Monday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was one that was started on Sunday, but gained traction yesterday. It was titled, "Anxiety level going uppppp.." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. I suspect that many DCUM users can relate to the original poster who says that her anxiety level has gone up, resulting in her eating a bunch of her kids' Halloween candy and increasing her anti-anxiety medication. She asks if anyone else is getting anxious about Tuesday and suggests that she should probably start watching less news. Whenever someone brings up anxiety surrounding politics, there are posters who react almost with scorn, suggesting that the outcome will have little impact. For instance, one poster wrote, "The world will still keep turning no matter who is elected. It’s only 4 yrs. All the doom and gloom talk on both sides is just theatrics." Such posters don't seem to understand the real effect that politics can have on people's lives. I can only assume that such posters live privileged lives because for a great many people, the outcome of an election does have a direct impact on them. It is popular to suggest that both parties are guilty of exaggerating the threat posed by the other side. There is an important difference, however. The campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz bases its warnings on the actual statements and actions of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. When they warn that Trump is a threat to abortion rights, it is based upon Trump's bragging that he is responsible for Roe v. Wade being overturned. When they warn about Project 2025, they know that, despite his distancing himself, Trump has praised the project and several of his closest associates were responsible for the effort. When they warn about a national sales tax on imported goods, it is based on Trump's repeatedly expressed plan for tariffs on all imports. The naysayers either think Trump is lying or won't be successful in imposing his plans. Trump, on the other hand, simply lies in his warnings about Harris. He says the country will be destroyed. He claims that we will be involved in World War III. He says that the doors will be opened to millions of immigrants who will be granted citizenship. There is no basis to believe any of these things. The result is that while MAGAs could legitimately be advised to calm down and maybe take a Xanax, liberals are justified in being anxious. Imagine being a transgender person — or the friend or relative of one — and being told that, after millions of dollars of anti-trans advertising by the Trump campaign, the outcome of the election doesn't matter? The threat posed by having Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. — a nutcase anti-vaxer who would be a threat to food safety — responsible for food and medicine or Elon Musk made responsible for government efficiency is huge. We should feel anxious about those possibilities. But another question is now to control that anxiety. At this point, there is little that the average person can do about the election once they have voted. Being able to accept that something is outside your control and that all you can do is wait is an important skill and one that many people will need to exercise today.

One cure for anxiety is distraction, and the next most active thread might just be the distraction our users need. Posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum and titled, "Asking husband if it's okay to order certain dishes at dinner", the original poster says  that she had dinner over the weekend with a friend and her friend's husband. She said that her friend kept asking her husband if she could order certain items from the menu. The restaurant was semi-expensive, and the original poster assumes this was because of the cost of the dishes. The husband eventually got flustered and told his wife to order whatever she wanted. The original poster finds this behavior to be strange and wants to know if it is common. Everyone agrees that this behavior is not common. Most posters seem to make the same assumption as the original poster that the wife was worried about the cost of the food and that perhaps the couple may have financial worries. Several posters suggested that the husband is controlling and that the wife was worried about being punished later for spending too much. Others argued that the wife was being passive-aggressive and trying to egg on her husband. Similarly, a number of posters raised the possibility that the couple had just had a fight about finances and the wife was intentionally angering her husband. Another suggestion was that the couple might be facing a short-term financial crunch and that the wife would not ordinarily ask about ordering but was compelled to in this instance. Several posters suggested that there might be non-financial explanations for the behavior. For instance, the couple might have been planning to share, or the wife didn't want to order the same thing that her husband was planning to get. Another suggestion was that the wife might have dietary restrictions and wanted to ensure that she was abiding by them. Everyone agreed that it was not tactful to act this way in front of others. Several posters faulted the original poster for delving into her friend's business and starting a thread about her. Many thought that the original poster could be a better friend by talking to the wife about what happened. There were some concerns that the other couple's relationship might be abusive. Early in the thread, a poster mentioned that food prices in the U.S. have risen significantly and that she had just been in Europe and found food to be much cheaper. This set off a side conversation that ran the entire length of the thread comparing the U.S. to countries in Europe, especially Scandinavia. Another poster brought up prices of things in Switzerland. Many Americans have an uncontrollable reaction to any mention of Scandinavia, which causes them to instantly describe the tax rate, often incorrectly. There was just such a poster in this thread, and as a result, the conversation grew to a discussion of taxes, socialized healthcare, Tricare — which is used by the U.S. military — and which countries are Scandinavian (Switzerland is not). This off-topic discussion elicited repeated pleas by other posters to either stay on-topic or start their own thread to talk about Europe. But those posts were mostly ignored other than by one poster who responded by saying, "You’re not in charge."

