The Most Active Threads Since Friday

The thread about the Gaza war has been the most active thread every day since Hamas launched its attack on Israel. On Friday that thread reached 1,000 pages so I locked it and started a part 2. Despite being locked Friday evening, the thread was still tied as the third most active thread over the weekend. The new thread, titled "Gaza War, Part 2", and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, was easily the most active. The thread has already grown to more than 150 pages. There is no way that I can keep up with a thread that is growing at that rate and, as a result, I have read very little of the new thread. Rather than discuss the thread itself, I thought I would provide some of my observations of the two threads. The first thing to understand is that the majority of the participants are pro-Israel. "Pro-Israel" does not mean "Jews". Not all of the pro-Israel posters are Jewish and not all of the Jewish posters are necessarily pro-Israel. Moreover, "pro-Israel" describes a fairly wide spectrum and these posters are not always in agreement with their opinions. For instance, some of these posters are very quick to label almost any criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitism" while others are more measured and less likely to make such accusations. One result of this is constant complaints about criticism of Israel being called "anti-Semitic" and equally common responses by pro-Israel posters saying that they do no such thing. Based on what I've seen, both claims appear to be true. There are quite a few questionable accusations of anti-Semitism and most pro-Israel posters are not cavalierly tossing around the term. My second observation is that some of the pro-Israel posters have been posting incessantly. I noticed one poster who had posted over 200 times in a 24 hour period. That comes out to one post approximately every 7 minutes, but since the poster presumably took breaks, posts were not spread equally over the day. We have mechanisms in place to alert to potential bots that occasionally plague the site and multiple posters have triggered those alerts. They are posting faster than we expect humans to be able to do. Consequently, these posters simply don't have time to read carefully, consider their replies, or compose thoughtful responses. This results in responses that often are simply repeated talking points that generally do a poor job of addressing the post to which they are responding. Moreover, the original post is often misrepresented or distorted. My experience when posting messages that didn't align with pro-Israel views was a bit like dropping chum into a shark tank. There was an immediate onslaught of responses and by the time I had replied to one of those, several more had been added. While some of those responses were serious and clearly were posted in good faith, many were little more than knee jerk reactions that demonstrated little thought and did nothing to further a serious discussion. I was frustrated to see even some of the serious posters take my posts out of context or purposefully ignore the nuances that I had purposely included. I also acquired my own personal troll who followed me from thread to thread posting misrepresentations of my posts in completely unrelated threads. Obviously, many of these same things are happening to the pro-Israel posters, but that just reinforces my criticism of these threads. Posters are prioritizing quantity over the quality of their posts. It seems that a sensible process of "read, think, respond" has been replaced by simply "respond".

The next most active thread was also posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and also related to the Gaza war. Titled, "Censoring pro-palestine speech", the original poster complains that statements supporting Palestinians are considered anti-Semitic. Before I get to the thread, I want to comment again on the number of posts the Gaza war and related topics are attracting. I locked this thread Friday evening and it still managed to be the second most active thread over the weekend. Rather than simply summarize the posts in the thread, I'm going to again provide some of my own observations. Two major problems surrounding the discourse over the Gaza war are a lack of nuance and reductive reactions. An example of a lack of nuance is the common slogan being used by pro-Palestine protesters, "Free Palestine from the River to the Sea". Proponents of this slogan argue that they are simply arguing for the freedom of all Palestinians including those in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the Arabs living in Israel who are often treated as second class citizens. Left unsaid is what happens to Israeli Jews. But, most advocates say that their demand could be achieved through either a two-state solution or a one-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians live together in a democratic country. The reductive aspect of this is the immediate assumption that not only does this slogan call for the elimination of Israel, but also the elimination of Jews. This is further assumed to be the violent elimination of Jews, or essentially a second Holocaust. Therefore, the slogan is condemned by some as hate speech and anti-Semitism. Since hate speech and anti-Semitism are generally judged to be worthy of punishment, there have been demands for punitive measures against those advocating this slogan (and some measures have been taken). It doesn't have to be this way. The pro-Palestine protesters should have thought of a better slogan and they should still do so now. Opponents should not be so quick to equate a call for Palestinian self-determination to be a demand to kill Jews. Similarly, many pro-Palestine activists adamantly support the right of occupied people to resist, even using violence. This right has been supported by the United Nations. However, this right is limited and certainly does not include firing rockets into civilian areas or killing and kidnapping civilians. Many protesters have supported the Palestinians' right to resist, but have done so without condemnations of actions which have exceeded that right. In response, opponents have claimed this is support for the terrorism of Hamas, including killing children and other civilians. Again, protesters should be careful in their support for resistance and those opposed should not immediately conclude this amounts to support for atrocities. Finally, due to examples such as the two I've just described, there is sort of a meta case of reduction. Because some actions in some protests have been considered anti-Semitic (deserved or not) or supporting terrorism (again, deserved or not) or have actually turned violent against Jews, all activities in support of Palestinians risk being labeled anti-Semitic and as supporting terrorism. This tendency is furthered by those acting in bad faith to exploit these labels for political purposes. The result has been a clear infringement on speech in support of Palestinians, but a result for which the supporters have some responsibility.

