Thursday's Most Active Threads

I am starting with yesterday's fourth most active thread because the first three most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. This thread was titled, "I am talking to a lot of Democrats who want Trump to succeed." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that he has friends and family who voted for Vice President Kamala Harris but who now want President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump to succeed in implementing his agenda. The original poster further says that they are hoping that those who voted for Trump will learn a lesson. He also indicates that many of these individuals are business people and professionals who will benefit from expected Trump tax cuts. The idea that Trump voters have "f'd around" and now will "find out" has been popular from the minute the presidential election results were known. The irony of the election is that Harris was popular among well-educated, generally affluent voters while Trump gained support from working-class voters. Many think that Trump's proposed policies will fall hardest on those less educated and less well-off individuals. The better-off Harris voters believe that they can survive Trump's policies while his voters will suffer. The reality is that Trump's support included many from the working class, but it also consisted of many among the most wealthy in the country. Indeed, Trump has picked a record number of billionaires for top spots in his incoming administration. The view among many Harris voters is that those wealthy individuals will now proceed to essentially loot the country and create policies that benefit themselves. While I understand the motivation to hope that Trump voters get what they asked for, I am not sure that it is actually a good position to take. On a moral level, some of Trump's policies will likely result in tremendous human suffering. While some of those who will probably feel the pain are likely Trump voters, many are not. We shouldn't support suffering for anyone, in any case. Not even for our political opponents. But even on a practical level, we must hope that Trump's worst ideas are not implemented. Trump critics are correct that Trump probably won't succeed in lowering the cost of eggs, and well-healed Harris voters probably won't mind. But in other respects, Harris voters won't be so isolated. There is an expression that a rising tide raises all ships. The corollary is that a lowering tide will ground a lot of ships that were otherwise thought to be safe. We might be able to absorb rising egg prices, but we can't escape a polluted environment, crumbling infrastructure, or a collapsing government. If Trump's proposed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is successful in his war against vaccines, our children and grandchildren will suffer just as much as those of the working class. This is not a time for emotion, but rather when rationality is most needed. Let's support Trump in those few cases where his policies are likely to improve our country, but in other cases, we must oppose him regardless of the satisfaction of seeing his supporters suffer might bring.

Next was another thread posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Unidentified drones over NJ/NY/DC", the original poster links to reports of unidentified drones flying in various East Coast states and asks how we should respond if the drones turn out to be from a hostile foreign country. I don't have time to read every post in this thread. Nor have I followed the drone story in tremendous detail. However, my understanding is that despite all the hubbub and controversy, there is not a lot of actual substance. This is not the first time that America has suffered from "drone panic". It is a normal phenomenon that when there are reports of something like unknown drones flying around, people begin looking up into the sky more. When they do that, they see things that they normally wouldn't have noticed. If they are predisposed to consider those things to be unidentified drones, then the number of reports of unidentified drones goes up. Social media becomes filled with unsubstantiated and unvetted reports of drones. As far as I am aware, there has been no official confirmation of the existence of these drones. A poster in one of the more recent posts proclaimed a "drone down" with a link. However, following that link does not show any pictures or video that would show a crashed drone. In fact, if I understand the discussion correctly, the entire thing was debunked as a plane landing at an airport. The hysteria even made its way to Republican Congressman Jeff Van Drew who suggested that an Iranian mother ship is lying off the U.S. coast launching the drones. The Pentagon strongly denied this claim and officials have repeatedly said that there is no threat to public safety. Government officials have deployed helicopters and sophisticated detection equipment to try to detect or track drones but have not found any indication of their existence. Rather than assuring posters in this thread, this has convinced many of either government involvement or incompetence. The explanation of some is that the drones are not being downed because they are "ours". On the other hand, some posters blame President Joe Biden for not protecting America. In more recent posts, posters are confused as to why President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump or First Lady Elon Musk have not made an issue of the drones. Rather than see that as reassurance that there might not be anything to this mass panic, posters become even more sure of a worrying conspiracy. It is really disappointing that posters are not more skeptical about these reports. One of the earlier videos in the thread shows an aircraft whose size is not easily determined flying with a bright red light flashing on its underside. Are we really supposed to believe that Iranians surreptitiously parked a ship off the U.S. coast, evaded the U.S. Coast Guard, state and local law enforcement, the FAA, and other government agencies, but then flashed a bright red light on their drone?

