Interesting, here's a first-hand account of what's happening: https://streamable.com/zota1
"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.
For example, Americans enslaved Africans for hundreds of years. That is a claim of fact. I believe it is true. I believe slavery is bad, it should be stopped in all its forms (including as punishment for a crime), and I'm glad that the 13th Amendment was passed.
Hating what white people did to Africans does not make me evil, in fact it's a morally superior position.
To say that this guy is being evil, is like denying that slavery occurred because you're ignoring his claim of fact. You're effectively saying "No, Muslim populations in Myanmar are not attempting to take over the country by means of rapid reproduction. You are lying to gain support for genocide."
Just because you disagree with someone's proposed solution (assuming that's what he's proposing), doesn't mean there isn't a problem. It would have been one thing to be opposed to the Civil War - maybe the costs were too high - but it would be quite another to claim slavery is moral, or that slavery wasn't going on, or to just ignore the whole issue and pretend that anyone who's encouraging war is evil.
What if what he's saying is true? Would you support genocide? Would you be okay with large groups of people intentionally having as many kids as they can just to affect future demographics? Just because there's no good solutions, doesn't mean that there isn't a problem. At some point global warming may be beyond every solution, but that won't undo the facts or absolve humanity for its blame.
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."
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".
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?
Even if Muslims have higher fertility rates than Buddhists, the observation is meaningless.
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?
Omg.. are we really debating this?
What I am wondering where you stand on a more exact statement. Is "Hating what white people did to Africans" morally superior to "thinking what what people did to Africans immoral"? Why or why not?
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.
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.)
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).
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.
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.
I follow the news. Don't remember hearing wails of concern when it was Buddhists on the receiving end.