Comments by "K `" (@user-jt3dw6vv4x) on "VisualPolitik EN" channel.

  1. Exactly, nobody wants to hear about Q*tar. The 2022 World Cup was enough. No more.
    2
  2. No you don't. Asia-Pacific is the term that has ben used for so long. It's only under Trump that the term "Indo-Pacific" became more common.
    2
  3.  @paulfri1569  Y'all getting triggered over the most meaningless of things...
    2
  4.  @Learningram  It doesn't because India's top 10% own most of the country's wealth.
    2
  5.  @davidford3115  Sorry it seems I have been too judgemental and assumed the worst by grouping you with those other people without knowing anything about you. I can see after talking to you that you are rather different to those people that do fetishise. So apologies to you. Yep I agree, not many know about Greco-Buddhism which is a shame because the civilisation that emerged from the two was quite beautiful. It also happens to be that Greco-Buddhist civilisation lies in an area of modern Asia that now no longer practices Eastern philosophical traditions, which may explain why not many people know about it so it doesn't become an incentive for tourism or anything like that. Yeah I imagine it would be a lot different had those Eastern philosophies travelled to Europe (particularly with Alexander the Great). New traditions derived from those Eastern traditions would have also emerged in Europe and syncretism with European pagan beliefs may have transpired too (akin to the way Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism were syncretised with local folk beliefs of Southeast Asia, Himalayas, Japan and regional areas of China and India). Interesting points you made about the Shinto gods, I do think that people in Europe may have been more receptive towards Eastern traditions had the indigenous European religions continued to dominate Europe. Syncretism would have been easier due to fluidity. The rigidity of the Abrahamic faiths always made it harder to accept other belief systems, which is why they all disappeared in Europe.
    2
  6. It's culturally a Western country. The dominant cultural system in the country is Western and that's not going to change ever. When people say "Western" they mean "culture" these days. Australia is not culturally "Eastern" like China, India or Japan. There is a large Asian-descended population in the country, with some having roots dating back to colonial days but that is not the dominant cultural system. Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia once said that Australia will become "more Asian" in the future and maybe the country will become "Eurasian" culturally speaking but that will still mean a significant Western cultural element continues to exist. Mainland Australia, in the future, may feel like Christmas Island (overseas Australian island territory) which is a blend of Asian and Western cultures, the result of Chinese, Malay and Indian settlers from Singapore/Malaya and the British and Irish settlers who came afterwards. It will still be culturally Western though.
    2
  7. 😐😐
    1
  8.  @ambujverma695  It's true
    1
  9.  @TyroneBeiron  If anything it's a CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Other - Eurasian) nation
    1
  10.  @aprilchan3726  Your name says it all. Rohingyas were considered part of Myanmar until the citizenship law in 1982. Prior to 1982, there were Rohingyas in the Burmese government. Don't speak about things you don't understand.
    1
  11.  @aprilchan3726  Just to make it easier for me? Why would you mention India? I'm not even from there. This has nothing to do with India. Like I said before, it's very clear. I know where you stand. Don't pretend that you have more of a right over others. I can see right through it. Yes there were issues regarding the Rohingyas that created tension but if you did your research you'd know that the British played a prominent role in what happened during WWII in Myanmar. I don't need to give you sources. If you actually cared about getting your facts straight instead of believing the Tatmadaw's propaganda, you wouldn't be asking me that because it's right there in English on the internet. I'm someone who prefers to accept reality as it is. I know what happened, I know there were issues with the Rohingyas, I know the historical baggage but I also know that the Tatmadaw is the cause for what we are seeing today. Prior to 2012, things were not as bad as they are currently now in Rakhine State.
    1
  12.  @aprilchan3726  What I said is true. It's not sudden. They want to be part of it because they are part of Burmese society. The Tatmadaw stripping off their citizenship isn't going to change reality. There was no issue with Rohingya during the Arakan kingdom days. You really have no idea of what you're talking about. Go read some books.
    1
  13.  @aprilchan3726  You're talking about comprehension skills but you can't even comprehend this basic piece of information. Tell me how on earth can a government strip a population off their citizenship if they were never a part of the country to begin with? You can't strip a population off their citizenship if they never had citizenship in the first place. For the Rohingyas to be stipped off their citizenship in 1982 proves that they were part of the nation before 1982. They became stateless in 1982 after they lost their Burmese nationality. Understand now? Is this clear to you or do I need to spell it out for you again? Educate yourself on the 1982 Citizenship Act and understand that Rohingyas were left out of the act before you start speaking about this topic.
