Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "MYANMAR: All the Keys to the Coup D'état - VisualPolitik EN" video.

A note for anyone thinking of clicking that link^ - that's his own channel. The guy behind that channel uses a bunch of fake accounts to promote his own videos under practically every VP video (as well as other geopolitics channels too). You'll see them linked in the comments of every vid. Not that I mind the self-promotion, I just wish he'd have the honesty to do so in his own name.
36
A note for anyone thinking of clicking that link^ - that's his own channel. The guy behind that channel uses a bunch of fake accounts to promote his own videos under practically every VP video (as well as other geopolitics channels too). You'll see them linked in the comments of every vid. Not that I mind the self-promotion, I just wish he'd have the honesty to do so in his own name.
15
A note for anyone thinking of clicking that link^ - that's his own channel. The guy behind that channel uses a bunch of fake accounts to promote his own videos under practically every VP video (as well as other geopolitics channels too). You'll see them linked in the comments of every vid. Not that I mind the self-promotion, I just wish he'd have the honesty to do so in his own name.
8
A note for anyone thinking of clicking that link^ - that's his own channel. The guy behind that channel uses a bunch of fake accounts to promote his own videos under practically every VP video (as well as other geopolitics channels too). You'll see them linked in the comments of every vid. Not that I mind the self-promotion, I just wish he'd have the honesty to do so in his own name.
5
@KatitoYare She couldn't do anything for them anyway. She doesn't have jurisdiction over the military, thanks to the constitutional limits placed upon her. She wasn't even the PM, but rather 'state counselor'. Nor could she use her pulpit to take the army on publicly either, as the vast majority of the population themselves hated the Rohingya. So what would you have her do? Commit political suicide in order to make an empty and toothless statement to please foreigner who can't vote for her? She's a politician, not a martyr, and that's just being stupid.
4
@sidkings The Nobel Peace Prize has been a joke for decades anyway, so feel free to revoke whosever prize you wish. And she's hardly the best example of why - Yasser Arafat and his Israeli counterpart got it just for starting a war so they could end it, Henry Kissinger got it for being a savvy asshole i.e. realpolitik, even the recent Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia got it and subsequently is now embroiled in a civil war of his own. And of course let's not forget Obama getting it before he'd even done anything. Meanwhile, Gandhi still doesn't have one. So yeah, revoke her prize, for whatever value that has. But don't kid yourself that there was anything she could have done. If you think politics is magic that changes hearts and minds on a dime, go right on ahead. You're talking about country that's been in a civil war literally since its creation over half a century ago. Go try changing the mind (not finding one who already agrees with you) of even one Burmese citizen yourself if you think it's that easy. She has a country to pull together from the brink of collapse, she doesn't have the luxury of passing moral judgment. The Rohinya are one separatist group among many, and she has an army ever watchful for the slightest mistake to take advantage of her. I'm not here to argue that she's moral, I'm saying she can't afford your morals. Not if she wants to get shit done. If you're content with empty symbolism, feel free to light a candle in support. I'm sure it'll make a huge difference to the lives of the Rohingya, Bamars, and every other group who'll be immensely grateful for the melted wax. Edit: In the meantime, consider this - by not being sympathetic to them due to your misplaced notions of poetic justice, all you achieve is that even more people are now condemned to further oppression and enslavement (and this doesn't help the Rohingya at all btw). Just cos you may find her and the rest of the populace (most of whom hate the Rohingya) disgusting, the only outcome is even more misery than otherwise. Is that really a better world? All for some finger-wagging?
4
Why are you people debating America and China's cold war in a video about Myanmar? Are you all so obsessed that nothing else can garner your attention? Get over it. This is a video about Myanmar. Stick to the topic please.
3
@sidkings Ah yes, 'karma'. Poetic justice. Etc. etc. Just next door in my country there was once a man who said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." You seem to want to live by the motto of Ferdinand I, the oh-so 'Holy' Roman Emperor, "Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus" ("Let justice be done, though the world perish"). For my part, I don't see much 'justice' in more people suffering just to satisfy the warped notions of 'karma' (which we invented lol!) that some people have. I'd rather just have a world with less suffering than what came before. And right now you're condemning an even larger number of people to torment in order to satisfy your notions of 'justice'. Cos apparently more suffering is good ... somehow?! Whatever oppression the majority Bamar population faces doesn't help the Rohingya one bit, and just makes the army stronger. But all that matters to you is that they suffer for your satisfaction, for 'karma'. How very ethical of you! But then I'm not surprised that you'd be irrationally hateful of her and the Bamar people - being Bangladeshi, the Rohingya are your brothers and sisters after all, and I suppose that affects your judgment. But Bangladesh is not the only country with Bengalis, and yet here I am weighing between unpalatable options like an adult, rather than using karmic justice as a crutch to condemn millions of people like a child.
