Bill Maher Trump dinner

[BigMike]

Bill Maher talking about his dinner with Donald Trump. What does this really tell us? That 'politician' is a false front? An illusion. A Hollywood set. I found this fairly disturbing but unsurprising. People worship/demonise two-dimensional cardboard cutouts that don't really exist. Trump: the crafty cynic of epic proportions-- but who can blame him? People lap it up. Hitler was probably a charming dinner host too. I'm not comparing them as people, only as master politicians and manipulators.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxlopbcfXpQ

Yeah, that clip of Bill Maher chatting about his dinner with Trump was surreal. The whole thing reeks of the exact normalization that got us into this mess in the first place.

Let’s not kid ourselves here—Trump isn’t just some “crafty cynic” or misunderstood showman. He’s the guy who knowingly tried to overturn a democratic election. Who incited a violent mob on January 6. Who separated families at the border and locked kids in cages. Who used the presidency to enrich himself while pushing conspiracy theories that got people killed during a pandemic. Who cozied up to dictators, gutted environmental protections, downplayed white supremacist violence, and made cruelty a central part of his political brand.

And now Bill Maher, someone who used to pride himself on “politically incorrect” truth-telling, sits down to dinner with this man and comes away thinking Trump is just more reasonable in private?

What’s actually disturbing here isn’t Trump’s two-faced nature. That’s a given. What’s disturbing is that Maher—who has always postured as someone above the partisan charade—is so easily charmed by the very person who represents a direct threat to democracy, civil rights, and basic human decency. The same guy who said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose voters. The same guy who downplayed a deadly virus while he knew how serious it was, costing hundreds of thousands of lives. The same guy who mocked disabled people, degraded women, demonized immigrants, and literally tried to extort Ukraine to smear a political rival.

What does it say about Maher that he’s OK with all that, as long as the wine flows and the talk is smooth?

You’re absolutely right to call this a “Hollywood set.” But we should be very clear: when people with a platform start shrugging off the danger and pretending it’s all theater, they’re not being edgy or iconoclastic. They’re being complicit.

Trump isn’t a joke. He’s not a “character.” He’s a cautionary tale in the flesh. And every time someone like Maher validates him as just another player in the game, the stakes get higher for all of us.

The 'kids in cages' thing was ridiculous hyperbole. Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it, or in the case of Americans, tell it once. It was Obama who had the 'cages' built for the purpose of temporarily holding migrant children. People have been sending very small children over the border ALONE, putting them in terrible danger and often with no one ever knowing what happens to them. There are many videos of these children. That's a direct result of Biden's slack border policies.
My point wasnt that Trump is evil impersonified, I was commenting on the nature of this entity we call 'politicians'. Leaders in general are notoriously inadequate human beings behind the facade. 'Inadequate' doesn't mean 'decent and normal'. Trump clearly has the ability to charm and manipulate people. All leaders do, or they wouldn't be leaders.

You're right to bring up the broader issue of political facades—yes, many so-called leaders are products of image management, stagecraft, and manipulation. But that doesn’t mean all politicians are equally dangerous or that we should flatten the moral terrain until it’s just one big cynical shrug.

It’s true the “kids in cages” policy started under Obama, and the infrastructure was built during his administration. But let’s not pretend the policy under Trump wasn’t drastically different. Under Trump, there was a deliberate “zero tolerance” policy that led to mass separations of families—including toddlers from their parents—with no system in place to reunite them. The cruelty wasn’t incidental; it was the point. That’s a meaningful distinction, not “ridiculous hyperbole.”

And while Biden’s border policies absolutely deserve scrutiny—and yes, sending kids alone across the border is horrifying—the idea that this is purely a result of “slack” policies ignores the push factors: violence, poverty, instability, and, in some cases, parents believing their child has a better chance alone than with them. The causes are complex, and painting it as a simple policy failure misses the deeper picture.

As for Trump’s charm—sure, he has it. So did lots of people who did immense harm. The danger isn’t just that he’s manipulative. It’s that his manipulation is being excused, even admired, while the consequences—dead bodies, broken families, emboldened hate groups, eroded democratic norms—are minimized or memory-holed.