    1
  14. ​ @aprilchan3726  Can't stay on topic? All I've been doing is sticking to the topic. Notice how you're running around in circles parroting the same old stuff knowing well that what I said is right there online for you to read? Did you even watch the video you sent me???? He literally spoke about the 1982 Citizenship Act which excluded Rohingyas from Burmese nationality. Goodness gracious, you're claiming I don't understand a thing and then here you are sending me a video that supports exactly what I've been talking about.
    1
  15.  @aprilchan3726  False? False? False? What I explained in my previous comments are detailed in the video you provided a link for in your other comment. Throwing a tantrum and telling me that it's false isn't going to change reality. It is what it is. He literally mentioned the 1982 citizenship law right before he spoke about the regulations. WATCH THE VIDEO.
    1
  16.  @aprilchan3726  Get your facts straight before you comment for goodness sake. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  17.  @aprilchan3726  1. They sided with the British because they were bribed into thinking they were getting their own state. 2. There was no Bangladesh until 1971. 3. I think it's pretty clear to see that Rohingyas of today want to be part of Burmese society. You have many Burmese activists of Rohingya descent like Wai Wai Nu who are fighting for democracy in Myanmar.
    1
  18.  @aprilchan3726  Your comments have proven to me why Myanmar is still so far behind. While some ex-colonies manage to move so far forward for the betterment of their citizens, some countries still hang onto the past and fail to understand the importance of building bridges and starting new. I don't know if you're a Buddhist or not but this really isn't the way to go. It's the way you generalise and fail to realise that people can change. You're one of those people who believed the Tatmadaw so there's really nothing I can say to change your mind. All I can say is that many members of Gen Z, especially those on the frontline fighting, are the ones that believe in ethnic unity and recognise the Rohingyas. It seems like they have the mentality that extraordinary leaders like Lee Kuan Yew and S Rajaratnam (both of Singapore) had in terms of building ethnic harmony and unity. If you're more interested in holding grudges and burning bridges, then so be it. We can't change your mind.
    1
  19. ​ @aprilchan3726  I'm just talking about you not supporting Rohingyas and believeing they all deserve to be punished. That's what I'm commenting on. Your comments show that you don't care about them or like them. Is that not correct? I'm not talking about anything else that you don't or do support, I'm just talking about your belief that Rohingyas don't deserve rights in Myanmar. I'm not assuming anything. I'm commenting on what you have published here. Try to rationalise? No, how about you try and rationalise things from both perspectives? Up until 2012, there was no issue with Rohingyas. Yes Rohingyas have no rights in Myanmar but Rakhine villagers were living side by side with Rohingyas in Maungdaw and Buthidaung until the ethnic riots of 2012. You keep harking on about defense this defense that and I'm defending Myanmar and all this stuff but you're just masquerading your bigotry behind this belief. If you genuinely had a heart, you would move on. Most Rohingyas don't deserve this but no matter what you say you believe that they do. You keep speaking as if Rohingyas are the ones to blame. Have you thought about what the Rakhine people have done? It takes two to tango. Both Rohingya and Rakhine are to blame. You see, I'm rationalising things from both perspectives - you aren't. This is why I said that Myanmar is still so far behind. Look south and you see Singapore which has managed to pull itself out of ethnic division to create an ethnically harmonious nation. Malaysia doesn't have a good track record in terms of ethnic unity but it's so much better than Myanmar's way of managing diversity. Myanmar had so much potential but now look at it now. What a waste.
    1
  20.  @aprilchan3726  1. No you believe all Rohingyas deserve punishment. Stop behaving like this. I can see all of your bigoted replies throughout this entire comment section. Crying because people keep talking about the Rohingyas. 2. I never have blamed Aung San Suu Kyi or the civilian government. The military is to blame. Accept this. 3. Crying to me and throwing a tantrum because you can't accept the fact that both sides are to blame isn't going to change this. 4. I know that before 2012 there were issues but there was a sense of calm of anf if you actually cared to listen to Rakhine people who live in Maungdaw you'd know that they said they would go to Rohingya shops and Rohingya children would play with Rakhine children. 5. There were Rohingyas in the Burmese government prior to the military takeover in the 1960s. In fact, there was a Rohingya politician who won the seat of Maungdaw in 1990. So prior to 1982, Rohingyas were (de facto) treated as a part of Burmese society. It's not my problem that you're clueless about these facts and are instead parroting propaganda because you're more interested in defending the Tatmadaw. Facts over feelings. You stating all this stuff isn't going to change the fact the Rohingyas were treated as a part of Burmese society by their representation in Burmese politics. Go cry about it. 6. No you didn't win the argument. You're just running around in cirlces claiming i'm ignorant when I am fully educated on this topic. Also, no I will never delete my comments. Why would I? Everything I said is correct. It is you that should delete your comments after failing to get your facts straight, not once, not twice but three times. Please, this whole thing is so funny.