Next was a thread titled, "If Trump wins, and lets RFK jr ban vaccines, what will happen?" and posted in the "Health and Medicine" forum. The original poster linked to a story on the NBC News website reporting that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump did not rule out that he would ban vaccines. In this same article, Trump said that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would have a "big role in the administration" if Trump wins. Kennedy is a long-time vaccine critic. The original poster wants to know how this would be rolled out and whether the repercussions might reach Europe. As in the anxiety thread discussed above, the reaction of many posters is simple denial. "This will not happen," says the first poster to respond. "Vaccines are not going to be banned," says the next poster. It is not clear to me upon what basis these posters can be so sure. As I asked above, are they suggesting that Trump is lying or that Kennedy will be prevented from pursuing his plans? This confidence that bad things won't happen reminds me of those who laughed at suggestions that electing Trump in 2016 would lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned. Therefore, while I personally find it inconceivable that vaccines would be banned, I am not sure that we can summarily rule it out. Other posters suggested that while vaccines would not likely be banned, vaccine requirements and government funding for administering vaccines could be dropped. Similarly, some posters claimed that vaccines will not be banned but requirements for insurance plans to cover them will likely be removed. Many individuals can't or won't pay for the shots and vaccines that are only administered in a spotty manner are often not effective. So, vaccines will not be banned but they will instead be rendered functionally ineffective. As a result, many posters are concerned that there would be an increase in communicable diseases and childhood deaths. Posters point to other vaccine-related policies that could be altered. A discussion of such points is interesting, but not really what is at issue here. If anyone asked Trump about the "vaccine court", for instance, he would probably think that it is a court that orders people to get vaccinations. There is no chance that he properly understands that court's function. Trump presents a number of potential threats to health. He may or may not be planning to get rid of Obamacare — his position seems to change regularly. Trump appears inclined to agree with Kennedy about removing fluoride from our drinking water. As always, there are plenty of Trump believers who are ready to defend both him and Kennedy. According to these posters, nothing Trump or Kennedy would do would cause problems, but only result in making everything better. Other posters seem to share Kennedy's anti-vaccine sentiments and welcome anything he can do to decrease, if not completely stop, their usage.

The final thread that I will discuss today is another one from the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Harris ‘opportunity agenda for black men’", the original poster quoted several bullet points from a plan that Vice President Kamala Harris developed to appeal to Black men. Over the past few days, there has been a poster or posters repeatedly starting threads about Harris and Black men. I interpreted these threads as attempts to troll and I deleted them. If this was a single poster, he or she was very persistent because the threads kept being reposted, often with a slightly modified title and sometimes with different content. The one similarity is that the threads appeared to be designed to be provocative. Things came to a head yesterday when this process was repeated several times with threads being created and me deleting them and different versions of the threads being posted. Finally, this thread came along and was less provocative, seemed to be worded in a reasonably serious manner, and was supported by an authoritative link. I really could not find a good reason to delete it. I don't know for sure that it was the same poster who started all the threads that I deleted, but that is my assumption. Several posters in this thread, and perhaps even the original poster, seem to believe that Harris' policy suggestions were just released in the past few days. However, Harris actually announced the plan on October 14. For some reason, the New York Times (which hopefully everyone is avoiding due to the strike), is covering the plan today. Better late than never, I guess. But, also, don't cross the picket line so wait until the strike ends to read the article. There is little dispute that Black men have historically suffered from discrimination. However, the challenge to programs aimed at that community is that race-based policies are discriminatory and, therefore, provoke objections. In this case, non-Black men generally oppose any policy meant to assist Black men exclusively. Much of this discussion consists of posters articulating such complaints, frequently by describing the policies as "racist". Others don't really have a problem with the general idea, but have criticisms of specific ideas in the plan. For instance, some posters object to the plan to legalize marijuana and create opportunities for Black men to succeed in the industry. One poster called it the "dumbest mistake of all time." Several posters, including the original poster, complained that the plan did not include addressing the criminal justice system which disproportionately imprisons Black men. Other posters criticize the plan as being another handout, or simple pandering, to another group in hopes of getting votes. As one poster put it, it is "The Oprah approach: ‘You get $10,000! And you get $25,000!’" Early on, Harris opponents took some glee in reports that Harris was not getting strong support from Black men. This policy was likely aimed at addressing that concern. As one poster pointed out, Harris was once criticized for not appealing to Black men. Now she is being criticized for attempting to appeal to Black men. It is a no-win situation.