I think this is what you'd call "bad faith". I am sincerely interested if you think there is a positive role for personal insults in political discourse. Maybe there is? Let's see what grok comes up with: Prompt: Can you make the argument for why it might be good to use personal insults (e.g., attacking someone's appearance) in response to a person who expresses a political opinion you find to be abhorrent? Reponse: Alright, let’s dive into this. The argument for using personal insults—like attacking someone’s appearance—in response to a political opinion you find abhorrent isn’t about winning a debate or proving a point through logic. It’s about something rawer, more visceral, and, frankly, more human. Here’s how it could be framed as “good” in certain contexts: First, it’s a pressure valve. When someone spouts a view you see as vile—say, justifying cruelty or oppression—there’s an emotional buildup. Reasoned arguments might feel inadequate, like bringing a PowerPoint to a bar fight. Hurling an insult, even something petty like “your face looks like a rejected potato,” can release that tension. It’s cathartic, a way to say, “I’m not just disagreeing with you; I’m rejecting you.” In that sense, it’s less about them and more about you keeping your sanity. Second, it signals tribal loyalty. Politics isn’t always about ideas; it’s about identity. If someone’s opinion crosses a moral line for you, insulting them—especially in public, like on X—can mark a boundary. It tells your side, “I’m with you, and this clown’s not.” It’s not elegant, but it’s effective. Humans have been slinging mud since we had tribes to defend; it’s baked into us. A sharp jab at their looks can hit harder than a 10-paragraph rebuttal because it’s primal—it says they’re not even worth engaging seriously. Third, it can disrupt their sanctimony. People with abhorrent views often cloak them in self-righteousness. A personal insult sidesteps their argument entirely and knocks them off that high horse. If they’re busy defending their receding hairline, they’re not pontificating about their garbage ideology. It’s a tactical derailment—crude, sure, but it shifts the power dynamic. They’re forced to react, not preach. Now, the flip side’s obvious: it’s lowbrow, risks alienating onlookers, and might make you look unhinged. But the “good” here isn’t about decorum—it’s about impact. Insults don’t persuade, but they can punish. If the goal is to make someone think twice before spewing nonsense again, a well-aimed barb might sting longer than a lecture. Studies on social dynamics—like those on ostracism—suggest people fear public humiliation more than reasoned critique. An insult to their appearance? That’s personal, memorable, and hard to shrug off. Does it elevate discourse? Hell no. But if the opinion’s already in the gutter, some would argue you’re just meeting it there. It’s not about being right—it’s about fighting dirty when you feel the stakes demand it.
Of course it is, and it's one of a few topics that both Republicans and Democrats agree on. They have a right to establish a small nation state after centuries of nomadic wandering where Judea was. A culture and land created 1 millenia before the invention of Islam, and it's bloodthirsty colonization of the entire Middle East.
Now express behavior that you are equally are as passionate about a genocide happening with our tax money currently. How long have we been posting here? Call it nihilism but I'm not here to change anyone's mind and hardly anyone here has when the divisions in basic human values is such a drastic divide. I'm here to vent stuff I can't in my real life.
I figured as much at the outset: https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/the-arrest-of-mahmoud-khalil.325706/page-18#post-15643684
I'm hearing good things about this. Both Republicans and Democrats have been working together to expedite the processing of Makmoud. It's also the end of an era - the "death to America freedom of speech but any freedom of speech about Islam leads to death crowd" are realizing that Christians have wised up to how they exploit their system in their quest for Intifada. Their inability to leave peacefully alongside others anywhere in the world. America and the West has a very distinct culture and not everyone is a fit no matter how much radicals talk about "melting pot". We don't need pedo's, serial killers and every group under the sun to feel inclusive. We need healthy individuals who understand right and wrong and stop muddling it based on historical story telling. If that's you -great. But if youre gaming the system, reveling in anti semitism and justifying violence against certain ethnicites which Makmoud clearly did, no more Mr. gullible nice guy. Tip my hat to Rubio and the the dems and reps who will continue this process.
What is the line for you, with regards to expressing views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, if one is a foreign national? If someone publicly says "I think Palestinians in Gaza are right to fight back against Israeli forces that are bombing them and threatening to permanently displace them from their homes" -- is that grounds for deportation? One could certainly argue such a sentiment is "aligned" with Hamas and against Israel. Don't you think it's important for authorities to make this line very clear to the public to avoid abuse of their powers?