3
@luishernandezblonde "I don't think Burmese people are innocent" - I never said they're innocent, far from it. I just said it's unrealistic to expect only the innocent to be saved. Life's about making difficult, often unpalatable, choices. Even Suu Kyi made one - even before the Rohingya genocide - when she accepted a power-sharing arrangement with the army. She wants full democracy, not a hobbled one, yet she took that option because it was what she could get. Maybe it was the right choice, maybe wrong, but it was a hard one. That's being realistic, that's pragmatism. But it seems there are some people who don't want to accept the reality that sometimes you can't have a clear and easy choice between good and evil, that sometimes you have to choose between just bad or maybe worse. They like to see the world as simple and straightforward. Unfortunately, it often isn't.
3
That's kinda what happens to people when you live in a country that's been at civil war for literally over half a century. The Rohingyas have their own armed groups and don't recognize the national govt. either. That doesn't justify killing them en masse, but it does show that they're yet another competing faction. And in a civil war, everyone feels like all who aren't their tribe have to be crushed.
3
@samuelsilver8077 You may not be young, but you certainly do sound privileged. Sounds like you don't really have much experience of sustained ethnic tensions, civil war and oppression. Sounds more like someone blessed with innocent idealism. But luckily one doesn't need experience to guess what it might do to a populace. Meanwhile, your own stance sounds like 'an eye for an eye' or 'they got what they deserved' type thinking. Which is very convenient for making one feel all morally superior, but ultimately only means more people suffer in order to satisfy your notions of justice. That doesn't make for a better world.
3
Err...are you forgetting about the country literally next door to Myanmar i.e. Thailand? And there's several other countries under military rule.
2
That's kinda what happens to people when you live in a country that's been at civil war for literally over half a century. The Rohingyas have their own armed groups and don't recognize the national govt. either. That doesn't justify killing them en masse, but it does show that they're yet another competing faction. And in a civil war, everyone feels like all who aren't their tribe have to be crushed.
2
He likely meant 'peaceable' there, which is just saying that they're typically obedient and compliant i.e. doormats.
1
@samuelsilver8077 No one's saying killing innocents is right. I'm simply saying it's done. And a better world is, imo, simply one with less suffering / more happiness and prosperity, than it had before. But of course for you it's one with more 'justice', even if that means more misery. Or, in the immortal words of Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, "Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus" ("Let justice be done, though the world perish"). And therein lies the fork in our paths. I'd rather have less death if I can help it, not more. Not supporting the people of Myanmar does nothing for the Rohingya, merely condemns an even larger number of people to suffer.
1
@samuelsilver8077 Firstly, there was hardly a "small" group of slaves. Most slave economies tend to have large sections of the populace as slaves, indeed in some cases the slave population vastly outnumbers the non-slave one (Sparta, for example). Slavery wasn't small by any stretch of the imagination. Europe's population that benefitted from slavery was smaller than that of their colonies that powered said prosperity. "Small number of people worked to death can produce lost of benefits for majority so by that logic world was more happy and prosperous." - this is something of a fundamental philosophical difference, so I'm not going to try to argue it here. Rather I'll simply recommend a book I think you might enjoy (it's short too!). And even if you don't buy it, you can easily get the central gist of it from its Wikipedia entry - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas That's^ a piece of philosophical fiction though. Fortunately or unfortunately for you (depending on how you choose to look at it), that's not how the world tends to work. While absolute moral rules sound great in theory, they're just too rigid and unworkable. In practice, utilitarianism governs a lot of the structure of how we get things done, as it allows for flexibility and comparison. You don't wish to be a utilitarian. Very well. Just don't pretend that your absolutism is really helping anything.
1
@luishernandezblonde What is a monarch, but a ruler who's been institutionalized and given cultural legitimacy? A military ruler governs by fiat, a monarch does too. Neither is put in place by the people or accountable to the people. A monarch working in cahoots with the military may as well be a fellow general whose managed to somehow acquire some cultural cachet. The people are still under a dictatorship either way.
1
@minorcek It isn't spam in my book. Like I said, I don't mind channels promoting themselves under already established channels. I just like it being done honestly. If he did it using his own channel name so people didn't think it was some third party recommending him, I wouldn't have an issue with it.
1
That's kinda what happens to people when you live in a country that's been at civil war for literally over half a century. The Rohingyas have their own armed groups and don't recognize the national govt. either. That doesn't justify killing them en masse, but it does show that they're yet another competing faction. And in a civil war, everyone feels like all who aren't their tribe have to be crushed.
1