5 ms·

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 o

by nkoren 9y ago

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.

pavlov 9y ago
That quote sounds like the average Breitbart comment, actually.
- zo1 9y ago
  It's nothing compared to what you see in the comment section of news sites in rainbow South Africa.
askdufuga 9y ago
People are not evil simply for disliking aspects of other cultures or populations. 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.
- ralmidani 9y ago
  > 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."
  - Veelox 9y ago
    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".
  - askdufuga 9y ago
    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?
    - ralmidani 9y ago
      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.
- Veelox 9y ago
  >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?
mschuster91 9y ago
> 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-von-Menschentypen,hoeckeslehre100.html 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).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kamaal 9y ago
>>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.

by nkoren 9y ago

pavlov 9y ago

That quote sounds like the average Breitbart comment, actually.

zo1 9y ago
It's nothing compared to what you see in the comment section of news sites in rainbow South Africa.

askdufuga 9y ago

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

ralmidani 9y ago
> 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."
- Veelox 9y ago
  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".
- askdufuga 9y ago
  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?
  - ralmidani 9y ago
    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.
Veelox 9y ago
>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?

mschuster91 9y ago

> 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-von-Menschentypen,hoeckeslehre100.html 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).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

kamaal 9y ago

>>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.