    1
  21.  @davidford3115  India's backyard? Sri Lanka is not India's backyard. This "India's backyard", "China's backyard" etc. is why the Asia-Pacific is so wary of these power-hungry countries gaining control of the region.
    1
  22.  @davidford3115  I don't expect someone from the US to understand the issue of such overbearing terminology. For the US, the whole world is their playground which is why they're trying to force countries in the Asia-Pacific to pick the side of the US and refuse to just accept our view that we don't want to be caught up in their China war.
    1
  23.  @davidford3115  Three posts after one another is not me throwing a temper tantrum, it's because for some reason I can't post long replies using the device I post comments on. So you can stop assuming.
    1
  24.  @davidford3115  You haven't made a single point. You're using a lot of jargon just to say nothing and calling me "Anti-Western" and "Anglophobic" and all these things. It's typical of people today, call someone "(something)phobic" and call it a day and think they've made a point. Embarrassing but we all know you'd be very upset if someone were to call the USA "Mexico's backyard" and how convenient of you to ignore this when I brought it up days ago. People who believe in national supremacy and hegemony will never understand, they only want power and control. Small countries and less powerful countries belong to them in their eyes.
    1
  25.  @davidford3115  Actually I have. I told you that such terminology is indicative of hegemony as it indicates ownership. Sri Lanka does not belong to India, so how on earth is it "India's backyard"? You never responded to that. Instead you're using random jargon and ranting about Marxism, Anglophobia and all this random things because you don't know what to actually say. You think you're making a point by constructing this "holier than thou" mentality but all I see is arrogance and toxicity.
    1
  26.  @davidford3115  There is only one person here who needs to get over themselves and it's not me. Due to their mentality of hegemony and national supremacy, these people do not understand how narrow their thoughts are. He speaks about anti-colonialism as if that's a bad thing. Nobody in the Asia-Pacific wants to be a colony and nobody in this region wants to be pushed around by China or the US. You are just deeply upset that I (and many others in this part of the world) are pushing back against the views you support. Accept it. We don't like to use such terminology "[insert country's name]'s backyard]" because it indicates ownership. So if you're going to speak on what happens to countries in this part of the world, look beyond your American perspective.
    1
  27.  @davidford3115  Notice how you only described Arizona, Texas, and California as "Mexico's backyard"? No, the whole of the USA is "Mexico's backyard" according to your logic. Accept it or get over it.
    1
  28.  @davidford3115  You don't know what to say so you said that instead. You will never understand the perspective of nations that do not aim to enforce hegemony over other countries.
    1
  29.  @davidford3115  So when you can't accept other people's views, you resort to name calling? Typical. I mean that's all you've been doing this whole time. I don't need to touch grass. You just need to understand the fact that most people do not believe in this terminology of "[insert country name]'s backyard" unlike some people in certain countries. We don't believe independent nations belong to other countries so we don't use this "[insert country name]'s backyard", a backyard belongs to a house. So why on earth would we say "[insert country name]'s backyard"????? Why is this so hard for you to understand?????
    1
  30.  @davidford3115  This has nothing to do with isolationism... 🤦‍♂ Virtue signalling? I see more mainstream American jargon is being. Please, just give us a break...
    1
  31.  @davidford3115  He won't get off that high horse... imagine how tired we are
    1
  32. The country is no longer socialist.
    1
  33. It needs to be appealing
    1
  34. Well India's fertility rate is already below replacement level, so don't expect them to have a population explosion this century.