It’s not about painting him as evil incarnate. It’s about being honest about the stakes. If we treat this like just another case of “politicians gonna politician,” we lose the ability to draw real moral lines—and that, more than any one leader’s flaws, is what puts democracy in peril.

[BigMike]

One thing: Recently — it was a surprising statement to me — Glen Greenwald, generally pretty objective and independent, said that one of the only major MSM news providers with objective reporting was Fox News.

This contradicts or challenges your (prejudiced?) statement:

I’m saying he’s the result of millions of determinants: Fox News […]

My impression was that you assume a negative/destructive influence (?)

Fair point, Alexis. Here's my response:

Greenwald may have praised some of Fox’s coverage—especially where it breaks from establishment consensus—but that doesn’t erase its broader role as a driver of fear, misinformation, and tribal identity politics. The influence I referred to isn't about isolated segments of solid reporting; it’s about Fox’s overall effect on shaping a worldview that primes people for Trump-style demagoguery. If you think that assessment is wrong, show me the data that says Fox viewers are more informed, not less.

[accelafine]

Yeah, that clip of Bill Maher chatting about his dinner with Trump was surreal. The whole thing reeks of the exact normalization that got us into this mess in the first place.

Let’s not kid ourselves here—Trump isn’t just some “crafty cynic” or misunderstood showman. He’s the guy who knowingly tried to overturn a democratic election. Who incited a violent mob on January 6. Who separated families at the border and locked kids in cages. Who used the presidency to enrich himself while pushing conspiracy theories that got people killed during a pandemic. Who cozied up to dictators, gutted environmental protections, downplayed white supremacist violence, and made cruelty a central part of his political brand.

And now Bill Maher, someone who used to pride himself on “politically incorrect” truth-telling, sits down to dinner with this man and comes away thinking Trump is just more reasonable in private?

What’s actually disturbing here isn’t Trump’s two-faced nature. That’s a given. What’s disturbing is that Maher—who has always postured as someone above the partisan charade—is so easily charmed by the very person who represents a direct threat to democracy, civil rights, and basic human decency. The same guy who said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose voters. The same guy who downplayed a deadly virus while he knew how serious it was, costing hundreds of thousands of lives. The same guy who mocked disabled people, degraded women, demonized immigrants, and literally tried to extort Ukraine to smear a political rival.

What does it say about Maher that he’s OK with all that, as long as the wine flows and the talk is smooth?

You’re absolutely right to call this a “Hollywood set.” But we should be very clear: when people with a platform start shrugging off the danger and pretending it’s all theater, they’re not being edgy or iconoclastic. They’re being complicit.

Trump isn’t a joke. He’s not a “character.” He’s a cautionary tale in the flesh. And every time someone like Maher validates him as just another player in the game, the stakes get higher for all of us.

The 'kids in cages' thing was ridiculous hyperbole. Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it, or in the case of Americans, tell it once. It was Obama who had the 'cages' built for the purpose of temporarily holding migrant children. People have been sending very small children over the border ALONE, putting them in terrible danger and often with no one ever knowing what happens to them. There are many videos of these children. That's a direct result of Biden's slack border policies.
My point wasnt that Trump is evil impersonified, I was commenting on the nature of this entity we call 'politicians'. Leaders in general are notoriously inadequate human beings behind the facade. 'Inadequate' doesn't mean 'decent and normal'. Trump clearly has the ability to charm and manipulate people. All leaders do, or they wouldn't be leaders.

You're right to bring up the broader issue of political facades—yes, many so-called leaders are products of image management, stagecraft, and manipulation. But that doesn’t mean all politicians are equally dangerous or that we should flatten the moral terrain until it’s just one big cynical shrug.

It’s true the “kids in cages” policy started under Obama, and the infrastructure was built during his administration. But let’s not pretend the policy under Trump wasn’t drastically different. Under Trump, there was a deliberate “zero tolerance” policy that led to mass separations of families—including toddlers from their parents—with no system in place to reunite them. The cruelty wasn’t incidental; it was the point. That’s a meaningful distinction, not “ridiculous hyperbole.”

