Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The first thread that I will discuss today was actually the fourth most popular because the three more active than it are ones that I've already discussed. The thread was titled, "Official RNC convention thread" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread started with the original poster noting that among the first night's speakers at the Republican National Convention was Amber Rose, an OnlyFans creator. The original poster finished by sarcastically saying that she can't wait to see what else is in store. The second post of the thread complained about the presence of Dana White, CEO and President of Ultimate Fighting Championship, who in 2022 was filmed hitting his wife after she slapped him. This led to jibes about a stripper and a wife beater starting off the conference. More seriously, it provoked one poster to launch a strident defense of White and claiming that he had the right ot hit his wife because it was self-defense. What has occurred since then is basically a running commentary about the various speakers. Democrats generally pan them while Republicans praise them. This thread also demonstrated the speech restrictions that Republicans are hoping to assert over Democrats. When a poster embedded a video showing several trucks apparently deployed by Democrats that had the message "Dictator Day One" on their sides, Republicans criticized Democrats for "having no shame". Apparently the message, which directly quotes former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, is considered unacceptable in the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Trump. Meanwhile, within in the convention hall, Republican speakers were free to be as inflammatory toward Democrats as they wished. One speaker who the was subject of considerable discussion was Sean O’Brien, President of the Teamsters union. O'Brien had asked to be speak at both party conventions and has been granted the opportunity. Speaking at the RNC, O'Brien did not endorse Trump and he made a number of statements that were very much out of place in a gathering of Republicans. Within the thread, his speech was quite divisive. Republicans interpreted it as shift by labor towards Republicans. Democrats, generally seeing it similarly, saw O'Brien as betraying the Democrats who had supported his union. O'Brien's presence highlighted a reality of the Republican party that is often ignored. The Party's agenda clearly favors the wealthy, promising tax cuts to corporations, reduced regulations, and — despite the invitation to O'Brien — opposition to labor unions. But the voters to whom Trump and, even more so his pick for Vice President J. D. Vance, attempt to appeal are the working class. Whether O'Brien's speech will cause workers to wrongly believe that the the Republican Party is friendly to their interests or, instead, highlight the fact that Republicans represent owners and management rather than labor, will be interesting to see.

The next most active thread was also posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "100,000 federal jobs shipped out of DC and reclassify 50,000 civil servants.", the orignal poster complains that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump plans to destroy the District of Columbia's housing and employment markets, basically crashing its economy. This is due to his plan to move as many as 100,000 federal jobs out of the District and to reclassify 50,000 civil service jobs as political appointees. There is a certain irony to me, as a nearly 40-year resident of the District, in Trump's proposal to move federal jobs to other parts of the country. When I have argued in favor of statehood for DC, I am commonly told that a federal district is necessary so that the federal government will not be beholden to a particular state. Of course this ignores that large parts of the government, including the Pentagon, are already outside of the District, but if even more of the federal government is moved out, why will we need a Federal district? But this thread is devoted to more practical matters rather than the thoughts our founders. Several posters are strongly in favor of the idea with one suggesting that it could be addressed by simply allowing increased remote working which, the poster contends, many employees would appreciate. Others believe that such a move would both allow employees to live in areas of lower cost of living and reduce the cost of living in DC. Posters who are federal employees themselves are worried about what will happen to their jobs. Many have a spouse who is employed here and wouldn't want to move in order to keep their job. In the worst cases in which both spouses work for the federal government, their agencies might be relocated to different places. There is a fear that moving large number of jobs elsewhere could result in considerable brain drain as employees chose to quit rather than move. Much of this discussion is impacted by the long-running disrespect Republicans have nurtured towards federal employees. As far back as when Ronald Reagan described the nine most terrifying words in English as "I’m from the government and I’m here to help", it has been standard Republican dogma that federal employees are ineffective at best and actually harmful at worst. Posters routinely describe federal employees as lazy and incompetent. As such, many are happy to see this group of workers replaced. In more extreme cases, posters are actually thrilled with the idea that some might suffer. Republicans in the thread often come off as fairly sadistic. Other posters make arguments about the importance of keeping things more or less how they are now. They also try to correct the misperception that the average federal employee receives a huge salary while doing little to nothing. Other posters contend that if Trump tries to implement this proposal it will be tied up in courts for years and, therefore, will not affect them.

