3 ms·

There is a huge difference between seeing an informed documentary and seeing an out of context video. For example, it's quite possible these people were rejecti

by iaskwhy 11y ago

There is a huge difference between seeing an informed documentary and seeing an out of context video. For example, it's quite possible these people were rejecting food and water because they were tired of being beaten and hold up by the Hungarian police/military, as seen in lots of other videos. One should see these videos with an open mind and not with a preconceived idea because that's how it got us to be surprised by a young child drown in the beach when hundreds of others already had had the same fate or when we start saying they should stay on the neighbouring countries when, in fact, they already are, millions of them. Obviously these people will behave like any other people would: in a possibly desperate and irrational way. Some would do some things they shouldn't and might end up in jail for it, some will not. It's up to each individual to fight in their own way. Regarding your first point, you should really read about the United Nations World Food Programme which is the organism in charge of paying for all the food in these camps. From their own page[1]: "The World Food Programme (WFP) is struggling to meet the urgent food needs of close to six million displaced people in Syria and in neighbouring countries. Food operations are severely underfunded, meaning that WFP has been forced to reduce the level of assistance it provides to refugees across the region." More[2]: "1.7m Syrian refugees face food crisis as UN funds dry up". I have never been hungry in my life but it mustn't be what I would call being "good enough". I agree they are not dead though, just hungry. [1] http://www.wfp.org/emergencies/syria http://www.wfp.org/emergencies/syria [2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/01/syrian-refugees-food-crisis-un-world-programme http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/01/syrian-refugees...

emp_zealoth 11y ago
And how exactly do you suggest to tell which is an informed documentary and which is out of context?
- iaskwhy 11y ago
  The easiest way is to try to look for confirmation or a denial of what you just saw. But in the given example all you have is a few minutes of video footage which doesn't give you any context. So in a documentary, you would expect those people rejecting water to explain why they are rejecting it, while in that video all you have is the images without any context. That's obvious, I'd say. Now, given this, you would be surprised by what people might say they are doing what they are doing, as shocking and uncomprehensible as it might seem in a video. For example, I was having a lot of questions about the situation in Calais, France, why would there be people looking to risk their lifes to go from France to England? Seeing a couple of documentaries on this situations with interviews with some of the people there, I got a completely new insight into what's happening there.
  - emp_zealoth 11y ago
    The difference between a few minutes footage and cherrypicked longer footage is just money. Just because it looks comprehensive doesn't mean it's not trying to spin a certain story. I'm thoroughly sickened by masd media constantly trying to make it about little girls or shaggy people. The footage from Hungary might be out of context, but one thing is visible - people there are perfectly fine physically. They are healthy, well fed. This alone should be enough to make one go "Hold on. This is weird" And if they are rioting because they are being detained until some basic documentation can be set up, then well, fuck them. They come to our home and are already pushing our patience - we were kind enough to not go Saudi Arabia on them. They are not being instantly deported, nor shot.

by iaskwhy 11y ago

emp_zealoth 11y ago

And how exactly do you suggest to tell which is an informed documentary and which is out of context?

iaskwhy 11y ago
The easiest way is to try to look for confirmation or a denial of what you just saw. But in the given example all you have is a few minutes of video footage which doesn't give you any context. So in a documentary, you would expect those people rejecting water to explain why they are rejecting it, while in that video all you have is the images without any context. That's obvious, I'd say. Now, given this, you would be surprised by what people might say they are doing what they are doing, as shocking and uncomprehensible as it might seem in a video. For example, I was having a lot of questions about the situation in Calais, France, why would there be people looking to risk their lifes to go from France to England? Seeing a couple of documentaries on this situations with interviews with some of the people there, I got a completely new insight into what's happening there.
- emp_zealoth 11y ago
  The difference between a few minutes footage and cherrypicked longer footage is just money. Just because it looks comprehensive doesn't mean it's not trying to spin a certain story. I'm thoroughly sickened by masd media constantly trying to make it about little girls or shaggy people. The footage from Hungary might be out of context, but one thing is visible - people there are perfectly fine physically. They are healthy, well fed. This alone should be enough to make one go "Hold on. This is weird" And if they are rioting because they are being detained until some basic documentation can be set up, then well, fuck them. They come to our home and are already pushing our patience - we were kind enough to not go Saudi Arabia on them. They are not being instantly deported, nor shot.