And while Biden’s border policies absolutely deserve scrutiny—and yes, sending kids alone across the border is horrifying—the idea that this is purely a result of “slack” policies ignores the push factors: violence, poverty, instability, and, in some cases, parents believing their child has a better chance alone than with them. The causes are complex, and painting it as a simple policy failure misses the deeper picture.

As for Trump’s charm—sure, he has it. So did lots of people who did immense harm. The danger isn’t just that he’s manipulative. It’s that his manipulation is being excused, even admired, while the consequences—dead bodies, broken families, emboldened hate groups, eroded democratic norms—are minimized or memory-holed.

It’s not about painting him as evil incarnate. It’s about being honest about the stakes. If we treat this like just another case of “politicians gonna politician,” we lose the ability to draw real moral lines—and that, more than any one leader’s flaws, is what puts democracy in peril.

You are correct. The large number of very young children being left to their own devices wasn't only a consequence of Biden's slack border controls, it was a consequence of despicable, sociopathic parenting. There's no excuse for doing that whatsoever.
Much of the rest is the result of you missing my point and/or putting words in my mouth.

[BigMike]

You are correct. The large number of very young children being left to their own devices wasn't only a consequence of Biden's slack border controls, it was a consequence of despicable, sociopathic parenting. There's no excuse for doing that whatsoever.
Much of the rest the result of you missing my point and/or putting words in my mouth.

Fair enough—if I misunderstood your point or misrepresented your intent, I’ll own that. But I think we’re circling something important here.

You’re absolutely right that it’s horrific for parents to send very young children alone across the border. No decent person would argue otherwise. But labeling it “sociopathic parenting” risks oversimplifying something far more complex. Many of these parents are fleeing extreme violence, poverty, and persecution. Some make the impossible calculation that their child has a better chance surviving alone than staying with them. That’s not sociopathy—that’s desperation, and it’s a symptom of a broken system on both sides of the border.

As for your broader point about politicians being fundamentally inadequate, I don’t actually disagree. But I do think we need to distinguish between the typical flaws of political leadership and the unique danger posed by someone like Trump. Not every manipulative or image-conscious leader invites insurrection, erodes public trust in elections, or deliberately targets the most vulnerable for political gain. That’s not just “inadequacy.” That’s dangerous authoritarian behavior, and I think it deserves to be called out as such.

At the end of the day, I think we’re both trying to look past the surface-level theatrics. But while you seem focused on the hollowness of the whole political class (which, again, fair point), I’m saying that within that cynical landscape, there are still lines that shouldn’t be crossed—and Trump has bulldozed right through them. When we fail to hold him accountable just because the whole system is broken, we lose our ability to defend what’s left of it.

[accelafine]

You are correct. The large number of very young children being left to their own devices wasn't only a consequence of Biden's slack border controls, it was a consequence of despicable, sociopathic parenting. There's no excuse for doing that whatsoever.
Much of the rest the result of you missing my point and/or putting words in my mouth.

Fair enough—if I misunderstood your point or misrepresented your intent, I’ll own that. But I think we’re circling something important here.

You’re absolutely right that it’s horrific for parents to send very young children alone across the border. No decent person would argue otherwise. But labeling it “sociopathic parenting” risks oversimplifying something far more complex. Many of these parents are fleeing extreme violence, poverty, and persecution. Some make the impossible calculation that their child has a better chance surviving alone than staying with them. That’s not sociopathy—that’s desperation, and it’s a symptom of a broken system on both sides of the border.

As for your broader point about politicians being fundamentally inadequate, I don’t actually disagree. But I do think we need to distinguish between the typical flaws of political leadership and the unique danger posed by someone like Trump. Not every manipulative or image-conscious leader invites insurrection, erodes public trust in elections, or deliberately targets the most vulnerable for political gain. That’s not just “inadequacy.” That’s dangerous authoritarian behavior, and I think it deserves to be called out as such.

At the end of the day, I think we’re both trying to look past the surface-level theatrics. But while you seem focused on the hollowness of the whole political class (which, again, fair point), I’m saying that within that cynical landscape, there are still lines that shouldn’t be crossed—and Trump has bulldozed right through them. When we fail to hold him accountable just because the whole system is broken, we lose our ability to defend what’s left of it.

