Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#51

Post by JoshTriplett »

krapp wrote: post #44
JoshTriplett wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You must see with eyes unclouded by hate. See the good in that which is evil, and the evil in that which is good. Pledge yourself to neither side, but vow instead to preserve the balance that exists between the two. As a statement, it sounds poetic at first, and the first two sentences are absolutely perfect; however, there's something very wrong about the notion of "preserving the balance", and I've seen that noti…

If you believe that 'good' and 'evil' are fundamental and inseparable aspects of humanity, meaning evil can never truly cease because it's part of what we're made of, then yes, you might believe that balance is the healthier option. Belief in either extreme can lead you to a dehumanizing view of people, and a lot of evil has been done in the world in the name of ridding it of a greater evil, for the sake of an unques…

> If you believe that 'good' and 'evil' are fundamental and inseparable aspects of humanity, meaning evil can never truly cease because it's part of what we're made of

A world of "no"; that's a kind of "balance" I want no part of.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#52

Post by smegel »

ectoplasm wrote: post #22
smegel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does portraying a criminal war aggressor as a victim support an anti-war message?

It's common enough to be both abuser and victim.

The many millions of victims of Japan were just victims, so maybe it would be better to focus on them?

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#53

Post by tinco »

happyscrappy wrote: post #14
ameza wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the label, "US Warmongering", upsets you so much, please consider joining anti-war efforts. There's a reason why we have that label. Since WW2, our military has been active throughout the world to protect our interests from Latin America to the Middle East and of course, even Europe with the Cold War. Our current president promised an end to the war in the Middle East but it has yet to materialize. The Republican…

ISIS makes the Nazis seem reasonable but for some people anyone that opposes the West is good.

If you think that you haven't seen/read enough about the Nazis. Not that I would recommend doing that, just letting you know.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#54

Post by smegel »

ectoplasm wrote: post #23
smegel wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When an entire nation becomes a support system for a war machine ravaging an entire region and killing tens of millions of innocent people, the notion of "innocent civilians" becomes a bit tenuous. Japan was in the wrong. It was a criminal aggressor. The idea that the Japanese people should be able to sit back in their admittedly lovely gardens and sip sencha tea while their armies were committing massive crimes agai…

So like 9/11 was awesome then?

Sadly, and somewhat paradoxically, many of those who lament the bombing of Japan probably feel that way. For example, quoting the article, how do you think the author of this passage would respond to your question?

> the Israeli blockade of Gaza, US sanctions on Iran, and the new Saudi blockade of Yemen, as the infanticidal atrocities they are.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#55

Post by MichaelGG »

ectoplasm wrote: post #45
MichaelGG wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's weak. You can go down a definitional hole and say someone might consider anything good. Fact remains that things like, I dunno, torturing children and slaughtering villages are things that we'd be perfectly fine eliminating. We'd be A-OK without having people that have, as the near entirety of their existence, hunger and pain. Even in nature, there isn't a real balance. Any perceived balance is simply the resu…

I mean at the conceptual level. So many things are defined in terms of their opposite. If we have no knowledge, understanding, definition, experience of evil, we don't have a benchmark against which to compare our actions and make sure they are different. Hopefully once understood, it stays remembered but in the past.

But then why should we try to "preserve the balance"? We've got evil things recorded. Apart from that, it does not feel like we're at any risk at all of forgetting what evil is truly, let alone conceptually.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#56

Post by DanSanchezV »

marcosdumay wrote: post #9
delinka wrote: post #3

I'm disappointed that what could have been a review of an excellent film contained so much anti-"US Warmongering." War is terrible. Sanctions have negative effects. How would this author propose convincing leaders who commit human rights violations to stop those violations? Asking nicely? "Thus, the starvation of little Setsuko/Keiko was not 'collateral damage,' but a premeditated murder. [...] Of course elite war-br…

> How would this author propose convincing leaders who commit human rights violations to stop those violations? You kill several of those victims, of course, and make sure the rest won't ever escape from poverty. I'm pretty sure that'll teach a dictator to not victimize them. Or, just maybe, a dictator oppressing its own people isn't good enough reason to start a war. But I'll not insist on such radical ideas.

