Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The Taylor Swift thread that I discussed on Monday continued as the most active thread yesterday. After that were mostly political threads. The first of those was titled, "A message from PA relatives: Stop sending your political canvassers from Maryland", and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that he has relatives in York County, Pennsylvania who are registered as independents but have been leaning toward voting for Trump. Recently they have been visited by three different groups of vote canvassers who they believe came from Maryland and who knew nothing of local politics. They were offended by Marylanders telling them how to vote. The original poster then advises those who want "left progressive policies and crime and immigration" to stay in the "Baltimore/PG/Silver Spring echo chamber". Most of those replying are not particularly sympathetic to either the original poster or his relatives. Several posters suggest that if the original poster's relatives are going to vote for Trump anyway, nothing is to be gained by stopping the canvassing. They ask if stopping canvassing will cause the relatives to change their vote. Personally, I am sympathetic to people not wanting to be disturbed by strangers coming to their door. But the original poster's relatives have the option of not answering the door or quickly telling the canvassers that they are not interested and ending the conversation. Moreover, if the original poster is representing his relatives' views that anyone from Maryland is a "left progressive" who is in favor of crime, they probably could benefit by being further informed about Democratic policies. The number one motivating issue among Democrats is abortion rights, followed by preserving democracy and affordable healthcare. These are mainstream issues on which Democrats have broad support. You don't have to live in Silver Spring or Baltimore to agree with the Democrats' positions on these issues which are probably even popular in York County. A poster who said that he lives in Maryland said that he took his kids to canvas in Pennsylvania this weekend. Based on his experience, the encounters with local residents were very brief and didn't involve much more than asking if the residents were registered to vote and wanted any information about the election. Nobody asked about local issues and those who they visited would have had no way of knowing the poster and his kids were from Maryland. It doesn't appear that the original poster made any additional contributions to this thread. The thread itself mostly devolved to a simple debate about various unrelated topics such as whether former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump is a threat to democracy or a popular figure who deserves to win the presidency. Most of the posts could easily have been posted in other threads and many of them probably were duplicates.

Yesterday's next most active thread was also posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Trump says ‘they're not humans; they're not humans; they're animals’", the thread is about remarks made by former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Trump was discussing a Venezuelan national who had crossed the southern U.S. border without documentation, been arrested and then "paroled and released for further processing". The migrant was later arrested for the murder of Augusta University student Laken Riley. Trump referred to the migrant as an "animal" and then went on a tangent involving former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who Trump claims asked him not to refer to "them" as "animals" and then went on to say that "they're not human...they're animals." Trump's statements, as in this case, are often verbal Rorschach tests. Many interpreted Trump as calling all undocumented immigrants "animals", something they consider dehumanizing and vile. Others argued that Trump was only referring to violent criminals such as the Riley's accused killer. This ambiguity works for Trump as it allows him to simultaneously use a bullhorn to focus on immigrant crime and a dog whistle with which to signal to his many White nationalist supporters. As an extra bonus for Trump, some liberals are forced into the position of defending Riley's killer as not being an animal which reinforces stereotypes of liberals as being soft on crime and overly tolerant of undocumented immigrants. I really think the big picture is being missed here, however. This election was originally going to be about the economy. Inflation and high prices were going to be the undoing of President Joe Biden. In the best case for Trump, the U.S. would now be in the midst of a recession that has been promised for months. But the recession has not come, the economy is strong, inflation is under control, and prices are dropping. Biden is not even the Democratic candidate anymore. The entire Republican game plan had to be scratched. Therefore, Trump has resorted to what we might call "classic Trump", immigration. Trump rode claims that immigrants were rapists and murderers and questions about former President Barack Obama's birth certificate to the presidency. Now, in a bid to repeat that triumph, he is prepared to go further and deeper with his rhetoric. Not only is he focused on immigrant crime — despite statistics showing that immigrants commit far less crime than citizens — but he, along with his running mate Ohio Senator J. D. Vance, have taken to accusing Haitians who are legally in the U.S. of stealing and eating pet dogs and cats. Trump's strategy is to scare people. Immigrants are either out to kill your daughters and eat your pets, or they are going to take your "Black" jobs. Trump wants to create as much fear and hatred of immigrants as possible so that frightened voters will turn to him to defend them. Dehumanizing immigrants is a natural step in the process of generating fear and hatred. Among the various tragedies related to this strategy is that Trump is inciting violence against immigrants or anyone perceived as an immigrant. As a result of Trump and Vance and their hatful rhetoric, the city of Springfield, Ohio is currently under siege, forced to cancel public events and close schools. The State Police have been deployed to conduct daily sweeps of the city's schools after more than 30 bomb threats. Trump and Vance are terrorizing Vance's constituents and potential Trump voters, all as part of a deranged election strategy.

