Bill Maher Trump dinner

[accelafine]

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?

What a load of absurd codswallop. I hope you don't have any children.

[BigMike]

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?

What a load of absurd codswallop. I hope you don't have any children.

Ah, there it is—the classic fallback when someone presents a perspective you don't like: “I hope you don't have kids.” As if moral clarity requires parental credentials, and empathy is some kind of liability.

What I’m arguing for is not some naive kumbaya fantasy. It’s the simple idea that if we want to claim the moral high ground—as individuals or as a nation—we don’t get to pretend kids in danger are someone else’s problem the second they cross an imaginary line in the dirt.

You call it “woke excuses.” I call it refusing to abandon basic human decency just because the situation is complicated. And frankly, if the best we can muster in response to children in crisis is snide sarcasm and a shrug, then maybe the real moral failing isn’t on the desperate parent—it’s on us.

[accelafine]

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?

What a load of absurd codswallop. I hope you don't have any children.

Ah, there it is—the classic fallback when someone presents a perspective you don't like: “I hope you don't have kids.” As if moral clarity requires parental credentials, and empathy is some kind of liability.

What I’m arguing for is not some naive kumbaya fantasy. It’s the simple idea that if we want to claim the moral high ground—as individuals or as a nation—we don’t get to pretend kids in danger are someone else’s problem the second they cross an imaginary line in the dirt.

You call it “woke excuses.” I call it refusing to abandon basic human decency just because the situation is complicated. And frankly, if the best we can muster in response to children in crisis is snide sarcasm and a shrug, then maybe the real moral failing isn’t on the desperate parent—it’s on us.

Ah, there it is--the classic wokie moral highground. You don't know what empathy is. A child suffers, so you immediately fly to the defence of the one inflicting the suffering, a nameless, faceless person who you just assume needs your 'help'--whether they've asked for it or not. What the fuck is wrong with you?

[BigMike]

What a load of absurd codswallop. I hope you don't have any children.

Ah, there it is—the classic fallback when someone presents a perspective you don't like: “I hope you don't have kids.” As if moral clarity requires parental credentials, and empathy is some kind of liability.

What I’m arguing for is not some naive kumbaya fantasy. It’s the simple idea that if we want to claim the moral high ground—as individuals or as a nation—we don’t get to pretend kids in danger are someone else’s problem the second they cross an imaginary line in the dirt.

You call it “woke excuses.” I call it refusing to abandon basic human decency just because the situation is complicated. And frankly, if the best we can muster in response to children in crisis is snide sarcasm and a shrug, then maybe the real moral failing isn’t on the desperate parent—it’s on us.

Ah, there it is--the classic wokie moral highground. You don't know what empathy is. A child suffers, so you immediately fly to the defence of the one inflicting the suffering. What the fuck is wrong with you?

What’s wrong with me? What’s wrong with me?

You’re sitting comfortably behind a keyboard sneering at desperate parents fleeing war zones, failed states, famine, or cartel violence, and I’m the one with a moral defect? Kids are drowning in the Mediterranean, suffocating in trucks at the border, being blown to bits in Gaza—and you’re here foaming at the mouth because someone dared to say, “Maybe we should show some basic human compassion”?

You talk about “inflicting suffering” like a mother running with her kid through shellfire is the villain in this story. Like a father piling his children into a raft on the English Channel is some kind of sadist. What world are you living in where they are the monsters, and we—the ones with power, safety, and borders wrapped in barbed wire—are the victims?

You say I don’t know what empathy is. No—what you don’t know is the difference between cruelty and clarity. I’m not defending suffering. I’m condemning a worldview so warped that it looks at global desperation and sees only "bad parenting."

If you need to dehumanize people risking everything to protect their kids just to sleep at night, that’s on you. Don’t project your moral cowardice onto me.

[accelafine]

Ah, there it is—the classic fallback when someone presents a perspective you don't like: “I hope you don't have kids.” As if moral clarity requires parental credentials, and empathy is some kind of liability.