    1
  35. No offence but nobody is going to obsess over a country like Qatar or any of those Arab Gulf states. They haven't built themselves up in the way South Korea or Singapore or any of those nations have for anybody to have respect for them. They extracted oil, sold it and got blue and white collar workers from all over Asia, Africa and the West to do everything for them. Not to mention a multitude of other reasons as to why they have such a negative perception on the global stage. The only time I have ever seen such universal negative remarks directed towards a country, it has always been towards a Gulf nation. I am yet to see a single positive comment about any of those nations. The closest I have seen are defenders of Arab Gulf states who all happen to be from other Arabic-speaking Muslim-majority nations but that doesn't count at all.
    1
  36. Only 10% of India's population is rich, they're the ones that hold most of the country's wealth. All those Indian billionaires we see on international rankings are the ones who own the country's wealth. The average citizen is far from rich.
    1
  37.  @balajeepratham8200  No because the US is a high income nation, India is not. India is still a lower middle income nation where its high economic growth rate hasn't changed the living standards for the poorest people of India's population.
    1
  38.  @balajeepratham8200  India's economic rise benefits the ultrarich like the Ambanis and Adanis. They're the face of India's economic rise, not the average Indians you see here posting comments online. India's rise is lop sided because it only benefits a small portion of the country.
    1
  39. Rohingyas don't persecute non-Muslims in Myanmar. Why do you all lie? Anytime I see you on one of these videos about Myanmar, I see that all of you do nothing but lie. Stop it.
    1
  40. Yeah nobody is idolising Qatar
    1
  41.  @Ynhockey  True but as you said, Qatar is known for the wrong reasons only. There is actually nothing positive associated with that country, that's why it has such a negative perception. Their influence is also not far reaching, only within the Arab or maybe more broadly Muslim world but beyond that, the influence is non-existent.
    1
  42. Why would Sri Lanka want to join India? People have got to stop thinking that joining a large country is how you solve problems... it's not.
    1
  43.  @DonesdeMotivacion  Most Sri Lankans are Buddhists, most Sri Lankans speak Sinhalese, Sri Lankans are ethnically Sinhalese, Tamil, Moor, Malay, Burgher/Eurasian, Vedda and even Chinese. Sri Lankan culture is a mix of South Indian, Malay and indigenous influences.
    1
  44.  @DonesdeMotivacion  Most Indians are Hindus. Most Indians speak Hindi (those who speak Tamil in India are a minority group unrelated to the people in India who hold power). Indian culture is not a blend of indigenous Sri Lankan, South Indian and Malay influences, it's a lot more diverse than that. India is very ethnically diverse and is not home to Sinhalese, Moors, Malays, Burghers/Eurasians and Vedda, even the Sri Lankan Tamils have their own distinct culture compared to Indian Tamils. People have got to start learning the difference between different nations instead of assuming they are the same just because they can't tell the difference between the people of those countries.
    1
  45.  @DonesdeMotivacion  THEY'RE NOT ALL GENETICALLY THE SAME. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE. This is like me claiming Italians and Greeks are genetically the same. There is only one person here who is ignorant and it's not me. American people have got to stop talking about things they don't understand. Let people in Asia-Pacific figure out what to do, there is no need for someone on the other side of the world to give their unwanted two cents about something they don't understand.
    1
  46.  @DonesdeMotivacion  Imagine a Latino person on the other side of the world speaking about an issue that doesn't even concern them and then when someone corrects them, they refuse to acknowledge their errors. American exceptionalism in a nutshell.
    1
  47. ​ @DonesdeMotivacion  People are getting tired of the US because they're sticking their nose into everybody's business and telling people how they must identify and how they should behave. There is a reason why China is now so powerful.
    1
  48. How can you say that Aung San Suu Kyi is not a fan of Rohingyas or non-Buddhists? Some of her closest political allies are Burmese Muslims.
    1
  49.  @archonmarch3965  Yes but that doesn't negate the fact that she has Muslim members in her government. Bamar Muslims are culturally very similar to the Bamar Buddhists. The Burmese military are the people who kicked out all of the Rohingyas out of the Burmese government in the late 20th century.
    1
  50.  @archonmarch3965  1. Bamar Muslims and Bamar Buddhists eat the same food, use the same names, wear the same clothes, speak the same language. They're culturally similar. That's what I'm talking about here 2. It's very easy to judge from the outside without actually putting yourself in one's shoes. The very fact that ASSK was arrested is a clear indicator that she never had full control. She was a puppet. There is a reason why she was called the "de facto" leader of the country and not the "de jure" leader of the country. She was never official in the way other heads of states are.
    1