Next was a thread titled, "MIL took a selfie at a funeral" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster says that her grandmother recently passed away. Her in-laws attended the funeral, a gesture that the original poster appreciated. However, a few days after the funeral, the original poster's mother-in-law sent a "selfie" of her and her husband at the funeral to a group chat that includes most of the original poster's in-laws. The selfie was captioned, "most recent picture of your happy to be aging parents/in-laws! Beats the alternative". The original poster is very angry, apparently finding it extremely inappropriate to take a selfie at a funeral and being appalled by the caption. Her husband is mildly upset but attributes this to it just being his mom's character. The original poster wants to know if she is correct to be furious about this and whether she should say something. Virtually everyone who responds believes that the original poster is right to be furious. There are only a couple of posters who would brush the incident off. Otherwise, most posters believe a response is not only justified, but required. There are differences of opinion with regard to the picture itself. Some posters are opposed to any pictures taken at a funeral. Others make allowances for photos because members of large families or far-flung friends may not have seen each other recently, but many of them disapprove of selfies at a funeral. Some have no issue with selfies. However, it is the caption that bothers almost everyone. Posters find that to be incredibly insensitive. Some posters suggest snubbing the mother-in-law at future get-togethers. Others suggest leaving a response to the original poster's husband. But most suggest that the original poster respond to the chat group. The suggested responses range from nothing more than "wow" to sarcastic remarks about the mother-in-law's own eventual funeral. Many posters argue that the response needs to be directly connected to the event and, therefore, should mention that the photo was taken at the original poster's grandmother's funeral and that texting it with the caption was very insensitive. Some of those responding want the mother-in-law to be strongly called out while others prefer a gentler approach. Some posters believe that those like the mother-in-law will react by increasing the drama and portraying themselves as the victim. Therefore, they recommend either handling things off-line or keeping the response fairly mild.

The final thread that I will discuss today was another one posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Doctors, hospitals and abortions", the original poster linked to an article about the death of Amber Thurman, a single-mother who, finding that she was pregnant with twins, attempted to end her pregnancy by taking mifepristone and misoprostol. However, Thurman experienced cramping, vomiting, and heavy bleeding. She was transported to the hospital, but doctors initially refused to conduct a dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure due to the State of Georgia's restrictive abortion law which also made D&C procedures felonies with vague exceptions. Thurman's condition worsened and she was diagnosed with sepsis. Even then, doctors failed to act. When doctors finally decided to perform a D&C, it was too late and Thurman died during surgery. Georgia's maternal mortality review committee ruled that Thurman's life could have been saved if a D&C had been conducted earlier. The original poster understands that the doctors involved were constrained by Georgia's law. But she wonders what prevents them from being sued for not providing proper medical care? She wonders how they balance their exposure to various legal threats. What I think is obvious in this case is that most doctors would have more to fear from legal threats by the government than from anyone who might choose to pursue legal action on Thurman's behalf. If Thurman were wealthy and/or prominent, that calculus might change, but she is was neither of those. Most of those responding suggest that decisions such as this are made by lawyers rather than doctors and those lawyers will be more likely to concede to the government. Posters argue that doctors are placed in an impossible situation and, in response, older ob/gyn physicians are retiring, young doctors are avoiding the ob/gyn specialty, and others are moving to states with fewer restrictions. What is infuriating about this case, and what has infuriated many of those responding, is that it was not only entirely predictable, but that it was entirely predicted. At every stage of since former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump began his war on abortion, critics have predicted that exactly this would happen. The response, not only from abortion opponents, but even some "moderate" Democrats, has been to deride those providing the warnings as "hysterical" and overly dramatic. First, abortion rights activists were told that Roe vs. Wade would not be overturned and suggeting otherwise was fear-mongering. When Roe was overturned, abortion rights proponents were told that there would be exceptions for the life of the mother and that abortions could easily be obtained by travelling to another state. Again, insisting that anti-abortion laws would threaten women's healthcare was described as "extremist" and inaccurate. However, Thurman attempted to travel to another state for an abortion. Exactly as abortion-rights proponents had predicted, this was easier said than done. Then the "exceptions" to Georgia's law that were supposed to protect the life of the mother failed to protect Thurman's life. Again, exactly as predicted. Thurman is not the only women to have died in such circumstances and definitely will not be the last. This is one reason that abortion rights is probably the biggest issue of the November election. Women literally face a life or death decision.