What I’m arguing for is not some naive kumbaya fantasy. It’s the simple idea that if we want to claim the moral high ground—as individuals or as a nation—we don’t get to pretend kids in danger are someone else’s problem the second they cross an imaginary line in the dirt.

You call it “woke excuses.” I call it refusing to abandon basic human decency just because the situation is complicated. And frankly, if the best we can muster in response to children in crisis is snide sarcasm and a shrug, then maybe the real moral failing isn’t on the desperate parent—it’s on us.

Ah, there it is--the classic wokie moral highground. You don't know what empathy is. A child suffers, so you immediately fly to the defence of the one inflicting the suffering. What the fuck is wrong with you?

What’s wrong with me? What’s wrong with me?

You’re sitting comfortably behind a keyboard sneering at desperate parents fleeing war zones, failed states, famine, or cartel violence, and I’m the one with a moral defect? Kids are drowning in the Mediterranean, suffocating in trucks at the border, being blown to bits in Gaza—and you’re here foaming at the mouth because someone dared to say, “Maybe we should show some basic human compassion”?

You talk about “inflicting suffering” like a mother running with her kid through shellfire is the villain in this story. Like a father piling his children into a raft on the English Channel is some kind of sadist. What world are you living in where they are the monsters, and we—the ones with power, safety, and borders wrapped in barbed wire—are the victims?

You say I don’t know what empathy is. No—what you don’t know is the difference between cruelty and clarity. I’m not defending suffering. I’m condemning a worldview so warped that it looks at global desperation and sees only "bad parenting."

If you need to dehumanize people risking everything to protect their kids just to sleep at night, that’s on you. Don’t project your moral cowardice onto me.

Who are these people? What evidence do you have? Oh fuck off with your faux concern you big fat phony.

[BigMike]

Ah, there it is--the classic wokie moral highground. You don't know what empathy is. A child suffers, so you immediately fly to the defence of the one inflicting the suffering. What the fuck is wrong with you?

What’s wrong with me? What’s wrong with me?

You’re sitting comfortably behind a keyboard sneering at desperate parents fleeing war zones, failed states, famine, or cartel violence, and I’m the one with a moral defect? Kids are drowning in the Mediterranean, suffocating in trucks at the border, being blown to bits in Gaza—and you’re here foaming at the mouth because someone dared to say, “Maybe we should show some basic human compassion”?

You talk about “inflicting suffering” like a mother running with her kid through shellfire is the villain in this story. Like a father piling his children into a raft on the English Channel is some kind of sadist. What world are you living in where they are the monsters, and we—the ones with power, safety, and borders wrapped in barbed wire—are the victims?

You say I don’t know what empathy is. No—what you don’t know is the difference between cruelty and clarity. I’m not defending suffering. I’m condemning a worldview so warped that it looks at global desperation and sees only "bad parenting."

If you need to dehumanize people risking everything to protect their kids just to sleep at night, that’s on you. Don’t project your moral cowardice onto me.

Who are these people? What evidence do you have? Oh fuck off with your faux concern you big fat phony.

Ah yes, the final stage of losing the argument: no facts, no counterpoints—just flailing insults and adolescent name-calling.

You asked who these people are? Look it up. Read the UNHCR reports. Watch footage from Gaza, from the Darién Gap, from the sinking boats in the Mediterranean. Read the testimonies from refugee camps or border detention centers. This isn’t some fantasy cooked up for “woke points.” It’s the documented reality of the world we live in. Just because you’ve chosen to ignore it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

And if compassion for children fleeing bombs, rape gangs, or starvation strikes you as “phony,” that says a hell of a lot more about you than it ever will about me.

You can keep shouting into the void, hoping venom will cover up the hollowness of your argument. But I’ll keep siding with reality—and with the people whose lives are actually on the line. You’re not angry because I’m wrong. You’re angry because deep down, you know I’m right, and it makes your posture of cold detachment look as small as it really is.

[accelafine]

What’s wrong with me? What’s wrong with me?

You’re sitting comfortably behind a keyboard sneering at desperate parents fleeing war zones, failed states, famine, or cartel violence, and I’m the one with a moral defect? Kids are drowning in the Mediterranean, suffocating in trucks at the border, being blown to bits in Gaza—and you’re here foaming at the mouth because someone dared to say, “Maybe we should show some basic human compassion”?

