Tuesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread was the Kamila Harris thread that I discussed yesterday and will skip today. After that was a thread that was created back in April 2022 but was revived recently due to renewed interest in its topic. Titled, "What the hell happened to JD Vance?", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster expresses surprise that J. D. Vance — at that time known mostly as the author of "Hillbilly Elegy" — had turned full MAGA during his Senate campaign. The renewed interest in the thread is obviously because Vance was recently selected as the running mate of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. I didn't read this thread when it was originally created and looking at it now, the first thing I noticed is how much the discourse surrounding "Hillbilly Elegy" had changed between the time it was published and 2022. When the book originally gained popularity, it was overwhelmingly praised. So much so that, as I wrote in an earlier blog post, when I discussed the book on DCUM I was half convinced that something was wrong with me for not being impressed by it. The posts discussing "Hillbilly Elegy" in this thread generally contained thoughts much closer to mine and the unvarnished praise that originally greeted the book was gone. More importantly, posters were frequently able to discern signals in the memoir that suggested that Vance was perfectly capable of making the transition from "intelligent, reasonable Republican" to MAGA cultist. Nobody seemed to believe that Vance's conversion was authentic. Rather, the general feeling was that Vance understood that turning MAGA was a political necessity. The more generous of the posters suggested that Vance might actually act more responsibly once he was in office. Now, two years after this thread was created, it is even more difficult to determine who is the real J. D. Vance. Vance was never the son of Appalachia as his book led many to believe. He grew up in suburban Ohio in a middle class neighborhood. Far from being a defender or advocate for those trapped in poverty in the mountains, Vance held them in disdain, viewing them as being responsible for their own failures. The people of Appalachia were little more than a prop that Vance used to promote the right-wing ideology favored by his billionaire mentor Peter Thiel. Now, in his new MAGA persona, Vance portrays himself as the proponent of the poor and working class that many wrongly assumed he was when "Hillbilly Elegy" first came out. But whereas this may have been believable back in 2016, despite his memoir demonstrating otherwise, few seem to believe it now. The opinion of Vance most frequently presented in this thread is that he is a valueless opportunist who will do whatever is necessary to gain power.

Yesterday's next most active thread was also about J. D. Vance. Also posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread was titled, "Will Trump drop Vance?". The original poster says that there have been several articles suggesting that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's selection of J. D. Vance as his running mate has turned out to be a mistake. The original poster then goes on to ask whether it is possible for Trump to replace Vance at this stage of the campaign. There is a bit of a debate about whether there really were many, or even any, articles suggesting this. Eventually links were provided to two such articles and I have seen additional articles since then. For the most part, those responding were simply expressing the joy they would find in seeing Vance dumped. The argument that Vance is proving to be a mistake is based on the contention that he was originally chosen when Republicans thought that Trump would easily defeat President Joe Biden. Vance was supposed to help energize the base rather than appeal to voters outside Trump's base. Now that Vice President Kamala Harris is the presumptive nominee rather than Biden, the Republican's initial strategy looks to have been a mistake. Moreover, Vance is likely doing more damage than good at this point. His public appearances have been lackluster and he has not demonstrated any ability to excite Trump followers. His idiotic attempt to display authenticity by claiming to drink Diet Mountain Dew landed like a lead balloon. His allegation that the country is being ruled by childless cat ladies might have been written for him by Harris herself given how perfectly it serves her purposes. His newly-adopted MAGAfied political stance — that the White working class is the victim of everyone other than MAGA Republicans — is 180 degrees removed from the thesis of his memoir, "Hillbilly Elegy". It is notable that almost nobody in this thread seems to think that Vance has any true beliefs or values. He is seen variously as either an ambitious opportunist or a pawn serving the interests of his benefactors. With regard to the latter, his close ties to billionaire Peter Thiel cause some posters to suggest that Vance primarily represents the interests of tech moguls and cryptocurrency advocates. Some posters argue that he represents Wall Street, but others contend that there is conflict between Wall Street and Silicon Valley, especially where cryptocurrency is concerned. There is some evidence that Wall Street sees Vance's nomination as a loss of influence for them and that they are not happy about it. Trump's history suggests that he will be reluctant to replace Vance at this time — even if he wants to and there is no evidence that he does. More likely is that Trump will soon be blaming Vance for anything that goes wrong in the campaign.

Next was a thread titled, "would you 'let' your 18 year old go on Ozempic?" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. Given the huge number of threads about weight loss drugs, it almost seems as if DCUM might only need two forums. One devoted to politics and one devoted to Ozempic and similar drugs. Those seem to be the most popular topics these days. The original poster of this thread says that her 18-year-old daughter has been weight-conscious for years and now can afford Ozempic and can obtain it from a licensed provider. The original poster's daughter really wants to try the drug, but has asked her mother's advice. Notably, the original poster's daughter is not really overweight, or if so, only marginally. Her body mass index is right at the border between normal and overweight and the original poster says that her clothing size is 8 or 10. The daughter also appears to be quite fit based on the original poster's description. Most of the weight loss drug threads are posted in the "Diet and Exercise" forum where posters have very defined opinions about such drugs. I don't know how much those same attitudes transfer to the teens forum but there seem to be fewer knee jerk reactions than I would have expected. To be sure, there are plenty of posts that either firmly support the daughter taking a weight loss drug and those which equally firmly reject the idea. But there are far more that are more nuanced and reasoned. A common concern is that Ozempic in particular was not meant to treat someone like the original poster's daughter. It is a treatment for diabetes, a condition with which the daughter does not suffer. Moreover, the young woman is far from obese. As a result, posters recommend seeing an endocrinologist and a nutritionist, or even a personal trainer, to find alternative ways of losing weight. Posters express concern that these drugs need to be continually used in order to prevent a reversal of their impact, causing dependence and expense that are not really justified at this point. One argument among those supportive of the daughter taking a weight loss drug is that losing weight would add to her attractiveness and, therefore, enhance her marriage prospects. One post with this suggestion was, not without merit, described as the "Stupidest statement of the day."

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. Titled, "I’m not a big “don’t recline’ person, but …", the original poster asks whether it was necessary for a short woman to keep her seat fully reclined for the entire duration of a 4 hour daytime flight. I discussed another thread recently on the topic of reclining seats on aircraft. Apparently, this is another popular topic of discussion. There is really nothing new in this thread that wasn't included in the previous thread. Some posters believe that it is the right of every passenger to recline a seat that has that capability and that the original poster should just accept it. Others seem to believe that other than in very specific extenuating circumstances, seats should never be reclined. In the middle are posters who have complex formulas that take into account the type of flight, plane, number of passagers, time of flight, and length of flight to determine if and for how long a seat may be reclined. These posters should probably do everyone a favor by publishing a spreadsheet template into which we can all plug in the values and determine whether or not we can recline our seat. This is one instance in which my short stature is an advantage. Personally, I don't care at all if the person in front of me reclines their seat, as long as they don't do it while I have the tray down with a glass full of something liquid sitting on it. I'm not a huge fan of having drinks dumped in my lap. But other than that, I'm not bothered. This thread is summed up pretty well by a poster on page 9 who wrote, "This thread and the one from just last week continue to show that there will always be those who recline and those who don’t. Period. Both feel strongly and neither will change their opinion."