videos

I think explaining things in detail is good, actually.

Short version: Colonization and ICJ rulings produced disputed territory between the two countries. Both countries are controlled by two rich capitalist families, respectively. There was a minor border skirmish with one casualty and no evidence regarding who started shooting, and this began to be used by each family as a causus belli, taking various escalatory measures until there started to be overt military attacks, again with no agreement about "who started it". 32 people have died so far. Luna speculates that the militaries of one or both countries (Thailand's has much more independent power, while Cambodia's is more integrated into the executive branch) are stoking this for the sake of their own power. She is very careful to speak equally of each country and says that this is a reactionary war where the best outcome and the only one anyone should seek is peaceful resolution.

Entitled and useless complaint, I`m sorry but demanding content creators change their entire format to suit your personal preferences? Are we so devolved that 25 minutes is too much?

Either you care about a topic or you don't. You can't summarize Israel-Palestine in 5 minutes, you can't summarize Ukraine in 5 minutes. Why do you think it can be done here?

In any case like just google it then and you`ll find the social media slop you want. Her style is fine, you can watch 12 minutes twice if you care and if you don't then its not like she is the only source.

Why would she need to hurry up so much and "be done with it", so she can move on to another 5 minute slop? So much wrong here.

Yeah, I have to disagree. I had very little idea about all the history. Considering she covered two countries and over a century, I think the presentation was very concise.

I also believe that it all tied into the historical materialist argument she made overall, which would have been a lot less powerful if she'd only considered recent events.

The video honestly wouldn't be as good as an article because she has so many photos of the people involved on top of various maps. Too many images break the flow of an article because those images need captions at the bottom, so you have to read a paragraph and awkwardly read the caption of the image that accompanied the paragraph before moving on to the next paragraph. It's hardly noticeable when you only have a couple of images in a short article or blog post, but it becomes obvious when you have too many images.

The heavy use of images is justified for this case because her target audience are provincial Anglophones who can't even find Thailand or Cambodia on a map. The border dispute has to do with a temple that 99.999% of Anglophones didn't know existed let alone know how it looks like. She goes over various political players that 99.999% of Anglophones haven't heard of before let alone know how they look like.

100% agree. There's no reason that these kinds of videos shouldn't also come with a transcript at the very least so I can just read it. That's why I respect Michael Hudson, because his condition is that for every podcast or whatever he appears on there must also be a written transcript released at the same time, and I just read those.

unfortunately a lot of people are too soupy-brained to consume media that isn't in video format so they probably get a lot more visibility doing videos and not articles (despite the latter clearly being a better medium for news)

ok but have you considered that my parasocial relationship with streamers is more important than being able to read information?

Download some AI summarizer slop and stop complaining about useless shit lol