You talk about “inflicting suffering” like a mother running with her kid through shellfire is the villain in this story. Like a father piling his children into a raft on the English Channel is some kind of sadist. What world are you living in where they are the monsters, and we—the ones with power, safety, and borders wrapped in barbed wire—are the victims?

You say I don’t know what empathy is. No—what you don’t know is the difference between cruelty and clarity. I’m not defending suffering. I’m condemning a worldview so warped that it looks at global desperation and sees only "bad parenting."

If you need to dehumanize people risking everything to protect their kids just to sleep at night, that’s on you. Don’t project your moral cowardice onto me.

Who are these people? What evidence do you have? Oh fuck off with your faux concern you big fat phony.

Ah yes, the final stage of losing the argument: no facts, no counterpoints—just flailing insults and adolescent name-calling.

You asked who these people are? Look it up. Read the UNHCR reports. Watch footage from Gaza, from the Darién Gap, from the sinking boats in the Mediterranean. Read the testimonies from refugee camps or border detention centers. This isn’t some fantasy cooked up for “woke points.” It’s the documented reality of the world we live in. Just because you’ve chosen to ignore it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

And if compassion for children fleeing bombs, rape gangs, or starvation strikes you as “phony,” that says a hell of a lot more about you than it ever will about me.

You can keep shouting into the void, hoping venom will cover up the hollowness of your argument. But I’ll keep siding with reality—and with the people whose lives are actually on the line. You’re not angry because I’m wrong. You’re angry because deep down, you know I’m right, and it makes your posture of cold detachment look as small as it really is.

And those people are sending their children over the Mexican border alone into the US? You are unhinged.

[BigMike]

Who are these people? What evidence do you have? Oh fuck off with your faux concern you big fat phony.

Ah yes, the final stage of losing the argument: no facts, no counterpoints—just flailing insults and adolescent name-calling.

You asked who these people are? Look it up. Read the UNHCR reports. Watch footage from Gaza, from the Darién Gap, from the sinking boats in the Mediterranean. Read the testimonies from refugee camps or border detention centers. This isn’t some fantasy cooked up for “woke points.” It’s the documented reality of the world we live in. Just because you’ve chosen to ignore it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

And if compassion for children fleeing bombs, rape gangs, or starvation strikes you as “phony,” that says a hell of a lot more about you than it ever will about me.

You can keep shouting into the void, hoping venom will cover up the hollowness of your argument. But I’ll keep siding with reality—and with the people whose lives are actually on the line. You’re not angry because I’m wrong. You’re angry because deep down, you know I’m right, and it makes your posture of cold detachment look as small as it really is.

And those people are sending their children over the Mexican border alone into the US? You are unhinged.

Unhinged? You’re the one comparing desperate parents to murderers and tossing around profanity because someone dared to bring up facts you don’t want to deal with.

But since you asked—yes, some of “those people” are showing up at the U.S. border. Central America isn’t exactly a haven of peace and prosperity. Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala—ring any bells? Do a five-minute search and you’ll find that families flee cartel rule, corrupt regimes, and extreme poverty every single day. Some make the journey with their children. Others, horrifyingly, send them alone because they believe—rightly or wrongly—that it’s their child’s only shot.

And that’s just one border. The same desperation plays out in the Mediterranean, in Southeast Asia, in war zones across the planet. But sure, keep pretending this is all some woke fever dream, because confronting the reality might actually demand some uncomfortable introspection.

You don’t have to like immigration. You don’t even have to support open borders. But if your first instinct is to mock, deny, and dehumanize people risking everything for a chance at survival, then maybe it’s not me who’s “unhinged.” Maybe it’s you who’s simply lost your grip on basic decency.

[accelafine]

Ah yes, the final stage of losing the argument: no facts, no counterpoints—just flailing insults and adolescent name-calling.

