Is This Genocide?

My guess is that the West is trying to copy the East(China), and by that I mean that we are gonna see the rise of extremist governments that will pass as an answer to extremist groups but whose real interest lies in the ultra-efficient "social"-capitalism that China perfected. The tighter your grasp over people lives, the easier is is to have them buy stupid shit all the time and keep the wheels moving. And there we go again, till everyone is repressed enough that innovation will once again be a luxury of crazy people. Social and economical changes are usually the work of people that fail fast, move fast and break things. "make something people want" would work if people actually knew what they wanted, but most people have no idea about what their priorities are, so "make something people will get addicted to" works a lot better.

My guess is that if you say "The Rohingya Genocide" then readers will assume it's a history lesson and skip the article. Whereas "Is This Genocide?" encourages readers to investigate on their own, hopefully educating more people in general

Exactly what I was thinking. By putting a question mark in the title is taking away from the urgency of the situation. You really have to wonder?

The USA ratified the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention. That makes Washington loath in using the word. So, the New York Times isn’t doubting this is genocide; it is asking Washington to acknowledge it and take action (http://www.economist.com/node/18772664: As Samantha Power, an author who works for President Barack Obama, has disclosed, a paper by a Pentagon official urged caution in using the G-word: “Be careful …Genocide finding could commit [the government] to actually do something.”)

I can’t find a reference, but I think there is a more recent, stronger statement by the USA that requires them to take action as soon as politics declares something as genocide anywhere in the world.

Ordinarily I'd say a comment like that is inappropriate but "fuck all of this" was the comment I wanted to write immediately after reading this story, so all I've got is sympathy for that position.

Don't read the comments, they'll make it even worse.

Generally speaking, in cases like this, you have to actually physically intervene to stop the genocide. They're using machettes and other primitive means to do much of the killing, as in other genocide cases in very poor nations (like Rwanda or Cambodia). Sanctions are never enough against what are already extraordinarily poor nations (we've sanctioned North Korea for decades, as much as any nation can be, and they're proceeding apace with ICBM nukes).

The question of stopping this kind of genocide is primarily: who is going to militarily intervene and in what manner.