The next most active thread is also a political thread. The thread was titled, "The Republican Party of Virginia mails out nude photos of a candidate", and was posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. The original poster embedded a tweet from Virginia State Senator Louisa Lucas that accuses Virginian Governor Glenn Youngkin of being behind mailings sent by the Republican Party of Virginia that contained nude photos of a candidate. The background on this is that a candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates, Susanna Gibson, was revealed to have streamed sexual acts with her husband online. Some of these streams were subsequently archived, possibly without Gibson's consent, on other websites. The Republican Party of Virginia recently sent a mailing to potential voters with a warning on the outside saying "Do not open if you are under the age of 18" and apparently containing screenshots from the videos. I haven't seen the actual photos but descriptions suggest the photos may have been cropped to eliminate nudity. However, the Richmond Times-Dispatch described the mailing as "explicit" so maybe they weren't cropped. Many posters, including critics of Gibson, are appalled that Republicans would stoop to this level. Many posters question the legality of such a mailing and wonder what would happen if a child opened the letter. Some note the hypocrisy given Youngkin's recent anti-porn actions. Other posters chose instead to dispute the details of the story. This can't be blamed on Younkin, they argued, because he has no formal position in the Party. Others responded that, as the leading Republican in the state, he is the titular head of the party. Certainly Younkin has not rebuked anyone (at least not publicly) for the mailing which suggests that it has his support. The nitpickers also dispute that the mailing contained nude photos, arguing that the pictures were cropped. As I said, this is not really clear. In response, posters argued that a photo of Gibson nude, even if explicit parts were cropped, was still a nude photo. Some posters also argued over what terms should be applied to Gibson. For instance, at least one poster insisted on calling her a "porn star". Like the question of nude photos, this is largely a semantic dispute. If the video was pornographic and Gibson was its star, then she must be a porn star they argued. Others responded that "star" generally refers to a celebrity, not someone who was simply streaming to a largely private audience. The election is next week so we will soon be able to see whether the Republican strategy of highlighting Gibson's sexual activities will be successful.

The final thread at which I'll look today was also posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, meaning that all of the threads I'm discussing today are political. Titled, "To people frustrated with Biden who say they won’t vote in 2024", the original poster points out that posters in swing states who choose not to vote for President Joe Biden will make it easier for former President Donald Trump to win. The original poster asks if this is worth it. This is a 21 page thread and I have no interest in reading it. The original poster is correct that a failure to vote for Biden, especially in swing states, makes a Trump victory more likely. But, voters often don't react logically and have a long history of voting against their own interests. Moreover, I strongly believe that it is a candidate's job to earn votes rather than the job of voters to vote due to guilt. I've noticed a lot of dissent with Biden among those supportive of the Palestinians with many of them threatening to withhold votes from Biden. Regardless of your feelings for Biden, if you believe that Trump — who not only wants to reinstate a "Muslim ban" but cancel visas for foreign students who show sympathy for Hamas (something I suspect will be broadly interpreted as showing any support for Palestinians) — will be better, I'd like to have some of what you are smoking. Sadly, it is clear that in states such as Michigan, opposition to Biden's unequivocal support for Israel will be an appealing wedge issue to be exploited by Republicans. We have seen Republicans rally to support Muslims who oppose school book choices despite having little interest in Muslims otherwise. Harlin Crow, the far-right billionaire who has funded Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has made a significant contribution to Cornell West's presidential campaign. You don't have to be a genius, or even the owner of DCUM, to know that plenty of Republican money will be available for groups in key states to attack Biden as unreasonably pro-Israel. All while the same Republicans claim to be the most ardent supporters of Israel in existence. Ironically, exactly the same pro-Palestinian activists who are threatening not to vote for Biden are scaring some Jewish voters away from the Democratic Party. While those individuals acknowledge Biden's support for Israel, they are uncomfortable with the apparent shift of many Democrats towards Palestinians. As a result, Biden risks losing support from both pro-Palestinian and Jewish voters.