The west in general has a warped view of what Buddhism is thanks to popular media framing all of it as the same nonviolent, humble, peace-loving sect.
I'm not sure there's a context in which you can call Buddhism a "sect". Perhaps you think this word means not what it does.
I did not call Buddhism a sect. I stated that most of the west perceives all of Buddhism as the same sect (of Buddhism).
Are you implying they're actually a violent, non-humble, peace hating sect?
Edit: I was asking sincerely, I have trouble discerning meaning with statements like this sometimes. I apologize for the confusion, and I didn’t mean any accidentally implied negative sentiments toward OP. I thought there may have been a relatively unknown history behind the statement
No, his comment seems to be pretty clearly framing it as "not a monolith". Much like how Native Americans are often depicted as peaceful "noble savages" living in harmony with nature when some tribes might have fit that description while others were intentionally setting massive forest fires to drive out game, ripping people's hearts out in human sacrifices, etc. It's silly to describe the inhabitants of two continents as a monolith in the same way it's silly to describe all adherents of a massive religion (especially one without any central governing authorities) as a monolith.
No - I am noting that there are several sects of Buddhism with very different practices and cultural norms that even vary by regions claiming to practice the same beliefs.
For example, if you look at Thai Buddhism during the era that produced Pol Pot, you would see that fairly intense violence was a cultural norm as long as it was being used as a tool to teach or discipline rather than in anger.