The previous junta in Myanmar would definitely have silenced the message senders. (And the people committing the violence. And likely any people who agreed with the people committing the violence. And probably their families just to be sure. Etc etc etc. It wasn't a fun time to be a hater in Myanmar.)
Point is, the previous "government" kept more control over this sort of violence and hatred, BUT... they did so at the barrel of a gun. What was the cost there? (Does the cost even matter in view of the fact that we can now see that they did save tens of thousands of lives? All really tough moral and ethical questions.)
What's disheartening to me is the fact that, it seems that humans haven't evolved past that. The only demonstrably effective method of controlling this sort of tribalism, seems to be at the barrel of a gun.
As long as there is scarcity, it will be game theoretically efficient to form violently competitive in and out groups.
That said, cynicism is misplaced. We are in a centuries-long progression of falling per-capita rates of violent death. Perpetuating that virtuous spiral is our tendency to shame, as this article goes, enablers of violence.
Point is, the previous "government" kept more control over this sort of violence and hatred, BUT... they did so at the barrel of a gun. What was the cost there? (Does the cost even matter in view of the fact that we can now see that they did save tens of thousands of lives? All really tough moral and ethical questions.)
What's disheartening to me is the fact that, it seems that humans haven't evolved past that. The only demonstrably effective method of controlling this sort of tribalism, seems to be at the barrel of a gun.