Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was, somewhat inexplicably, the thread from some time ago about the merger of two soccer clubs. But I've discussed that thread before and will skip it today. The next most active thread was titled, "The golden age of American Jews is ending" and posted in the "Religion" forum. The original poster linked to an article by Franklin Foer in "The Atlantic" that was titled the same as this thread. The original poster provided a one sentence summary saying that anti-Semitism on both the right and the left is threatening to end an unprecedented period of prosperity for American Jews. This thread really should have been posted in the political forum because this is more of a political discussion rather than a religious one. Jewish identity is a complex topic that is not solely based on religion. Moreover, the complicated relationship between Jews and Israel makes things even more convoluted. It is very clear that most, if not all, of the examples of anti-Semitism on the left that Foer provides are rooted in political divisions, not religious. Some of those examples can reasonably be argued to not be anti-Semitic at all, though they can equally reasonably be interpreted that way. This all makes for a very difficult discussion to have, particularly in a forum such as DCUM. This was clearly demonstrated when a poster alleged that some American Jewish groups have promoted extreme practices in Israel and responded to criticism of those actions by labeling it anti-Semitic. The poster suggested that the groups have gone too far and concludes, "If being against genocide makes me an antisemite, so be it." Indeed, another poster immediately accused that poster of being an anti-Semite. This provoked a tangent into history and disagreements about what Israel is actually doing. Or, perhaps "tangent" is not the right word because that discussion dominated the thread from that point on, leading to me locking the thread. On one side are posters who believe that criticizing Israel's actions is perfectly justified and has nothing to do with the Jewish religion but rather the acts of the state and government of Israel. They see charges of anti-Semitism as a method of shielding Israel from legitimate criticism. On the other side are posters who see anti-Semitism as a motivation for many of the attacks on Israel. What one side sees as legitimate criticism of Israel, the other side often views as inappropriate attacks on Jews. One side views accusations of anti-Semitism as cynical exploitation of a delegitimizing designation while the other side views "anti-Zionism" to be thinly-veiled anti-Semitism. It is clear that anti-Israel discourse has reached unprecedented levels in the US and most American Jews have probably never previously encountered, and perhaps maybe never even envisioned, such widespread opposition to Israel. But, whether this reflects a rise of anti-Semitism that threatens American Jews as Foer would have it or is simply the same type of political activity that has previously been focused on other countries such as apartheid South Africa, is probably more a question of perception than something that can be established with precise certainty.

Next was a thread in the "Money and Finances" titled, "How much debt you have? Mortgage and student loans included." While I didn't read every post in this thread, based on what I did read, most of those responding don't have much debt beyond student loans and mortgages. Many don't have student loans to repay and some had neither student nor mortgage debt. Very few that I saw had significant credit card debt and I didn't see anyone mentioning car payments. Whether this is due to DCUM's users being especially financially responsible, selective participation, or lying is anybody's guess. As one poster wrote, "I think this thread is getting more responses from people pleased with their lack of debt" and then went on to say, "Like me!" He then explained that he had paid off his home and student loans. I don't have much to say about this thread because most posts were just lists of numbers. There is really not much to discuss. There was a bit of a dispute about mortgages because some posters had a hard time accepting that others had paid significantly less than them for their homes. One poster was convinced that anyone whose home cost less than $400,000 had to be posting from outside the area. What these posters miss is that those of us who purchased homes 20 years ago or more were paying much different prices. Because the homes were cheaper and mortgages were therefore lower, many of those loans have been paid off. Even when they haven't been, the owners generally have relatively small monthly payments and low interest rates. So they are in no hurry to pay off those mortgages. Even many of the posters with large outstanding mortgages showed little concern due to the significant equity they have in their homes. Some posters were critical of those who rushed to pay off mortgages, seeing that as a source of cheap money that can be invested for significant returns.

The next two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. That means the next thread for today was actually the sixth most active yesterday. That thread was titled, "A Trump Presidency: What worries you most or has you most excited?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster expressed concern that, if he wins, former President Donald Trump "will kill the post-WWII western alliance that has been the heart of global security for decades" leading to Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran running amok with destabilizing effects. Other posters fear his authoritarianism and what they believes is his threat to democracy in the US. It is very apparent from reading this thread that those who either support Trump or are ambivalent towards him engage in a combination of wearing rose-colored glasses and wishful thinking. Among Trump's supporters, his previous term is seen as sort of a golden age in which everyone was happier and most things were better. One poster says that Trump "is more bark than bite". This harkens back to Trump's earlier term when particularly naive political pundits would argue that Trump should be taken seriously, but not literally. Trump's own actions, despite the attempts by many to suggest otherwise, often followed his words very precisely, or at least as precisely as he could get away with. This time around many posters, or at least one poster with practically religious ferver, can point to the Project 2025 as evidence that Trump should be taken both literally and seriously. Project 2025 is a plan developed by the Heritage Foundation to replace thousands of high-level federal employees with conservative recruits and completely remake the executive branch. Project 2025 supporters see this as a necessary step to get rid of the "deep state" that they believes stymies conservative policies. Critics see the project as a step toward implementing an authoritarian government. Other posters fear a range of potential changes that Trump might bring about including additional restrictions on abortion rights, immigration changes that might impact either the posters themselves or relatives, and moves to turn back the clock on race relations. Many Trump supporters look forward to Trump engaging in culture war issues such as pushing back on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives and transgender rights. A number of posters foresee Trump making efforts to combat crime. Others expect economic improvements. While the fears of Trump opponents might be exaggerated or overwrought (or, might not be), they do seem to have some basis in reality. On the other hand, it is hard not to see Trump supporters as particularly deluded with little grasp on either what Trump did in the past or is likely to do in the future.

The last thread for today was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum and titled, "Re: One Day - Real life examples of couples who are physically mismatched". Frankly, when I started reading this thread this morning I wanted to scream and pull my hair out in frustration. First of all, did someone rename this website, "DC Urban Adolescents" when I wasn't looking? The thread has its origin in another thread that was posted in the entertainment forum. That thread, which I will hasten to add I hitherto did not know existed, is about the Netflix series, "One Day". Until this morning I knew nothing about that show, but it apparently involves a romance between a conventionally attractive male and a woman who is the British daughter of Indian immigrants. I find her to be perfectly attractive but apparently some posters felt otherwise. The relationship forum thread is a spin off of the entertainment forum thread with the original poster accepting the premise that the character, if not the actress in real life, is unattractive. She then asks for "examples of good looking successful men falling for ugly women". I am baffled that someone has achieved the ability to compose English sentences and click the correct buttons on DCUM to start a new thread, but does not understand that beauty is subjective and, as they say, lies in the eye of the beholder. I assume the poster actually is asking about women that others do not consider attractive. Almost certainly, the man in question is quite happy with her appearance, or at least he was when he "fell" for her. Most of the male responders in the thread share my opinion that while the actress might not be stunningly beautiful, she is fairly attractive. Sad, yet unsurprisingly, the strongest criticism comes from women who find any number of flaws in her appearance. But, for good measure, the male actor also received his share of criticism with posters finding plenty of room for improvement in his looks as well. There are almost no examples of the type of real life matches that the original poster was seeking. Instead, the thread was entirely devoted to debating the actors' looks and making pronouncements about what men like and what type of women men date. Just when I thought that I had read the most ridiculous post that I could ever possibly read, another one came along and made the first look almost reasonable. But I think the winner has to be the post saying, "According to science and the golden ratio she is ugly and disfigured". I suspect that this poster's understanding of science is roughly equivalent to my knowledge of the "golden ratio" and I know absolutely nothing about the golden ratio.