Oh give me a break. The US has extreme 'poverty and violence'. Where they are 'fleeing' from is probably a lot nicer than what they are going to. They are lured by the 'American dream' bs, i.e. money and the promise of untold riches. Americans need to stop crowing about how 'great' their country is because stupid people will believe it. Frankly I would much rather live in Mexico.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…but that doesn’t erase its broader role as a driver of fear, misinformation, and tribal identity politics.

I have a few thoughts.

It may indeed be wise to feel fear, and respond to events with fear. Fear is not necessarily bad (as you seem to paint it). It may well be necessary and good to 1) inspire fear and to 2) feel fear.

One man’s disinformation is another’s truthful purveying of needed information.

The way you are spinning “tribal identity politics” is as an evil. It could well be that. But is not necessarily that in all circumstances. In fact, stimulating group (or national) identity and identification could well be a very positive thing.

I acknowledge your use of common sense”hot phrases” that are designed to elicit specific responses. That is part-and-parcel of public relations and propaganda, isn’t it?

[BigMike]

You are correct. The large number of very young children being left to their own devices wasn't only a consequence of Biden's slack border controls, it was a consequence of despicable, sociopathic parenting. There's no excuse for doing that whatsoever.
Much of the rest the result of you missing my point and/or putting words in my mouth.

Fair enough—if I misunderstood your point or misrepresented your intent, I’ll own that. But I think we’re circling something important here.

You’re absolutely right that it’s horrific for parents to send very young children alone across the border. No decent person would argue otherwise. But labeling it “sociopathic parenting” risks oversimplifying something far more complex. Many of these parents are fleeing extreme violence, poverty, and persecution. Some make the impossible calculation that their child has a better chance surviving alone than staying with them. That’s not sociopathy—that’s desperation, and it’s a symptom of a broken system on both sides of the border.

As for your broader point about politicians being fundamentally inadequate, I don’t actually disagree. But I do think we need to distinguish between the typical flaws of political leadership and the unique danger posed by someone like Trump. Not every manipulative or image-conscious leader invites insurrection, erodes public trust in elections, or deliberately targets the most vulnerable for political gain. That’s not just “inadequacy.” That’s dangerous authoritarian behavior, and I think it deserves to be called out as such.

At the end of the day, I think we’re both trying to look past the surface-level theatrics. But while you seem focused on the hollowness of the whole political class (which, again, fair point), I’m saying that within that cynical landscape, there are still lines that shouldn’t be crossed—and Trump has bulldozed right through them. When we fail to hold him accountable just because the whole system is broken, we lose our ability to defend what’s left of it.

Oh give me a break. The US has extreme 'poverty and violence'. Where they are 'fleeing' from is probably a lot nicer than what they are going to. They are lured by the 'American dream' bs, i.e. money and the promise of untold riches. Americans need to stop crowing about how 'great' their country is because stupid people will believe it. Frankly I would much rather live in Mexico.

That’s a fair challenge, and I’m not here to paint the U.S. as some shining paradise. It’s got plenty of its own violence, poverty, and inequality—no question. But I think it’s a mistake to assume that most migrants are crossing the border just because they’re chasing “the American Dream” or seduced by flashy myths about riches. For many, it's not about greed—it’s about survival.

There are parts of Central America, for example, where gangs control entire neighborhoods, where extortion, rape, and murder are everyday threats. Parents aren't sending their kids away lightly—they're doing it because, in their view, it's either take a chance or stay and suffer something worse. Is that a flawed calculation? Often, yes. But I still wouldn’t call it sociopathic. It’s tragic, it’s desperate, and it’s born of conditions we can’t fully grasp from a distance.

Also, I totally agree with you that America needs to stop acting like its own propaganda is gospel. The "greatest country in the world" narrative doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and yeah—it lures people under false pretenses. But we can critique the myth and recognize the real suffering that drives people to risk everything based on it.

We may see the world differently in some ways, but I think we both agree that truth matters more than feel-good slogans—on all sides of the border.

[BigMike]

…but that doesn’t erase its broader role as a driver of fear, misinformation, and tribal identity politics.

I have a few thoughts.