Next was a thread titled, "Vance vs Harris" and, like the previous two threads, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster suggests tha given the ages of President Joe Biden and former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, it is very likely that we will end up with either Republican Vice President nominee J. D. Vance or Vice President Kamala Harris replacing one of them as president. Therefore, she would like to discuss the respective merits of the two VP candidates. Most of the discussion is about Vance and much of that replicates the thread about him that I discussed yesterday. Posters have little to say about Harris. One thing that I have noticed is that perceptions of Harris seem to be heavily-influenced by Republican critiques of her. I am reminded of the never-ending attacks Republicans launched on Hillary Clinton. These attacks often started on the far right of the Republican Party, made their way to Republican media such as Fox News, were adopted by mainstream Republicans, and eventually entered the mainstream media where they essentially became conventional wisdom. Often Democrats themselves were partially responsible when intra-party opponents of Clinton lazily chose to use Republican attacks against her. Much the same seems to have happened with Harris. There are practically no substantive critiques of Harris. One of the most common criticisms is of her laugh. Is a candidate's laugh really an important qualification to serve as Vice President or President? If so, we are completely doomed as a country because we have lost all perspective. Another criticism, which the original poster echos, has to do with Harris tenure as San Francisco's district attorney. It is doubtful that many of those who base their opposition on her performance in that role actually know anything about it. Instead, I believe that they are simply repeating attacks that were more partisan than factual. Because of the Republican-influenced narrative that surrounds Harris, I suggest that she is underrated at the moment. Vance is in the opposition situation. He is largely unknown and much of what is known is based on his misleading book and the subsequent movie that glorify him. As such, considerable effort is spent by Vance detractors to destroy the myths that surround him. Vance defenders, in turn, try to fend off the attacks and argue in favor of him. Because generally, if not in this thread, the image of Vance as rising from hillbilly roots to a Yale-educated U.S. Senator still prevails, I think that Vance is currently overrated. Moreover, Harris has considerably more campaign experience than Vance. In a Harris vs. Vance campaign, I predict that Harris will surprise and that Vance will prove more vulnerable than expected. As for qualifications to serve as President, clearly Harris with a term as Vice President under her belt is significantly more qualified.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Diet and Exercise" forum and titled, "Weight loss drugs—is it just eating less calories??". The original poster has started a semi-glutide drug and already lost 5 pounds in the first week and a half despite not changing her calorie intake. Therefore she asks whether these drugs do something to the metabolism or if their effectiveness is only a result of eating less. The first thing I noticed while reading this thread is that despite the huge interest in weight loss drugs, and plenty of users who have first hand experience, nobody seems to know much about them. Hasn't a single one of these posters asked their doctors detailed questions about them? As a result, many of the responses are anecdotal and based on speculation from personal experience. Like the original poster, several other posters who have used weight loss drugs report significant weight loss during the first weeks. But they surmise that this has more to do with the drugs' ridding the body of inflammation and water weight rather than reduced eating. The first dosage of the drugs is normally so low that it doesn't significantly impact appetite. But, after that they believe, all reductions in weight are due to fewer calories. They contend that the drugs reduce their interest in food and, as a result, they consume less. In contrast, there is a group of users who believe that weight is not lost by reducing calories. They describe "calories in/calories out" — for some reason called "CACO" rather than "CICO" in this thread — as a belief that has been proven false. If the weight loss drugs only caused less food to be eaten, these posters argue, they would not be effective. Therefore, the drugs must do something else. To support their argument, these posters compare humans to other mammals, especially sheep. Sheep, they contend, are penned and fed the same amount of food. Yet, they gain different amounts of weight. This really doesn't seem to address the issue being discussed, however. That shows that individual sheep gain weight at different rates. If they could demonstrate that the sheep's diets were cut in half and the sheep didn't lose weight, that would be more significant. But, I suspect that the sheep would indeed lose weight. On the other hand, several posters who don't believe in CACO don't disagree that cutting calories reduces weight. Rather, the cuts in calories would have to be so drastic, they say, that it would be unhealthy. Like all threads involving weight loss drugs, this one was soon derailed by those who simply don't believe in the drugs for whatever reason. Posters end up talking about processed foods and other factors involving weight gain or loss and pretty much ignoring the original poster's question.