You asked who these people are? Look it up. Read the UNHCR reports. Watch footage from Gaza, from the Darién Gap, from the sinking boats in the Mediterranean. Read the testimonies from refugee camps or border detention centers. This isn’t some fantasy cooked up for “woke points.” It’s the documented reality of the world we live in. Just because you’ve chosen to ignore it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

And if compassion for children fleeing bombs, rape gangs, or starvation strikes you as “phony,” that says a hell of a lot more about you than it ever will about me.

You can keep shouting into the void, hoping venom will cover up the hollowness of your argument. But I’ll keep siding with reality—and with the people whose lives are actually on the line. You’re not angry because I’m wrong. You’re angry because deep down, you know I’m right, and it makes your posture of cold detachment look as small as it really is.

And those people are sending their children over the Mexican border alone into the US? You are unhinged.

Unhinged? You’re the one comparing desperate parents to murderers and tossing around profanity because someone dared to bring up facts you don’t want to deal with.

But since you asked—yes, some of “those people” are showing up at the U.S. border. Central America isn’t exactly a haven of peace and prosperity. Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala—ring any bells? Do a five-minute search and you’ll find that families flee cartel rule, corrupt regimes, and extreme poverty every single day. Some make the journey with their children. Others, horrifyingly, send them alone because they believe—rightly or wrongly—that it’s their child’s only shot.

And that’s just one border. The same desperation plays out in the Mediterranean, in Southeast Asia, in war zones across the planet. But sure, keep pretending this is all some woke fever dream, because confronting the reality might actually demand some uncomfortable introspection.

You don’t have to like immigration. You don’t even have to support open borders. But if your first instinct is to mock, deny, and dehumanize people risking everything for a chance at survival, then maybe it’s not me who’s “unhinged.” Maybe it’s you who’s simply lost your grip on basic decency.

So no evidence then. Just virtue-signallng, phony gaslighting nonsense about imaginery, hypothetical people. Got it.

How would Gazans get their children across the Mexican border?? Wouldn't Egypt be a more logical destination? Oh, hang on, Egypt has a massive wall to keep them out. Besides, Gazans need them as human shields. Silly me But what about those miles of tunnels? Couldn't they shelter there? Hmm. Not that either. Hamas won't let them because it needs them as human shields...

[attofishpi]

Like a father piling his children into a raft on the English Channel is some kind of sadist. What world are you living in where they are the monsters, and we—the ones with power, safety, and borders wrapped in barbed wire—are the victims?

Have you seen these "men" crossing the English channel into rafts - very rarely is there a woman or child aboard. They are ALL fighting age men, abandoning women and children and let's not forget - they had plenty of 'asylum' in every country on the way. The reason these MEN want to get to UK is for freebie handouts, accomadation etc...they contribute nothing to society.

Look up the stats on immigrants that actually bother to get a job in UK. Look up the stats per capita of their terrible violence inflicted towards women and children within the countries of Europe they arrive in.

In Italy alone, average 5 women are raped by immigrants EVERY day. They come from Africa and Middle East, from cultures where women are not seen as equals, but mere property, breeding machines for their Islamic ideology.

Europe/UK is being undermined by these "men" because of do gooders that think they need our help. NO they don't. They should never have abandoned the women and children they left behind in the first place. They see Western women as the lowest of the low...and that's a fact.

They have no allegiance, no assimilation, no love for the people or the country they intend to bum off. Yet the hard working tax paying British people, that have shown in polling they want them out - even those that vote for the disgusting Labour party (who allow them in and suck up to them to eventually get their vote) - even those in polling have come to their senses and want them deported.

[accelafine]

Like a father piling his children into a raft on the English Channel is some kind of sadist. What world are you living in where they are the monsters, and we—the ones with power, safety, and borders wrapped in barbed wire—are the victims?

Have you seen these "men" crossing the English channel into rafts - very rarely is there a woman or child aboard. They are ALL fighting age men, abandoning women and children and let's not forget - they had plenty of 'asylum' in every country on the way. The reason these MEN want to get to UK is for freebie handouts, accomadation etc...they contribute nothing to society.

Look up the stats on immigrants that actually bother to get a job in UK. Look up the stats per capita of their terrible violence inflicted towards women and children within the countries of Europe they arrive in.

