I just asked someone with knowledge if I could have some. Is the comment not in direct regard to the headline, historical revisionism by the current government? The term “right wing” would seem directly in regards to current events. I just assumed they might be politically up to date given their opinions on the headline. It seems extremely difficult to get straight answers on the questions I asked given how politically charged they are.

Please explain.

So I’ve been following events in Argentina since we haven’t seen a true An-Cap since the 40s. I’ve been trying to follow events since the election and there’s definitely been alot of boat rocking for better or worse. You seem like you have strong opinions hopefully based on sound evidence. So, if you could, could you talk a bit about your perspective and how policy has changed and affected the country? Or otherwise refer me to a reliable source. What is Milei’s deal? What supposed benefits are there and are any genuine? Has the country fallen into dictatorship? Is he genuinely the popular candidate? Other than An-Cap policies what other “far right” things is he accused of? Anything especially heinous or redeeming from our liberal democratic perspectives? What kind of power does he have over the state given whatever their constitution is like? Or is it followed at all?

I suppose it’s a bit callous of me to just want to know as a point of interest and nothing more but I find it so damn fascinating. How often do we really get something different in this world?

Yea I’m never sure why so many people are against this sentiment.

You get 1 vote every four years on an election issue which is often a red herring. There is legitimised if not legalised bribery of politicians. Politicians DONT have to be representative. The party can remove the guy you voted for if he actually keeps his promises. The parliament can be filibustered. The politicians don’t have to vote or read legislation. The parliament can be decided by niche whackadoos whenever there is a slim majority which is 90% of the time. Politicians and media are caught daily lying, porpagabdising and manipulating. Geographical Electorates can be manipulated to get whatever result the ruling party wants. The institution can pick and choose which votes they will count. You will be arrested if you exert the real power of the democratic process; protesting. The governemt monopolizes violence against you. Corporations buy their way out of everything. Socialized losses, privitised profits. There is no reasonable alternative beyond throwing your vote away and before you say preferential voting, I live in a country with preferential voting and it just makes things worse.

All representative democracies are sham democracies and that is all of them.

In my town (SA though) we had a similar heat wave I’d imagine. We are a small town that has a few old folks homes now to the point where like a third of the town is now over 60.

The local op shop put everything 50% off after “an unprecedented influx of quality items”

No one made the connection.

I don’t want to be rude but the sentiments expressed here present a double standard that excuses Japanese war crimes.

Point by point:

“Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in retaliation for US’s oil embargo.” This is a somewhat correct statement but omits context vital to the decision making. The Imperial Japanese armed forces had formulated 2 plans for imperial expansion, one into the south and one into the north. The “retaliation for oil embargo” argument is a fabrication of the Japanese military class, a justification for the shifting of focus to the south in search of rubber, tin and of course oil. British and American forces dominated the south pacific and knowing that there would be an inevitable attack based on their expansion the Japanese executed a timed attack on numerous military strong points notably pearl harbour but perhaps more strategically relevant the Philippines. The “retaliation to embargo” argument is straight from the mouths of Japanese military propagandists, the USA in particular had bent over backwards to supply Japan in an effort to slake their expanding resource demands till this point.

“Fascism… imported from Germany”: I’m not entirely sure why this was added as it is quite apparent to anyone studying Japanese military and political history of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that the Japanese empire had minted its own unique brand of extremist imperialism, you can term it fascism with the modern definition of the word but to insist that Japanese militarism in government is a result of European fascism is utterly ridiculous. In any case the foundations of this system date back to Meji era policies that significantly predate fascism in Europe as a practiced ideology.

“Attack on military assests”, “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes”

While both these statements can be considered to be true it implies that there is some kind of defecit in morality between these two cherry picked events. I needn’t go into detail on the extent of Japanese war crimes mere days after and indeed on the same day if you would consider actions in mainland Asia. You’ve created a fallacy of what-aboutism that doesn’t fit the realities of the war and the extreme inhumanity of Japanese expansionism both before and after their attacks on the US. The atomic bombs while singularly destructive did not meaningfully exceed the levels of destruction wrought through conventional warfare. There is much to be said about if the bombs were in a sense “cost effective” in terms of loss of life needed to achieve peace but once the military losses are accounted for, various plans to fight till extermination, the political climate, etc. It becomes apparent that the bombs precipitated a political coup that would not have been possible otherwise. All things considered the bombs seem to have bought peace rather cheaply.

“crush any remaining resistance from Japan”

Other comments seem to cover this rather well but what alternative is there? When considering the potential loss of life of an invasion not just in enemy personnel or even civilians but your own soldiery it seems to be an easy choice. Arguments can be made about the scale, morality and civil cost of the bombs but it comes down to a philosophical argument on the ethics of the matter. Can such a scale of destruction ever be justified? Absolutely not. Given all the evidence available were the atomic bombs the least costly scenario in terms of the least amount of destruction in every conceivable metric? Absolutely yes. Any other assessment amounts to historical revision.