It may indeed be wise to feel fear, and respond to events with fear. Fear is not necessarily bad (as you seem to paint it). It may well be necessary and good to 1) inspire fear and to 2) feel fear.

One man’s disinformation is another’s truthful purveying of needed information.

The way you are spinning “tribal identity politics” is as an evil. It could well be that. But is not necessarily that in all circumstances. In fact, stimulating group (or national) identity and identification could well be a very positive thing.

I acknowledge your use of common sense”hot phrases” that are designed to elicit specific responses. That is part-and-parcel of public relations and propaganda, isn’t it?

Fair points, Alexis. You're right—fear isn’t inherently bad. It’s a biological survival tool, and in the right context, it can be healthy, even necessary. But I’m not talking about fear as in “don’t walk down that dark alley alone.” I’m talking about fear deliberately amplified and manipulated for political gain. Fear that clouds judgment, that divides people, that makes it easier to scapegoat and harder to think clearly. That kind of fear isn’t protective—it’s corrosive.

Same with tribal identity. I get that a sense of belonging and shared identity can be powerful and even positive. But when that identity is weaponized—when it becomes a tool to pit “us” against “them,” to justify cruelty, to shut down dissent or override facts—then yeah, it becomes a problem. Not because identity is bad, but because it’s being used to short-circuit reason and empathy.

As for disinformation—of course, people disagree on what's true. But not all disagreements are created equal. Some things are factually wrong, even if they’re sincerely believed. And when leaders and media knowingly spread falsehoods to gain power or sow division, we shouldn’t just chalk it up to “one man’s truth.” That gives too much cover to lies with real-world consequences.

And yeah, I’m sure I use phrases that have rhetorical weight. Everyone does. But I try to make sure they’re anchored in something more than just spin—I try to back them up with evidence and reason. If I slip into empty slogans, call me out. That’s the only way the conversation stays honest.

[phyllo]

One man’s disinformation is another’s truthful purveying of needed information.

No it isn't. That's just nonsense.

[Impenitent]

the morality of democracy?

we voted, you're immoral

scarlet letters for everyone

utopia

-Imp

[Alexis Jacobi]

One man’s disinformation is another’s truthful purveying of needed information.

No it isn't. That's just nonsense.

Yes, Phyllo, it is. But you need to understand how (or rather that) narratives function.

Spin can be established to make genuinely important information seem bad/evil and wrong.

Truthful purveying of certain informations can be (is often) spun as disinformation when it is not (not really).

Et cetera.

[accelafine]

You are correct. The large number of very young children being left to their own devices wasn't only a consequence of Biden's slack border controls, it was a consequence of despicable, sociopathic parenting. There's no excuse for doing that whatsoever.
Much of the rest the result of you missing my point and/or putting words in my mouth.

Fair enough—if I misunderstood your point or misrepresented your intent, I’ll own that. But I think we’re circling something important here.

You’re absolutely right that it’s horrific for parents to send very young children alone across the border. No decent person would argue otherwise. But labeling it “sociopathic parenting” risks oversimplifying something far more complex. Many of these parents are fleeing extreme violence, poverty, and persecution. Some make the impossible calculation that their child has a better chance surviving alone than staying with them. That’s not sociopathy—that’s desperation, and it’s a symptom of a broken system on both sides of the border.

As for your broader point about politicians being fundamentally inadequate, I don’t actually disagree. But I do think we need to distinguish between the typical flaws of political leadership and the unique danger posed by someone like Trump. Not every manipulative or image-conscious leader invites insurrection, erodes public trust in elections, or deliberately targets the most vulnerable for political gain. That’s not just “inadequacy.” That’s dangerous authoritarian behavior, and I think it deserves to be called out as such.

At the end of the day, I think we’re both trying to look past the surface-level theatrics. But while you seem focused on the hollowness of the whole political class (which, again, fair point), I’m saying that within that cynical landscape, there are still lines that shouldn’t be crossed—and Trump has bulldozed right through them. When we fail to hold him accountable just because the whole system is broken, we lose our ability to defend what’s left of it.

You might as well give 'poverty' as a valid excuse to murder your children, or cannibalise them for that matter. Sending a 3 year old off alone is essentially murder.

