I'd be laughed off the street, yet this mirrors the school of thought the apologists milk with their holy grail example that is Japan.
To cite Japan's success in various areas as an example of Segregation at work is to appeal to a large segment of its populace, as ginormous amounts of people play a role which contributes to Japan's success. With this in mind, one has to ask how are the Japanese, at large, equatable to any given separatist group? How are they similar in a way which isn't superfluous as a means serving their prosperous ends?
1. Because they value their own culture/tradition just like the racialists: To this I'll simply point out that the mere absence of defiance against one's own ancestral heritage or even modern culture, is hardly validation for a presumption of its embrace. Especially not a full on fanatical embrace, the vain which sees itself reach a point so fervent that any impure external individual is to be prohibited from visiting, much less settling, regardless of individual merit. The Japanese at large are closer to an indifferent middle ground when it comes to their reverence for "All Things Japanese And Only Japanese", as opposed to the aforementioned defiant angle and its polar opposite, subservience to tradition. Though the 180 turnaround spitting in the face of culture defiance is easily applicable when pegging actual Segregationists. It's crucial never to underestimate the relevance of this incisive distinction.
2. Because they're compatible with their own people just like the racialists: If so, how are we to confirm that it is their compatibility that plays such a grandstanding role in bringing about this prosperity? We wouldn't wish to succumb to the cliche fallacy of conflating correlation with causation. Accepting such muddy conflation at face value would enable any Cultural Marxist to use the exorbitant influx of immigration/race mixing in the US over the last 3 decades, and cite its influence as the primary factor that led to the US economy doubling in size since 1980. Disgusting perversion? Of course. Now look in the mirror.
Alas, let's remember the basis for my predictions: Children. Children who grew up under actual segregation and who are currently borderline senior citizens. The perturbed manner in which all of the ones in my radar recollect on their old surroundings isn't the result of anything that can be pinned on or analogized to Japan's preservation of its own culture, or its open immigration policies, or the beacon of its distinct identity instilled serenely in light of those open immigration policies. It had to do with institutionalized racism in North America, with the kaleidoscopic fog of its progeny cropping up in small doses to this very day, serving as a poignant reminder of how synthetically removed we are from it. And yes, I apply this to the ongoing effects of reverse racism as well, masquerading as affirmative action to the obsequious delight of those it routinely discriminates against.
In any event, it's hilarious seeing ideologues nonchalantly dismiss endless lists of pernicious activities committed in the name of Segregation and as evidence of its history of failure. Ironically enough, failure derived from the very essence of the tribe mentality its own proponents bolster. They deny this, all because certain variables existed in almost every manifestation of segregationist movements in the past, which wouldn't exist in their idealized incarnation. I don't find this humorous because I'm dogmatically asserting that they're incapable of pulling it off exclusively on their own terms, unpolluted by undesirable slippery slopes. I find it hilarious because they'll cling to past variables (Hitler's economic policies going unquestioned due to the astringently pervasive group think present in Nazi Germany) and cite them as deal breakers, yet when I cite the aforementioned variables as it pertains to Japan's achievements, they'll dismiss them offhand, insisting that one of the primary causes for its current prosperity is the cohesive herd mentality of its populace. It's the worst case of confirmation bias I've seen in 2 months. Which says a lot considering that I routinely watch YouTube videos.
Having spent the last 15 years of my life in one of the world's most ethnically diverse cities (deemed on numerous occasions as the world's best city to live in, mind you... except I'm not ideologically undisciplined so as to pretend that diversity is the causation), I've seen the effects of multiculturalism first hand and can safely attest that it's not without its drawbacks, nor is it without its benefits. This is not an appeal to vague middle ground mush. It's a recognition that modern times have seen individuals of all races relish in and loathe a spectrum of contrast. I'm not going to detail the interlocked particles of it all as that would make this write-up 5 times as long. The diagnosis is not equilibrium, but not its opposing one dimensional simplicity either, where Segregation is proclaimed as the Kryptonite which will save us from them. Or them from us. Or whichever you prefer. Having encountered an increasing number of individuals who find themselves enriched by the diversity surrounding them rather than impoverished by it, especially in intellectual circles or fields of post-secondary work, I'm leaning towards a positive ratio in favor of such diversity being a net harmless elixir. It's a shame your average racialist brain seems incapable of grasping any of this nuance. Then again, I could pull a Miss Cleo and pretend to know what they truly think, given that I've been the recipient of this exact tactic. So here goes: I know that deep down they understand why they're full of shit, but behave as though they're not seeing as how recognition of any glimmering shade of gray would foster room for undesirable correlation concessions. I will assert this repeatedly with the utmost confidence, because the most primitive part of my brain gleans enjoyment out of hammering home to them my genuine belief that I know what they think, akin to their repeated knowledge claims of what's in my head being equally as genuine and totally not just transparent attempts at trolling, with brilliant statements like "Maybe you should also add that it's clearly not a question cuz you didn't inject animated question marks in the video complete with reflective music, while making these "mere remarks". LMAO". Such wit!
On a personal note, going back to my most sullen age when I first moved here, I have no recollection of ever experiencing any discomfort due to the sudden blaze of cultural variety. The same applies to everyone I've known and can currently recall. If anything, the multitudes of quirky accents were one of the few things that made it easy to get through the otherwise insufferable average school day.
In other non-news, I'll be doing these short blogs (yes this is what I call a short blog) fairly regularly from now on, with the obligatory addition of the odd novel length blog whenever the bullshit out there calls for it.
Plenty of users who kinda inhabit my neck of the woods, have been migrating away from YT, signing up to other sites in hopes of generating a turning of the tides over to the up-and-coming competition YT is supposedly bound to face at some point. A fruitless task for dozens of reasons, the main one being that GoogleTube will instantly buy out any potential competitor the moment such a competitor displays the least bit of eyeball heat.
That said, I'll be boycotting YT from here. This place stands to garner me just as many if not more views as opposed to starting over at a brand new tumbleweed setting.
I still won't boycott YT altogether, but will stick with the minimal 1-video-per-month provision until the admins show a glimmer of interest when it comes to fixing the flagging campaigns.
Thanks for reading,