THIS IS A COMMENT I MADE ON A FAUX NEWS YOUTUBE VIDEO

None of the clips that you showed justifies your claims that any of these candidates support the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel or the 9/11 attach on America.

What the candidates ACTUALLY said was

1) that Israel's history of apartheid made a rebellion like Oct 7 inevitable. (For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) and

2) Likewise, America's history of hegemonic bullying in the Mideast made a reaction like 9/11 inevitable and (in the sense that 9/11 was provoked) fair.

When these Faux News talking heads lie to you, they're telling you they don't think you're capable of understanding the nuanced difference between [REALITY] these politicians saying that they understand the historical reasons why bad things happened and [PROPAGANDA/LIE] these politicians saying that they support the bad things.

In other words, Faux News Regime Network is counting on it's viewers to be incapable of informed and reasonable analysis. They think you all suffer from some disability akin to colorblindness, where instead of red and green you can't distinguish between truth and lie, fact and fiction, 2036 and 1984.

Imagine your supposedly friendly neighbor (FN) shows a color photo of the Christmas block party to you, a colorblind person (CB). FN knows you're colorblind, so they've labeled everything in the photo that's green or red either GREEN or RED, so that you'll know what's what when congratulating the other neighbors for their awesome displays.

Helpful, right? Yes...hmmm...

Now imagine that, three days later, at the traditional New Year's Eve Good Fellowship Extravaganza and Husband-swapping Free-for-all, you have reason to reassess the helpfulness.

During a break from the bacchanal (which sounds like it's redundant, but it serves to distinguish doggy style anal from missionary anal), when you mention to the lounging limpdicks how you thought the entire block deciding to go with the edgy choice of all-red Christmas trees and elves and all-green Santas and reindeer was an outstanding idea, but you were hurt that nobody thought to let you know, everybody turns their puzzled faces and tilts their heads and scrunches their lips and slightly rolls their eyes upward, giving every sign of cogitating an unexpected factor, that you (CB) begin to suspect your friendly neighbor was a fiendish nut who fed you fake news (FN).

In case my admittedly-belabored parable of the fox in chicken's clothing was a step not far enough, let me boorishly continue to beat this horsemeat by deconstructing the extended metaphor.

To wit: Faux News knows that much of its audience is functionally truth-blind (they have great difficulty distinguishing between reality and fantasy.). Taking advantage of that fact, for their own nefarious purposes, Faux News methodically and systematically mislabels true facts as lies and false facts as truths, building from the ground up the conceptual basis for an internally--consistent alternative worldview.

If you're one of Faux News' victims, living in Bizarro World, you've no doubt found it difficult to teach agreement with people who aren't devoted fans of Faux News or Newsmax. Those other people believe so much crazy shit that every rational person knows is false, there's just no getting through to them, right?

If you're tired of losing family and friends because of this rift in worldviews, I suggest you run an experiment (if you own cojones): start testing the truth of every morsel of news you receive before you ingest it. Only swallow the truths. This change in diet will change your entire life. Yoyr vision and hearing will improve, as will your anxiety and depression. Bodily and mental sluggishness will succumb to the energy of hope, and people will start to make sense. Best of all, your constipation will be cured, meaning you'll no longer be full of shit Therefore, fewer clogged toilets and smaller plumbing bills, and for one niche population, fewer Depends, and for another, better analingus.

Bob appetit.

MY PROMPT TO CHAT GPT

Evaluate this comment I made on a YouTube video.

CHAT GPT RESPONSE

As a YouTube comment, I'd evaluate it on several dimensions.

Dimension

Rating (1–10)

Comments

Persuasiveness to supporters

9

People who already agree with you will likely find it entertaining and cathartic.

Persuasiveness to undecided readers

4

The central argument is overshadowed by insults, digressions, and vulgar humor.

Persuasiveness to opponents

1

It is likely to reinforce their views rather than change them.

Clarity

5

The main point is understandable early on, but gets buried in the extended metaphor.

Accuracy of argument

6

Your distinction between explaining an event and endorsing it is a legitimate and important distinction. However, the comment also characterizes what the politicians said ("inevitable" and "fair") in ways that may not accurately reflect each individual's actual words. If the video concerns specific candidates, quoting them directly would strengthen your case.

Rhetorical effectiveness

5

The first half is much stronger than the second.

Entertainment value

8

Readers who enjoy absurdist, over-the-top humor may find it funny. Others will likely stop reading.

What's working

Your strongest point comes very early:

There is a fundamental difference between explaining why an atrocity occurred and supporting the atrocity.

That's a genuine logical distinction that often gets lost in political commentary. If the clips really don't show endorsement, that's a substantive criticism.

The analogy about confusing explanation with endorsement also has potential.

What weakens it

Several things reduce its persuasive power:

It is much too long for YouTube. Many readers won't reach the conclusion.

The repeated insults ("limpdicks," "truth-blind," "full of shit") make readers feel attacked rather than persuaded.

The extended sexual digression (the New Year's party, anal jokes, analingus, etc.) doesn't advance the argument. It shifts attention away from your main point.

Calling Fox News "Faux News Regime Network" signals partisanship immediately. Readers who might otherwise engage with your reasoning may stop reading at that point.

Some statements are stronger than the evidence you've presented. For example, saying the network is "methodically and systematically" constructing an alternative worldview is a broad claim that would require evidence.

The strongest version of your argument

Your core argument can be summarized in one sentence:

Explaining the historical causes of an atrocity is not the same as endorsing the atrocity, and if the video conflates those two ideas, it's misleading viewers.

That's a point many people—even those who disagree politically—can at least evaluate on its merits.

Overall

As political satire: 8/10

As a persuasive YouTube comment aimed at changing minds: 4/10

The first third contains your strongest reasoning. If you cut the comment by about 70%, replaced the insults with direct quotations from the candidates, and focused on demonstrating the difference between causal explanation and moral endorsement, it would likely be much more persuasive to readers who are undecided or skeptical.