[BigMike]

You are correct. The large number of very young children being left to their own devices wasn't only a consequence of Biden's slack border controls, it was a consequence of despicable, sociopathic parenting. There's no excuse for doing that whatsoever.
Much of the rest the result of you missing my point and/or putting words in my mouth.

Fair enough—if I misunderstood your point or misrepresented your intent, I’ll own that. But I think we’re circling something important here.

You’re absolutely right that it’s horrific for parents to send very young children alone across the border. No decent person would argue otherwise. But labeling it “sociopathic parenting” risks oversimplifying something far more complex. Many of these parents are fleeing extreme violence, poverty, and persecution. Some make the impossible calculation that their child has a better chance surviving alone than staying with them. That’s not sociopathy—that’s desperation, and it’s a symptom of a broken system on both sides of the border.

As for your broader point about politicians being fundamentally inadequate, I don’t actually disagree. But I do think we need to distinguish between the typical flaws of political leadership and the unique danger posed by someone like Trump. Not every manipulative or image-conscious leader invites insurrection, erodes public trust in elections, or deliberately targets the most vulnerable for political gain. That’s not just “inadequacy.” That’s dangerous authoritarian behavior, and I think it deserves to be called out as such.

At the end of the day, I think we’re both trying to look past the surface-level theatrics. But while you seem focused on the hollowness of the whole political class (which, again, fair point), I’m saying that within that cynical landscape, there are still lines that shouldn’t be crossed—and Trump has bulldozed right through them. When we fail to hold him accountable just because the whole system is broken, we lose our ability to defend what’s left of it.

You might as well give 'poverty' as a valid excuse to murder your children, or cannibalise them for that matter. Sending a 3 year old off alone is essentially murder.

That’s a stark comparison, and I get that you’re trying to emphasize just how dire and irresponsible the act of sending a young child alone across the border can seem. But I think we have to be very careful not to conflate desperation with malicious intent.

Murder implies intent to kill. Cannibalism implies a total breakdown of morality. But many of these parents aren't acting out of cruelty—they're acting out of sheer desperation, often in circumstances where every available choice is terrible. Fleeing gang violence, systemic poverty, political persecution—these aren’t abstract excuses. They're real, documented forces driving people to make decisions that, from the outside, may look insane or even unforgivable.

Is it tragic? Absolutely. Is it dangerous and reckless? No question. But is it “essentially murder”? I don’t think that’s a fair or useful framing. Because if we’re going to ask what kind of parent sends a toddler alone across a border, we also have to ask: What kind of society receives that toddler? What kind of political culture shrugs, detains them, loses track of them, or—yes—uses them as pawns in a debate?

If we’re going to be outraged by the act of sending a child alone into danger, we should also be outraged by the systems and attitudes that ensure they’re met not with safety, but with neglect, cruelty, or worse.

So maybe the real question is: What’s wrong with us—as the receiving society—that can, expects even, to “murder them, or cannibalise them for that matter”?

[accelafine]

Fair enough—if I misunderstood your point or misrepresented your intent, I’ll own that. But I think we’re circling something important here.

You’re absolutely right that it’s horrific for parents to send very young children alone across the border. No decent person would argue otherwise. But labeling it “sociopathic parenting” risks oversimplifying something far more complex. Many of these parents are fleeing extreme violence, poverty, and persecution. Some make the impossible calculation that their child has a better chance surviving alone than staying with them. That’s not sociopathy—that’s desperation, and it’s a symptom of a broken system on both sides of the border.

As for your broader point about politicians being fundamentally inadequate, I don’t actually disagree. But I do think we need to distinguish between the typical flaws of political leadership and the unique danger posed by someone like Trump. Not every manipulative or image-conscious leader invites insurrection, erodes public trust in elections, or deliberately targets the most vulnerable for political gain. That’s not just “inadequacy.” That’s dangerous authoritarian behavior, and I think it deserves to be called out as such.

At the end of the day, I think we’re both trying to look past the surface-level theatrics. But while you seem focused on the hollowness of the whole political class (which, again, fair point), I’m saying that within that cynical landscape, there are still lines that shouldn’t be crossed—and Trump has bulldozed right through them. When we fail to hold him accountable just because the whole system is broken, we lose our ability to defend what’s left of it.