Next was a thread titled, "stop addressing cards to Mr and Mrs husband's first name!" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster is apparently bothered by holiday cards that are addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" or whatever. She says that she didn't even take her husband's last name, and if those sending the cards won't acknowledge her name, they should just send the cards to her husband alone. This topic comes up periodically on DCUM, though I don't know why the original poster chose the family relationships forum for the thread. Off-topic might have been a better choice. With so few people sending holiday cards these days, the original poster should probably just be happy to have received some. As the first first poster to respond said, "Not everything needs to be taken personally as though it was meant to offend you." I say this as someone whose wife kept her maiden name and, hence, suffers from this same occurrence. She just accepts it and doesn't get bothered. In response, the original poster says that the cards in question are from close family members with whom they have discussed the issue before. Moreover, she says she is not offended, but rather irritated. Before the first page of posts was complete, the original poster followed up to say that she was annoyed, vented, and is now over it. That didn't stop posters from responding, however. Based on the discussion, many posters are in situations like the original poster in which they receive cards that don't acknowledge their names. They are generally willing to let it go when the mistake is made by an infrequent correspondent or an elderly person who is unlikely to change. However, as one poster writes, when it is from a younger person who has been corrected multiple times, "it is just rude". In such cases, I guess it must come off as passive-aggressive behavior and an indication of disapproval of the spouse keeping her name. Generally, posters seem more tolerant of this practice in social settings, though others consider the practice to be horribly outdated. I think that it is safe to assume that in many cases, those sending the cards are simply trying to get through their list as quickly as possible and are not spending a lot of time trying to figure out how best to address the card. In other cases, they probably are trying to make a point with regard to their feelings about women who keep their own last name. Even in this thread, there is a poster who writes, "Women that keep their last name are obnoxious". For some, the method of addressing cards that bothers the original poster is what they simply consider formal practice, and they actually prefer it. But, for most posters, it is simply not a big deal, and they have more important hills on which to die.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. Titled, "The People You Work With", the original poster wants to know if the work colleagues of other posters are enlightened, educated, and worldly. The original poster recounts a recent discussion at work in which most present were not familiar with Bouillabaisse, leading the original poster to conclude those with whom she works are far less cultured than herself. I am personally a little skeptical of using knowledge of Bouillabaisse as an indication of culture. I've travelled to nearly 30 countries, including France, and have studied three foreign languages, including French. Like another poster in the thread wrote, "I have heard of Bouillabaisse and know it's French...but I don't actually know what's in it or how it is made." I am perfectly willing to accept that I am uncultured, but not simply on the basis of my lack of knowledge of Bouillabaisse. Quite a few of those responding feel the same way. One poster replied saying, "a very weird example of what it means to be ‘cultured’." Another poster described his workplace that is full of people "cultured in ways that are both similar and different from me." The poster went on to say, "Not everyone knows what bouillabaise is but they know plenty of stuff I'm not familiar with either." The main issue of dispute in this thread is what indicates that someone is cultured? The original poster has clearly decided that a familiarity with Bouillabaisse is one indication. Other posters have different ideas. There is a big dispute later in the thread about the importance of Paris. For some, any cultured person must be familiar with Paris. Others disagree. Posters can't even agree on what familiarity with Paris means. Does that mean knowledge of the history, architecture, cuisine, and fashion of the city? Or does it mean knowing which neighborhood has which subway stop and which parts are nicer than others? There is a similar disagreement about New York City. But showing how ideas about culture vary widely, that led to a dispute about bagels with one poster insisting that Montreal bagels were better. You can imagine how this went over with New Yorkers. In addition to all the other criticisms I have of this thread, I am not sure why the original poster chose to post it in the jobs forum. She simply picked her coworkers as an arbitrary group. A similar discussion could be had with regards to most any other group. Co-workers are not even people with whom everyone necessarily socializes. As one poster said, "Work is a place I go to make money, not socialize."