Hate speech that justifies violence is a crime. The rhetoric against Jews was extreme and Makmoud thought he could get away with it because Jews are white passing. We saw that with aggressive physical attacks and bullying throughout the campuses, there was plenty of violence behind the pretence of protesting Israel. Not one of them had the sincerity to admit it was Hamas's actions that led to this response. There was a cease fire before Oct. 7... but the rotten didn't want anything to do with it. The underlying theme was all about coming into America to shape a narrative that based on your skin color or success, you are an oppressor. And the oppressed can use violence against the oppressor. It eventually made it's way into the teachings of far left teachers at expensive private schools. Let's be clear. If you want to sympathize with terrorists all over the world, this country isn't for you. Leave. Americans have wised up and saw how progressive DA's kept re-releasing violent felons with nothing more than a slap on the wrist for decades and nothing good came of it. You can't rehab Hamas. There is no end game to your virtuous bs and to say "we" like you're an American, when you have a distinctively unAmerican, burn it all down loser viewpoint of the far left, makes me support this even more. To compare his intentional actions as a visitor to anything I've done as a resident is instigating. The justice system was far more dangerous under Biden (trying to strip Trump, a legal citizen, of his assets) and letting non citizens justify violence against Jews marching in the streets. "Make them live in fear"... that shows alignment with Hamas' goals. Khalil also acted as a lead negotiator when things got really messy - like he had any leverage. The legal system of the West has allowed bad actors to exploit it and take advantage of it for too long. Let's go ahead with due process - but instead of letting CAIR bog this down under the guide of "he was only protesting Israel" both Republicans and Democrats have worked together to expedite the process. And you're going to see more examples to come.
Did Khalil himself engage in violence? Or do you consider simply occupying a space as violence? "Hate speech" applies to an ethnic group, not a political orientation (Zionism) or country (Israel). Did Khalil specifically attack Jews in any speech? Don't you think it's important that evidence is made available for these accusations being used to justify arresting and deporting him? I assume you are against government abuse and for transparency when it impacts people's lives?
These situations come down to context. That is something a legality cannot aptly describe because political climate constantly changes. When the context is oppressor vs the oppressed and violence against the oppressor is justified, as we saw Hamas do in the most barbaric way on Oct 7, then I would absolutely have a short leash with any foreign national who CHOOSES to come to America and take advantage of their great resources. You can sugar coat it, but there were violent attacks against Jews across the nation with this rhetoric in mind. Also, there is a racial element that intensifies the violence. When Syria kills 500,000 to maintain their sovereignty, Iran kills 100,000 etc. no one says a word. When Egypt declares Hamas a terrorist organization, they don't protest in the streets. And each of these muslim nations was formed by colonizing tribes under religious rule. They specifically have a problem with Israel defending it's historical land because they are white passing. It's really common sense. The authorities, whether they be dem or repub, are going to emphasize this was a non citizen and it will serve as a warning to those who have been intentionally gaming the system and implying death to America the oppressors under the guise of free speech. It's a similar issue with birthright citizenship - everyone knows they were coming into the country to illegally give birth but no one did anything about it. Or shoplifters not being prosecuted and emptying out entire stores. Loopholes are being closed and it might seem tough, but it happens when a system is repeatedly taken advantage of.
I look at each situation on a case by case basis. I'm fine with an example being made of considering the extreme actions of Hamas and those who supported them. I remember listening to the speeches thinking... you couldn't get away with this in any other country in the world. Openly laughing at kids dying at music festival, saying "make them always know fear", talking about the intifada and great uprising... and the ensuing hostility and violence towards Jews. The words had an impact. They were meant to have an impact by absolving Hamas of responsibility as the oppressed. This issue has been a result of far left rhetoric that has been building up and brewing for a very long time. So we'll have due process, even the ADL has advocated for it, but it's being seen under the lens of national security (as it should be). The govt should be tougher on non citizens than citizens.
Not exactly. Justifying violence by saying something like 'that violent act was good' is not enough to be criminal. Speech must cross the legal threshold by being directed at inciting imminent lawless action and being likely to produce it. In this case, the administration has not charged him with any such crime - nor any crime at all. Reference: Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969): "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
Fchow is a liberal Donald Trump - says lack of empathy is a problem, then displays a lack of empathy. He is a conundrum and isn't smart enough or self aware enough to see his own hypocrisy. He is just not well.....I pity him. DD
Morbid obesity is actually a sign of lower intelligence. And btw your self-centered nature is showing. I'll never accuse someone of lacking empathy over personal insults of me exclusively. Only when someone expressed apathy or dehumanization of groups of people. Being mean to you personally is the criteria for you that determines empathy says a lot about you.
It's a sign of someone that is too lazy to take care of themselves. You're right. He wants to pass judgements on everything but doesn't hold himself accountable.
You are just a little tiny speck of nothingness, who yells at the clouds.....wah wah wah goes you.....and no one cares. A whiny little b****. DD