You might as well give 'poverty' as a valid excuse to murder your children, or cannibalise them for that matter. Sending a 3 year old off alone is essentially murder.

That’s a stark comparison, and I get that you’re trying to emphasize just how dire and irresponsible the act of sending a young child alone across the border can seem. But I think we have to be very careful not to conflate desperation with malicious intent.

Murder implies intent to kill. Cannibalism implies a total breakdown of morality. But many of these parents aren't acting out of cruelty—they're acting out of sheer desperation, often in circumstances where every available choice is terrible. Fleeing gang violence, systemic poverty, political persecution—these aren’t abstract excuses. They're real, documented forces driving people to make decisions that, from the outside, may look insane or even unforgivable.

Is it tragic? Absolutely. Is it dangerous and reckless? No question. But is it “essentially murder”? I don’t think that’s a fair or useful framing. Because if we’re going to ask what kind of parent sends a toddler alone across a border, we also have to ask: What kind of society receives that toddler? What kind of political culture shrugs, detains them, loses track of them, or—yes—uses them as pawns in a debate?

If we’re going to be outraged by the act of sending a child alone into danger, we should also be outraged by the systems and attitudes that ensure they’re met not with safety, but with neglect, cruelty, or worse.

So maybe the real question is: What’s wrong with us—as the receiving society—that can, expects even, to “murder them, or cannibalise them for that matter”?

How patronising. None of your woke excuses and pandering are helpful to those children. A child is supposed to be protected by its parents. If you throw your child into the mouth of a shark you can't expect the shark to protect it.

[BigMike]

You might as well give 'poverty' as a valid excuse to murder your children, or cannibalise them for that matter. Sending a 3 year old off alone is essentially murder.

That’s a stark comparison, and I get that you’re trying to emphasize just how dire and irresponsible the act of sending a young child alone across the border can seem. But I think we have to be very careful not to conflate desperation with malicious intent.

Murder implies intent to kill. Cannibalism implies a total breakdown of morality. But many of these parents aren't acting out of cruelty—they're acting out of sheer desperation, often in circumstances where every available choice is terrible. Fleeing gang violence, systemic poverty, political persecution—these aren’t abstract excuses. They're real, documented forces driving people to make decisions that, from the outside, may look insane or even unforgivable.

Is it tragic? Absolutely. Is it dangerous and reckless? No question. But is it “essentially murder”? I don’t think that’s a fair or useful framing. Because if we’re going to ask what kind of parent sends a toddler alone across a border, we also have to ask: What kind of society receives that toddler? What kind of political culture shrugs, detains them, loses track of them, or—yes—uses them as pawns in a debate?

If we’re going to be outraged by the act of sending a child alone into danger, we should also be outraged by the systems and attitudes that ensure they’re met not with safety, but with neglect, cruelty, or worse.

So maybe the real question is: What’s wrong with us—as the receiving society—that can, expects even, to “murder them, or cannibalise them for that matter”?

How patronising. None of your woke excuses and pandering are helpful to those children. A child is supposed to be protected by its parents. If you throw your child into the mouth of a shark you can't expect the shark to protect it.

I get that this issue stirs deep anger—it should. We're talking about children in danger, and there’s no moral universe where that’s okay. But calling what I said “woke excuses” misses the point. I’m not trying to justify bad decisions. I’m trying to understand why they happen—because if we don’t understand the causes, we’re never going to fix the problem.

Of course parents have a duty to protect their children. That’s not in dispute. But not every parent has the same set of options. Telling someone in a collapsing society, where gangs recruit kids at gunpoint or where governments are corrupt and unaccountable, to just “be a better parent” is like yelling at someone to swim harder while they’re chained to a cinder block.

Your shark analogy is actually powerful—but not in the way you may have intended. If a parent throws a child into the ocean, yes, they’ve failed. But if the rest of us are standing on the boat, watching that child drown, pointing fingers at the parent instead of throwing a lifeline—what does that say about us?

So again, I ask: What does it say about our society when we respond to desperate children not with protection or compassion, but with cold dismissal—as if they deserved the outcome the moment they crossed the border?