More along the lines of your excellent point: https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/a-foreign-enemy-is-a-tyrant-s...

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#57

Post by rwallace »

smegel wrote: post #19
shadowmoses wrote: post #2

August 6th and 9th 2015 marked the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in WWII; Thought this was an appropriate time to post this

How does portraying a criminal war aggressor as a victim support an anti-war message?

If the author had portrayed the Imperial Japanese government as an innocent victim, I would be the first to despise the article. But he didn't. He mentioned the campaign of mass murder in China, the insane stupidity of the decision to attack Pearl Harbor and then to fight the war to the bitter end. In no way does he suggest any of these things are excusable. The people he portrays as innocent victims are the civilians of every nationality who are burned to death in bombing raids or starved by blockades - 'economic sanctions' if you want to use the current euphemism.

And he's right. The economic sanctions against Iraq that condemned hundreds of thousands of children to starve to death were an atrocity just about exactly as bad as the rape of Nanking. Just about exactly as inexcusable. We need to get to the point where we stop looking for excuses for such actions.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#58

Post by happyscrappy »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #47
dragonwriter wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Evil should not persist out of any sense of balance I don't think the quote supports the idea of evil persisting out of balance, but rather that to advance the greater good one must balance the need to oppose the notionally evil things (which nonetheless contain good) with the need to oppose the evil contained in things which are notionally good. Its the only interpretation I can see which makes sense in the contex…

> I don't think the quote supports the idea of evil persisting out of balance, but rather that to advance the greater good one must balance the need to oppose the notionally evil things (which nonetheless contain good) with the need to oppose the evil contained in things which are notionally good. That much is absolutely true; conflicts and war are evils in themselves, even when some would consider them "necessary".

If you have the luxury of considering war unnecessary then someone else is likely carrying your water.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#59

Post by rwallace »

MichaelGG wrote: post #40
shadowmoses wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In his own words, “You must see with eyes unclouded by hate. See the good in that which is evil, and the evil in that which is good. Pledge yourself to neither side, but vow instead to preserve the balance that exists between the two.”

How does one "preserve the balance"? Could you provide an example action you might take that is preserving this balance? I'm having trouble turning this into anything useful, other than a generic, general sort of "don't be hateful and rash; think things through; sides aren't perfect" kinda thing.

The word 'balance' is vague and overused, to be sure. Here's my suggestion for a kind of action: if you have to respond to aggression, make the response targeted and limited to what is necessary. For example, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the right thing to do was use the military force necessary to kick him out. It should have stopped there. It should not have continued with twelve years of economic sanctions that condemned hundreds of thousands of civilians to death followed by an invasion and regime change that created a power vacuum leading to the rise of one of the worst regimes since the Nazis.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#60

Post by thisrod »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #50
ageofwant wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what is evil ? What you decide it to be ? What if I happen to disagree with your notion of evil, am I now evil as well ? You seem to make fundamental mistake in assuming that evil is something concrete and fixed in some sort of absolute moral framework. Realise that both the framework and the "place of evil" are, within very relaxed bounds almost arbitrary, is the point that's being made.

Some things really are evil. Not nearly as many as people call "evil", but some things genuinely, objectively, are evil. Take Pol Pot, for example. He deliberately killed one quarter of his country's population. If you think it's just my decision to call that evil, then you are from a place that is so morally different from me that I don't know how to even begin having a conversation with you. But Pol Pot thought he…

Let's not forget the context in which poor and unsophisticated people decided that was a good idea, and the names of the international aggressors whose crimes encompass the evil of the whole conflict:

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

Do you think that President Kennedy was an evil man?

Post reply on HN