How Japanese black companies oppress workers (2014)

Please add [2014].

It's an interesting read, but temporal context is important. The world has been through a lot. Even if we talk only about Japan, there has been

- COVID

- Tokyo 2020 Olympics

- 3 prime ministers leaving their posts

- Shinzo Abe getting shot

The biggest changes in this decade about work environment was the death of Matsuri Takahashi. Work environment in big company is significantly improved after that. https://www.mercer.com/insights/law-and-policy/japan-adopts-...

Done.

> Shinzo Abe getting shot

Assassinated, you mean.

Assassinated via getting shot, yes.

Typically when a sitting leader of a country gets shot it's not by their own accord.

Shot is much more inaccurate of a description than assassinated, unless you want to ignore/downplay a sitting political leader getting murdered for political purposes.

Shot is much more inaccurate of a description than assassinated, unless you want to ignore/downplay a sitting political leader getting murdered for political purposes.

If you're going to be this pedantic, I'll point out that specifying it was a shooting is both more accurate and, given the gun laws, more significant politically.

This may be the most absurd thing ive read on HN. To be clear, are you really suggesting someone breaking gun laws was more significant than the murder of the head of state?

1. Wasn’t the sitting leader 2. Assassination is predicated on politics/religion/“impetus greater than oneself.” The murder in this case was personal

I feel that some clarification is warranted, because the wording in your various replies can be misleading. Although the term "assassinated" is not invalid in this case, based on what you seem to imply, your arguments for why it should be preferred in this instance are moot. You might not be wrong, but maybe choose different arguments.

1. Abe was not in power at the time he was shot. He was giving a campaign speech in support of a running member of his party.

2. Abe was not specifically targeted for his political views or policies. He was a victim of convenience. That is, the real target was the Unification Church. An organization deeply entrenched in the Japanese political sphere and which the killer had a clear personal vendetta against. Abe was a visible public figure with ties to the UC. He was also more accessible to the shooter.

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

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

From the first link:

Abe's killing has been described as one of the most effective and successful political assassinations in recent history due to the backlash against the UC that it provoked. The Economist remarked that "... Yamagami's political violence has proved stunningly effective ... Political violence seldom fulfils so many of its perpetrator's aims." Writing for The Atlantic, Robert F. Worth described Yamagami as "among the most successful assassins in history."

The success spoken of here has nothing to do with Abe or his policies. It's rather about the subsequent rise in public awareness and purge of UC's members from Japanese politics.

This is the exact reason I wrote "shot" instead of "assassinated".

I'm not following the least bit. I said it's more accurate to say Abe was assassinated than simply "was shooted at", you say no and then proceed to use three sources which promptly talk about how Abe was assassinated. I presume we are talking of different things at this point.

You are not replying in good faith. Have a nice day.