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

The Crime That Killed Shinzo Abe

shingetsunewsagency.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 494 posts

Re: The Crime That Killed Shinzo Abe

#451

Post by Akronymus »

willcipriano wrote: post #272
mkr-hn wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_2016_Uni... >> 'A 2018 study found that media coverage of Trump led to increased public support for him during the primaries. The study showed that Trump received nearly $2 billion in free media, more than double any other candidate. Political scientist John M. Sides argued that Trump's polling surge was "almost certainly" due to frequent media…

This proves quite the opposite once you have a bit of context. This was the strategy of the DNC, they thought Trump would be easier to beat so they promoted his campaign. > How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately "elevated" Donald Trump with its "pied piper" strategy > In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates,…

Same reason they are funding republican politicians now? https://www.npr.org/2022/06/20/1106256047/why-democrats-are-...

Re: The Crime That Killed Shinzo Abe

#452

Post by gabrielfuture »

jrgoff wrote: post #416
spinach wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can tell by their twitter that their actions don't match their stated stance. They've become a woke social justice organization like many other institutions, repeating mantras such as: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1269413639464849409

While I can see why that tweet leads you to categorize them as "woke", I don't personally see how that has anything to do with their actions matching their stated stances, particularly as it relates to free speech.

In case other readers would like a quick summary of these articles:

- The ACLU faced internal divisions after defending a far-right protest that devolved into a riot of hate-speech that got someone killed.

- The ACLU also argued in court that teachers, when engaging with students in their professional capacity, should respect to gender identity of students.

It seems that a subset of the ACLU has taken the stance that defending free-speech as a cloak for hate would, on balance, reduce rather than increase the rights and liberties of the broader population.

This is the classic paradox of tolerance, it is not a new situation, nor should it be mysterious, controversial, or surprising. It is something that all of us must consider in our daily lives.

Re: The Crime That Killed Shinzo Abe

#453

Post by trasz »

krisoft wrote: post #443
trasz wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever heard of Assange? (Also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret among others; there is a ton of those.)

Your link does not seem to contradict what i’m saying “ The constitutionality of declaring entire categories of information preemptively classified has not been definitively tested in the courts.”

You said:

>There are no secrets “you cannot publish” in the USA.

As evidenced above there sure are. The “constitutionality” doesn’t matter.

Re: The Crime That Killed Shinzo Abe

#454

Post by makeitdouble »

scaramanga wrote: post #426
makeitdouble wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s linked to too many hot button issues, and would have way more impact than just anger against a single cult. If it was in the US context I would compare it to an alternative muslim cult founded in China and supporting the Palestinian regime. If someone shooting a US politician was found vaguely linked to that cult, it would be wiser to wait for a strong connection with the crime instead of just throwing around th…

Only if it was supporting a muslims/chinese/palestinians who are known for their vociferous support of the republican party? I mean, these groups tend to be ultra-right wing and the Korean ultra-right are very supportive of the japanese ultra-right wing, like Abe, who is grandson of Nobusuke Kishi, "the devil of manchuria" and thinks grandpa was a lovely guy. Edit: Nobusuke, not Nobuo, Nobuo is the other grandson who…

The issue would be to bring all that cult and culturally heavy discussion in the spotlight when there's still a chance it's completely irrelevant to the incident.

The same way we wouldn't be digging deep on where the guy ate at lunch if there wasn't enough link (I know some newspaper do, but imo they shouldn't)

Re: The Crime That Killed Shinzo Abe

#455

Post by iso1631 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #332
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. TV station: You operate without a license or outside of its bounds, you've committed a criminal act. The government can use their monopoly on force to compel you to give up your resources (fines) or your freedom (jail time). Youtube: You break the terms of service and are no longer allowed to use their service. There are other video platforms, there are ways to self host video. No one needs a "license" fr…

Google markets YouTube as a platform for everyone. Anyone can open an account. There is no membership fee, or political party affiliation required. Their advertising rates and revenue depend on having the largest possible audience. They present themselves as a "public square" and thus should be obligated to allow free speech as one has at a public square.

A public square in what country?

There are checks and balances on a democracy that do not involve leaving the country. The government can not legally damage you without massive oversight.