In Italy alone, average 5 women are raped by immigrants EVERY day. They come from Africa and Middle East, from cultures where women are not seen as equals, but mere property, breeding machines for their Islamic ideology.

Europe/UK is being undermined by these "men" because of do gooders that think they need our help. NO they don't. They should never have abandoned the women and children they left behind in the first place. They see Western women as the lowest of the low...and that's a fact.

They have no allegiance, no assimilation, no love for the people or the country they intend to bum off. Yet the hard working tax paying British people, that have shown in polling they want them out - even those that vote for the disgusting Labour party (who allow them in and suck up to them to eventually get their vote) - even those in polling have come to their senses and want them deported.

Makes you wonder what kind of bubble he's living in. I thought everyone had seen those 'rafts' full to bursting with young, healthy men

[accelafine]

Their clothes aren't even wet when they land ffs. Just how calm IS the English Channel??

[BigMike]

Like a father piling his children into a raft on the English Channel is some kind of sadist. What world are you living in where they are the monsters, and we—the ones with power, safety, and borders wrapped in barbed wire—are the victims?

Have you seen these "men" crossing the English channel into rafts - very rarely is there a woman or child aboard. They are ALL fighting age men, abandoning women and children and let's not forget - they had plenty of 'asylum' in every country on the way. The reason these MEN want to get to UK is for freebie handouts, accomadation etc...they contribute nothing to society.

Look up the stats on immigrants that actually bother to get a job in UK. Look up the stats per capita of their terrible violence inflicted towards women and children within the countries of Europe they arrive in.

In Italy alone, average 5 women are raped by immigrants EVERY day. They come from Africa and Middle East, from cultures where women are not seen as equals, but mere property, breeding machines for their Islamic ideology.

Europe/UK is being undermined by these "men" because of do gooders that think they need our help. NO they don't. They should never have abandoned the women and children they left behind in the first place. They see Western women as the lowest of the low...and that's a fact.

They have no allegiance, no assimilation, no love for the people or the country they intend to bum off. Yet the hard working tax paying British people, that have shown in polling they want them out - even those that vote for the disgusting Labour party (who allow them in and suck up to them to eventually get their vote) - even those in polling have come to their senses and want them deported.

Makes you wonder what kind of bubble he's living in. I thought everyone had seen those 'rafts' full to bursting with young, healthy men

Oh I’ve seen the rafts. I’ve also seen the smug, sneering commentary from people who think watching suffering through a screen gives them the full story. You see a boat of frightened, exhausted men and conclude, “freeloaders.” I see people who’ve likely endured torture, war, persecution, or years in refugee camps—people who left everything because staying meant dying. And you think the outrage is that they’re too healthy?

Let me spell this out for you: Men often go ahead first because it’s dangerous. Because if anyone’s going to risk drowning, freezing, or getting turned back at gunpoint, it's them—not their wives and children. And yes, they’re hoping to bring their families later, once it’s safe. That’s not abandonment. That’s sacrifice. But hey, if your worldview only has room for cartoons, I guess “cowards invading for handouts” is easier to swallow than “desperate humans trying to survive.”

As for your cherry-picked crime stats—if you’re really that concerned about violence, start with the homegrown variety. Domestic abuse, mass shootings, hate crimes—guess what? No boats required.

What this boils down to is fear. You’re afraid of people who look different, pray differently, or speak another language. So instead of admitting that fear, you slap on a mask of moral outrage and shout about “assimilation” while parroting far-right talking points with zero nuance and zero humanity.

And to accelafine—thanks again for chiming in with your usual giggle and emoji, confirming once more that when faced with human lives at stake, you’re more comfortable cracking jokes than facing the mirror.

This isn’t a “bubble.” It’s a reality you refuse to face because it doesn’t fit your small, spite-soaked worldview.

[attofishpi]

...you're an idiot. They even come in via aeroplanes. They have loads of money to pay the owners of the rafts to get them across the English channel. When they have been interviewed by utubers, they openly admit the reason they attempt to get to UK is because they get handouts. Moron.

[accelafine]

.