Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The thread about the war in Gaza continues to lead as the most active thread with over 750 new posts yesterday. The next most active thread is somewhat related to that conflict. Titled, "Wealthy donors pull funding from from Harvard and U Penn for failure to denounce ‘antisemitism’" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread is about wealthy donors to universities pulling funding to the schools because the institutions have not been forceful enough in speaking out against anti-Semitism. There are a number of different issues that come up in the thread. The first, something that the original poster touched on, is whether universities even have a duty to comment on political topics. Several posters pointed out that schools have issued statements in regard to other issues and that being silent at this time would be seen as condoning anti-Semitism. But, this immediately led to disputes about whether actual anti-Semitism is involved in these cases. After the the Hamas attack on Israel, many supporters of Israel demanded unequivocal condemnations of Hamas. Because almost everyone expected massive retaliation by Israel that would result in significant numbers of Palestinian civilians being killed — something that is now coming to pass — many of those issuing statements combined denunciations of Hamas with expressions of concern about Gazans. In some places, including a few colleges, there were protests in support of Palestinians and, in some cases, even in solidarity with Hamas. Any or all of these actions were labeled as "anti-Semitic" by various parties. In response, others argued that even in the most extreme of these examples, the activities were anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish. This touches on a long-running debate about whether being anti-Israel or anti-Zionist is anti-Semitic. Another long-running debate is about free speech and the ramifications of being punished due to speech. Several posters saw the withdrawing of funding as anti-free speech actions while others disagreed, saying that free speech often comes with a cost. Many objected to what they perceived as wealthy Jews using their influence to control what is considered to be acceptable speech at universities. But, one of the examples highlighted by the original poster, Jon Huntsman Jr, is not Jewish. Moreover, the trope of rich Jews controlling society is itself anti-Semitic. Universities have been hotbeds of contention over the Israel-Arab conflict for some time and it is clear that pro-Palestinian viewpoints have made significant headway among students. Whether reactions such as these will influence this trend one way or another remains to be seen.

Next was a thread posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. Titled, "I told my parents that we aren't coming over for Thanksgiving", I have to say that this is one of the more bizarre threads I've discussed. The original poster says that she told her parents that she "had a menu and [will be] preparing food" for Thanksgiving. She said that her parents were welcome to join them but that her family would not be travelling for the holiday. This will be the first Thanksgiving that the original poster, her husband, and two children will not spend at her parent's house and the original poster's mother did not take the news well. I was somewhat bewildered about why the original poster would post this thread. Her description of the conversation makes it sound to me to have been, at best, inept, if not a conscious attempt to upset her parents. A more welcoming approach might have been to discuss rotating hosting the holiday or maybe explaining her desire to host and how much she would welcome her parents. Leading with the menu just seems strange and was likely received as off-putting by her parents. Moreover, this approach makes no accommodation for any other guests that might traditionally attend her parents Thanksgivings. As I read on, I realized that this was really the original poster's version of throwing down the gauntlet. In a subsequent post, she revealed resentment over being treated like a "perpetual child" and wanting to cook her own food. She also stated that she assumed many others with similar feelings might "tend to lurk" on the forum and she wanted to show solidarity with them. What I initially thought might be a query for advice about how to mend fences and tend to hurt feelings was really an expression of victory and pride in an accomplishment. Obviously, I see lots of points of contention with the original poster as — given the length of the thread — others must as well. But I am still somewhat dumbfounded that there would be much interest in discussing this topic. Who really cares where the original poster has Thanksgiving and is there really a significant group of readers silently fantasizing about telling their parents where they can stick the holiday? Even the original poster eventually expressed surprise that "such a mundane topic" would continue for so many pages.

Third was a thread titled, "Kangaroos are terrifying and no one is talking about it" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster, who appears to be writing partially if not fully tongue-in-cheek, complains that the "kangaroo lobby" has convinced us that kangaroos are cute and cuddly animals when, in fact, they are quite dangerous. The poster linked to a video that has gone viral showing a kangaroo that looks buff enough to go a few rounds with Tyson Fury attempting to drown a dog. In the video, the dog is set free by its owner who seems to have taken a couple of blows from the roo. What follows is a serious of anecdotes of various levels of seriousness involving animals and the dangers they present. But, most of the thread, which I have only skimmed, appears to be heavily focused on kangaroos. To be honest, given the gravity of topics such as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza that take a lot of my attention, I'm not really up for the levity of this thread. I'm sure others might appreciate the distraction and I'm not really knocking the thread. It's just not for me.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Titled, "Britney Spears reveals she had an abortion… with hers and Justin Timberlake’s baby.", the original poster linked to an article about Britney Spears' revelation that she had an abortion while in a relationship with Justin Timberlake because he “didn’t want to be a father.” The original poster says that she is pro-choice but that this isn't a good look for Timberlake. Much as in the case of the previous thread, I can't really motivate myself to read a thread about Britney Spears or Justin Timerlake. As for abortion, haven't we all read far too much about that? Maybe the only thing new here is that abortions are supposed to be treated like icky shameful things that should be kept secret and never admitted. The fact that, not one, but two celebrities would be involved is not surprising at all, but the public acknowledgement is unusual. I can't imagine much of the so-called "pro-life" crowd was big on either Spears or Timberlake prior this news in any case, so I doubt the revelation will cost them any fans. That's not to say that those folks won't be more than happy to provide criticism and condemnation. Because we all know they will. More frustrating are posters like the original poster who claim to be "pro-choice" but are then critical of those who exercise that right. Unless Spears is claiming that Timberlake forced her to have the abortion, which based on the original post doesn't seem to be the case, she exercised her right to choose and it's really no business of anybody else. Much the same can be said for Timberlake. But, I guess Spears has a book coming out and discussions like this will probably result in increased sales. So, support her or not, she probably wants you to argue about it. Far be it for me to stand between her and publicity.