Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday continued to be the thread about the Hamas attack on Israel. But, for the first time the number of new posts was below 1,000, though still nearly 900. As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, topics such as this tend to find their way into other forums. Such was the case with yesterday's second most active thread. That thread was titled, "Discussing the recent Israeli-Palestinian Conflict In Schools" and posted in the "DC Public and Public Charter Schools" forum. The original poster says that the topic of the Israel-Palestine conflict came up in her 6th grade child's class and, based on "talking points" with which her child came home, she wishes the topic had been skipped. She wants to know if teachers have free rein in discussing this topic or if there are guidelines. The dispute highlighted by this thread is basically how an event as horrific as the Hamas attack should be viewed. Speaking broadly and not just in the confines of this thread, some individuals argue that the attacks were so terrible that there can be no excusing them. Any attempt to add context or explain possible causes is seen as doing exactly that, even if that is not the intention. Again, broadly speaking, others, some of whom may acknowledge the atrocity of the attacks and some who won't, argue that context such as the conditions in Gaza are an important part of the conversation. In today's emotionally-charged environment, there is a real lack of listening and thoughtful discussion. Instead, there is a tendency for black and white thinking. A person who condemns the Hamas attack but doesn't express concern about Palestinian civilians in Gaza may be called a supporter of the genocide of Palestinians. Similarly, someone who suggests that Israeli policies toward Gaza might have created an environment conducive to violence will likely be condemned as a supporter of terrorism. Even those who try to be objective can not escape this trap. Objectivity itself, ironically, may be perceived as taking a side. For instance, discussing the history of Israeli violence against Palestinians will likely be viewed by many as false equivalency in a discussion of the Hamas attacks and pro-Palestinian. I dare anyone to attempt an "objective" explanation of how the Palestinians came to live in Gaza in the first place. Some will say they fled at the behest of Arab armies attacking Israel. Others will say they were forced into exile by Israeli forces. Another argument might be that they are forced to stay there by Arab countries to be used for political leverage. A few extreme voices might argue that there is really no such thing as a Palestinian in the first place. A teacher would have to spend nearly the entire class simply trying to be "objective" with regard to this one historic question and there would still be those who are critical of what was presented. Due to all of this, there are those who argue the topic shouldn't be addressed at all. But, leaving children ignorant is the exact opposite of what schools should do. Regardless of all of this, the thread itself turned into a political discussion and, therefore, I locked it.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum and, just like the previous thread, was one that I ended up locking. This thread was titled, "Mary Lou Retton has no health insurance". The original poster linked to a fundraising website on which the daughters of Olympic gymnast Mary Lou Retton is raising money to pay the healthcare costs for her mother who is in the intensive care unit suffering from a rare form of pneumonia. Apparently Retton has no health insurance. Most posters are under the impression that Retton has had financial success and is likely wealthy. Therefore, they don't understand why she is not insured. There is a discussion of "Obamacare" that includes a plethora of misinformation. If any of the posters from that thread who believe that Affordable Care Act subsidies phase out at low income levels are reading this, I suggest you review the changes implemented by President Biden that expanded subsidies. Many of you appear not to be getting credits for which you are eligible. Even beyond misunderstandings about Obamacare, several posters in this thread demonstrate a wide lack of knowledge about insurance in general. I think that it is fair to say that Retton gets almost no sympathy in this thread. In addition to questions about why she is not insured, there are complaints about her politics. Basically, posters are skeptical about almost every detail of this story. Retton lives in a large mansion, her husband is thought to have a high income, online sources show that Retton has a high net worth, and some posters point to recent sources of income available to her. The thread was so overwhelmingly negative and repetitive that I finally locked it. But, any financial issues that Retton faced should have been alleviated at least somewhat because her fundraiser has raised more than $350,000. With any luck, Retton will now become a proponent of universal healthcare since not everyone has her prominence to help raise money during a health crisis.

Third was a thread titled, "Found a hotel notepad from a hotel we've never stayed at" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. In what might be termed the "Case of the Missing Notepad", the original poster says that she went into her husband's office while he was on the phone and noticed a notepad from the Fairmont Hotel. She was surprised because they have never stayed at a Fairmont. She went back later after her husband had left and couldn't find the notepad. As a result, she is suspicious that he might be having an affair. I found parts of this thread hilariously funny. Posters debated about whether having an affair at a Fairmont was better than cheaper hotel choices. Better, some said because it showed class. Worse, came the response, because it would require spending more of the family's money. Better, said others, because cheaper hotels are more likely to have bedbugs. Still others argued that Fairmonts are not all that high class in the first place. One poster thought that for her husband, who is too fancy for a Hotel 8 and was probably too cheap for a more extravagant hotel, Fairmonts might be right in his sweet spot. Most posters thought that it was unlikely that if her husband was in a hotel room for an illicit rendezvous he would pick up a notepad. But at least one poster came up with a scenario in which that was possible. Several of those responding proposed a number of alternative methods that the notepad could have ended up in his possession. For instance, even if he didn't stay at a Fairmont, he might have attended a work conference or meeting at one. If I understood correctly, the original poster conducted a second search of her husband's office and still came up empty. But, she determined not to confront her husband about it and, instead, would simply make a mental note. Good thing, one poster responded, because she would be unable to make a written note.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Like the first thread I discussed, it is a spin off of the Hamas-Israel war. Also, like that thread, I ended up locking it. Titled, "Free Speech Only Applies to Certain People", the original poster linked to a news article about students who are members of organizations at Harvard University that signed a statement supporting the Palestinians in Gaza and blaming Israel for the violence. Billionaire hedge fund CEO Bill Ackman demanded that the names of the members of the organizations be released so that the students could be blacklisted. The original poster considers this to be an impingement on the students' freedom of speech. There are a number of issues involved in this controversy, most of which were brought up in the thread. One point is that many members of these organizations had no input into the statements and may not even have been aware of them. In such cases, it is unfair to blacklist students who are guilty only by association. There is a dispute about whether or not blacklisting the students would be a violation of free speech. Some posters argue that as long as it is not the government doing it, it is not. This really confuses two concepts. The government is bound by the 1st Amendment which protects free speech. So, as these posters suggest, if the governments punished these students due to the statements, it would violate the 1st Amendment. However, private individuals and businesses are still capable of violating the concept of "free speech". It's just that there is no legal ramification for doing so. For instance, if I delete a thread describing former President Donald Trump as the greatest President of all time, I have interfered with the poster's freedom of speech. But, I have not violated the 1st Amendment, so tough beans. Moreover, I could argue that being forced to allow such a statement on my privately-owned website would violate my freedom of speech. Finally, as several posters argued, free speech does not mean freedom from repercussions. If a private company decided not to hire this hypothetical poster because of his post about Trump, that is perfectly legal. One last point several posters made was to question whether the statement was even blacklist worthy. While statements such as that signed by the Harvard organizations are being treated in the US as deplorable or even anti-Semitic, similar if not exactly the same sentiments are being expressed openly in Israel, even by prominent individuals. Does an American hedge fund operator really need to be — poor choice of words I know — more holy than the Pope?