There are no such checks and balances on google, and they can destroy your livelihood on a whim without even acknowledging you exist

Re: The Crime That Killed Shinzo Abe

#456

Post by johannes1234321 »

rendall wrote: post #449
johannes1234321 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I read that some other journalists are uncomfortable with his questions since they fear that the government might decide to just not show up anymore The thing in his early days was that he asked and "demanded" a proper answer. But often times the politicians don't want to answer to the question stated. Now you can waste everybody's time and ask again and again, without getting an answer (which is useful if you stre…

I'd love to see more follow up questions of the sort "Excellent answer, if I had asked about X (e.g. who to blame for high taxes) , but instead, my question was Y (what are your plans regarding tax policy?) ". It seems that Scottish interviewer Andrew Neil has a reputation for this kind of implacable questioning. Any others?

That can work in a 1:1 setting, where you are trying to pin down somebody.

In that described setting here, you have journalists who want to write an article about current topics. In the article they can write "they avoided answering XYZ" and given limited time it is more worthwhile to switch topics. Repeating a non-answer doesn't make the article longer.

In the 1:1 setting the way they try to weasel out and avoid answering can be educational to the audience and can narrow down the topic a bit.

Re: The Crime That Killed Shinzo Abe

#457

Post by mcv »

geysersam wrote: post #405
dav_Oz wrote: post #165

As an incidental remark: I find it remarkable that on the surface I now know of three G7 countries / liberal democracies where the PM/President is the (grand)son of a PM/President himself. Bush Sr - Bush Jr Pierre Trudeau - Justin Trudeau Nobusuke Kishi - (Shintaro Abe; FM) - Shinzo Abe [Honorary mention: France with "Le Pen" both father & daughter made it to the second round in the presidential elections (2002; 2017…

It's ridiculous. I'd never vote for a president's relative as the next president. It's a matter of hygiene. There must be other equally (more) suitable candidates. Voting for relatives gives us presidents like Bush Jr.

Having a familiar name should become a negative instead of a positive for a politician. Voters should assume they're just riding their famous relative's coattails unless clearly proven otherwise.

Re: The Crime That Killed Shinzo Abe

#458

Post by tjpnz »

tkgally wrote: post #5

The linked article ends with this: “Why the Japanese media has refused to identify the ‘religious group’ that formed the motive for the killing must remain as speculation at this juncture, though it reflects very poorly on Japan’s status as a democratic nation.” It’s important to note that the Japanese media is not monolithic. It’s true that the major newspapers (Asahi, Yomiuri, Mainichi, Nikkei, etc.) and the broadc…

NHK as of tonight have named the organization and broadcasted part of Abe's speech on TV.

Re: The Crime That Killed Shinzo Abe

#459

Post by kerryoco »

xbar wrote: post #191
mc32 wrote: post #182

This is a strange article with an odd angle. They guy initially wanted to avenge the family’s misfortune by targeting someone high up in the church which he blamed for unscrupulously taking their money, when they proved too difficult (inaccessible) he turned his attention to mr Abe who was associated with the church and was out campaigning making for an easy target. The article starts with an arc where a friendship t…

This is repeatedly reported news, not one journalist. According to Japanese police, the shooter claimed Abe's religious group association was the motive. At least two other papers have linked that group to the Family Federation (formerly Unification Church) and the Family Federation issued a PR newswire about the shooting yesterday after refusing to comment. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/09/shinzo-abe-bo…

it's one thing to say we have a motive for the shooter, another thing to say that his actions were a rational line of causality as the OP appears to do

Re: The Crime That Killed Shinzo Abe

#460

Post by kerryoco »

KaiserPro wrote: post #73

This is a lot of words for the basic conjecture that he was killed by/for being a moonie. The problem with this reporting is that it takes the killer's supposed words at face value. This is a big risk, especially as at this stage we are not entirely certain that those words are accurate. Now, this may eventually appear to be the case, but the level of certainty presented in this article is unfounded.

The problem is also the title. It treats the killer as a non-agent with no free will, and is an implicit justification of political violence. "The crime that killed Abe" is known as "homicide", not "predecessor's political decisions".
Post reply on HN