/townhall/ - Townhall

>gave food and water to surrendered soldiers
This is literally the bear minimum to not be considered a war criminal.

Is there a particular point you're wanting to reference? Is it just the title of the video?
I've gone through 6 minutes now, and he's seemed to say nothing at all of value. Just a bunch of really shoddy jokes, if one stretches the definition.

I'm afraid I've not enough patience to listen to such talkshow "commedians" at the best of times. Doubly so, though, when they seem to be trying to get their clicks and ratings off of major tragedies.

>>10621
That's fine if you don't want to watch the whole video. I do ask that you not participate in the thread if that is the case, however, as I wanted to have a discussion around the video and that requires watching the whole thing.

>>10622
Then I'll simply speak on the portion I've seen of this video;

It's the usual fare of the elite these days, especially in media. Speak from ignorance, both of the subject matter they speak and it's context, as well as the realities of the daily lives of those who are not so privileged as they, and deigning  to mock the suffering and bloodshed so far detached as to have no effect of any kind let alone touch their ivory tower.

The video seems to depict everything I despise in modern mainstream media. Perfectly willing to profit off of the suffering in the world around them, moralizing to their lessers while laughing at their woes.
You'd think strategy if not empathy given the self evident lack would dissuade such people as this.
But I suppose after a certain point come up with a certain crowd, you no longer need worry yourself with the reaction. Entirely cut off from those regular strugglers as those like him are.

>>10623
If you do not want to watch the whole video and comment on the whole thing, then please leave the thread.

>>10624
Why is it necessary to watch the entirety in order to discuss a portion?

Is it my viewership that is your issue, or is it simply that I dare to disagree with your own stance on this content?
Do you belive the other half of the video will change my stance?

And before you complain further,  Mind that this is discussion of the video. You refuse to provide anything particular to discuss, so I am discussing the video as given in the OP.
I am not obligated to follow your instructions. That's never been a requirement for participation in any thread. Nor do I have inclination to leave simply because you insist I must, after daring to share an opinion on the video which you requested.
If my opinion is so untenable to you, I would suggest you ought not seek opinions of others in the first place.

>>10625
>>10625
>Why is it necessary to watch the entirety in order to discuss a portion?

It's not necessary. However, as the creator of the thread, I clarified that I would like the participants to watch the whole video before discussing it's contents.

>I am not obligated to follow your instructions. That's never been a requirement for participation in any thread

Actually, you are. *I* created the thread, therefore I have some basic say over how I want my own thread to go. You are free to participate or not, and I am free to tell you to leave *MY* thread and tell you to go create your own tread if you don't like how I am choosing to handle my own thread.

I am also free to tell you to *leave* my thread, which I am doing now. Leave, my thread.

>>10628
>It's not necessary.
Then I have no need to.

>Actually, you are. *I* created the thread, therefore I have some basic say over how I want my own thread to go.
Contrary to your presumption, creating a thread does not mean you get to rule over others, making unreasonable demands of them that you yourself admit are not necessary to discuss the thread's topic.

This has never been true for any thread. Let alone one on townhall.

>I am also free to tell you to *leave* my thread, which I am doing now. Leave, my thread.
You're "free" to, sure. You can make whatever unreasonable demands you please.
But nobody has any obligation to acquiesce to your demands.

I disagree.

I can't see any particular historical lesson in which refugees are perceived as being treated better if they're of particular backgrounds.

Ethnically white refugees from countries such as Czechoslovakia, France, Hungary, and Poland had a terrible time after WWII, many of them suffering from extreme hunger and other issues such as persistent unemployment. This was especially bad for those of Jewish heritage. It took decades for Europe to really recover.

During the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s, ethnically white refugees from Bosnian backgrounds, Serbian backgrounds, and such also did horribly. The international community didn't do a particularly good job in helping them. To say the least.

African refugees in a similar situation failed to get what they needed around the same time in terms of the Rwandan conflict. Same as with different catastrophes across the continent, really. In the 2000s and 2010s, mass exodus from Arabic speaking areas involved peoples of highly varied ethnicities and skin colors occurred. This triggered a political crisis such that different countries felt overwhelmed, the refugees suffering yet again in this circumstance.

If anything, I think that this is clear: refugees get treated awfully with extremely few exceptions, now in Eastern Europe being an exception so far due to the relatively small number of individuals moving about plus the extremely united diplomatic push that's anti-Russia and pro-Ukraine.

R.e. the video, I watched until the 10:30 mark and then had to stop due to a computer issue.