Watched for a few minutes.

"Muslims are like African Carp. They breed rapidly [... yadda yadda yadda ...] Our entire race has been suffering under the burden of this minority..."

That's grade-A genocidal rhetoric he's deploying. Good for observing that evil can wear any kind of face. Not good for much else.

> That's grade-A genocidal rhetoric he's deploying. Good for observing that evil can wear any kind of face. Not good for much else.

Sounds similar to what Björn Höcke, prominent German neo-Nazi dude, barked (http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/AfD-Hoeckes-Lehre-vo...). Only thing that Höcke did differently was to hide the true meaning behind the layer of science (r/K reproduction theories).

>>That's grade-A genocidal rhetoric he's deploying.

One of the great things of our times, is that bulk of the recorded history is available out there, and accessible for pretty cheap. Almost anything that is being said now, has been told by someone else in the past. To a point- Today you can easily judge the intentions and consequences of what is likely to happen as outcome of the speech.

This is a bad time to aspire to be a dictator or a genocide perpetrator.

There are so many signals you can pick from a person's talk that you can easily flag and classify the speech into what's likely to happen next.

That quote sounds like the average Breitbart comment, actually.

It's nothing compared to what you see in the comment section of news sites in rainbow South Africa.

>People are not evil simply for disliking aspects of other cultures or populations.

Describing Muslims as being akin to a destructive foreign species that "breeds rapidly" (which is a trait one typically ascribes to vermin, not human beings) is not "simply disliking" another culture.

>Would you be okay with large groups of people intentionally having as many kids as they can just to affect future demographics?

We're not talking about "large groups of people," we're talking about Muslims, exclusively. And yes, I would be okay with it, because I don't see the existence of Muslims or of their children as a "problem" requiring a solution.

> Would you be okay with large groups of people intentionally having as many kids as they can just to affect future demographics?

You are defending the rhetoric of a genocide perpetrator. It's like saying "what if Hitler was right about the Jews? I don't agree with his tactics, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a problem."

To try and be charitable to the poster, I think a better example would be "Would you be okay burning witches if they really did curse people?" than the Nazi example.

I think another way of saying phrasing the same idea. Let us assume that Muslims are intentionally having as many kids as they can to become a demographic majority in the future. How does that affect how we should act?

The above phrasing I count as very different from defending rhetoric of a genocide perpetrator because the answer to the above question is not "Kill all Muslims".

I think you'll agree that I am not advocating genocide, I'm just curious about the facts. I like to learn. I want to vet everyones' claims.

What I don't understand is why are you arguing your position? What do you propose I do with respect to the acquisition and spread of knowledge?

You are not advocating genocide, but you are saying the genocidaire's "justification" is worth considering.

Even if Muslims have higher fertility rates than Buddhists, the observation is meaningless.

First: yes I am absolutely saying that Muslims in Myanmar are not engaged in a vast conscious conspiracy to change the demographics of the country. Yes, different cultural groups can have different fertility rates, but to say that this is an attempt "to take over the country by means of rapid reproduction" is when one crosses the line from making factual demographic observations to genocide-inciting hate speech.

I regret that I couldn't capture the full quote in which the monk analogises Muslims to African Carp (there was no way to pause or rewind the video, and that's the most I could remember with accuracy). He goes on at length about how they are violent, selfish, attack other species as well as their own kind, pollute the ecosystem, are a foreign invasive species, etc. These kind of analogies are designed to dehumanise their subjects, and to lead to an inevitable conclusion: for the health of the ecosystem, invasive foreign species must be eradicated. Of course culling always feels a bit distasteful, but in the long run it's the best thing to do.

This kind of rhetoric puts my hackles up because I've seen it before. In 2001-2002 I lived in Ahmedabad, India, and I saw at point-blank range how these kind of Islamophobic sentiments culminated in the massacre of thousands of innocent Muslims. So it's something that I take very seriously.

(By the way: this isn't a matter of tribal allegiance. I'm ethnically Jewish and my spiritual practice owes more to Buddhism than anything else -- but somehow it's still not difficult to recognise that the Rohingya are human beings, not African Carp. Anybody who says otherwise can fuck the hell off.)

>Hating what white people did to Africans does not make me evil, in fact it's a morally superior position.

Interesting, specifically, the "morally superior position" part. Are you willing to explain how hating what white people did is a morally superior position? Also, morally superior position to what, not hating it?

Yeah, thinking that slavery is bad is better than enslaving people.

Omg.. are we really debating this?

Hating the crime != hating the criminal. Especially when you are extending guilt to an entire race.

From the perspective of a monk on the vanguard of the ideological attacks on Muslims, just to be clear.

I never thought I'd see the day where a Buddhist monk in robes is calling for the genocide of "Muslim vermin". (I don't think he literally said "vermin", but that's basically the analogies he's using.)

Or a lot of tribalism?

Or a lot of jihadists?

From what I've read Rohingya is an invented term used to describe Muslim Bangladeshi migrants, and was deliberately invented as part of a propaganda effort to accompany insurgency. I also note there seemed to be little coverage in the MSM when it was Islamic violence in play, but now the tables are turned it's wall to wall. Why the sudden concern now?

>From what I've read Rohingya is an invented term used to describe Muslim Bangladeshi migrants, and was deliberately invented as part of a propaganda effort to accompany insurgency.

There were Rohingya from Bengal who migrated into what's now Myanmar during the time of British rule, but it's not especially controversial among historians that they have origins there (arguably predating ethnic Burmese, who only arrived in the 10th century CE). What you're describing is the official position of the government of Myanmar, which I'd give a lot more credence if it was corroborated by a free press.

>I also note there seemed to be little coverage in the MSM when it was Islamic violence in play, but now the tables are turned it's wall to wall. Why the sudden concern now?

The 'MSM' published hundreds of stories in print, on the web, on radio and television every day. Did you view all of them? We're talking about half a century of conflict, after all.

There are other sources that talk about the invention of the term Rohingya, not just the Myanmar government.

I follow the news. Don't remember hearing wails of concern when it was Buddhists on the receiving end.

Being a religious extremist and a nationalist with the support of a military junta behind him, probably.

I imagine it is the same thing that drove other acts of genocide, or for that matter, what lead to Heather Heyer's death: the politics of dehumanization and weaponized tribalism.