DCUM Weblog

The most active thread since my last blog post on Friday continues to be the Hamas-Israel war thread which added over 2,000 new posts. But, if there is one topic that can rival the Middle East in divisiveness, it is the British Royal Family. So, much to my chagrin, the second most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Do you think Kate Middleton is genuine" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The complete text of the original post was simply "Or performative?", but those two words were sufficient to inspire what is already a 22 page thread. Obviously I am not going to read 22 pages about Kate Middleton or any other member of the British Royal Family. Moreover, whereas with Meghan Markle I might be able to conjure up an opinion or two, with the Princess of Wales I am drawing a complete blank. About the only thing I can say about this thread is that I don't belive a single post in it has been reported. That either means that posters are being exceptionally well-behaved or posters have given up reporting posts. Well, the previous sentence was true when I wrote it, but before I finished the other entries in today's post there was a report which included a request that I lock the thread. I don't know if I will do that at this point, but maybe things weren't as pleasant as I thought.

The Hamas-Israel thread continued to be the most active yesterday, but with only 600 some new posts. This is almost half of what we saw for the first few days, but still several times more than the next most active thread. I also wrote a Special Edition blog post based on my observations from moderating that thread. The next most active thread was titled, "MIL buying items on my baby registry for herself" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster says, as the title states, that her mother-in-law has been buying items that are on the original poster's baby registry but keeping them for herself. The original poster says that she has no plans to leave her baby with her mother-in-law for any length of time so she doesn't know the reason for these purchases. Posters assume that the mother-in-law is simply preparing for visits after the baby is born. The original poster clarified in a subsequent post that the mother-in-law is not marking the items as "complete" on the registry, so most of those responding don't think there is a problem. I didn't read very many of the posts in this thread because, frankly, the topic bored me. But, as best I can tell, this is a battle between those who think the original poster is being overly-sensitive and those convinced that this is a sign of a domineering mother-in-law. In the first group's view, the original poster is being ridiculous. According to them, it is not the original poster's business what her mother-in-law buys and, in any case, she can't predict what will happen after the baby is born and she might end up being happy that her in-laws' home is well-equipped for the baby. The second group thinks the mother-in-law is being controlling and will use the baby items as an excuse to demand more visits than the original poster prefers. The original poster was fairly diligent about identifying herself as the original poster in her replies through much of the thread. But, eventually she began to sock puppet a bit. It appears that the real issue here is that the original poster already has issues with her mother-in-law not respecting boundaries and, therefore, her buying baby items feeds that preexisting frustration. Personally, I can think of a hundred more important issues that commonly face new parents so I can't imagine giving this one a second's thought.

Since the first news of the Hamas attack on Israel Saturday morning, I have had to devote myself almost around the clock to moderating discussions of the conflict. I have seen supporters of Israel, especially those who are Jewish, suffer shock, horror, and then anger. This anger was first directed toward Hamas specifically and, occasionally, Palestinians more generally. But later the anger turned toward fellow Americans who, instead of joining in solidarity with Israelis and American Jews, demonstrated support for Palestinians. In some cases these groups simply opposed the expected Israeli retaliation that would most certainly result in the wide-scale killing of civilians in Gaza. In other cases, they went further and actually blamed Israel for the violence. Many could not even bring themselves to condemn the senseless attacks on Israeli civilians. I then saw another emotion come to the surface in many of the Jewish posters. That emotion was fear. Fear because Hamas had undertaken what was probably the single biggest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and people who might have been seen as allies were not only not there to provide support, but in some cases actively engaged in opposition. Not only were Jews not safe in Israel, but in America demonstrators took to the streets not to support the victims, but rather in favor of the perpetrators. Fear and anger were amplified by a sense of abandonment.

The most active thread yesterday continued to be the thread about the Hamas attack on Israel. But, for the first time the number of new posts was below 1,000, though still nearly 900. As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, topics such as this tend to find their way into other forums. Such was the case with yesterday's second most active thread. That thread was titled, "Discussing the recent Israeli-Palestinian Conflict In Schools" and posted in the "DC Public and Public Charter Schools" forum. The original poster says that the topic of the Israel-Palestine conflict came up in her 6th grade child's class and, based on "talking points" with which her child came home, she wishes the topic had been skipped. She wants to know if teachers have free rein in discussing this topic or if there are guidelines. The dispute highlighted by this thread is basically how an event as horrific as the Hamas attack should be viewed. Speaking broadly and not just in the confines of this thread, some individuals argue that the attacks were so terrible that there can be no excusing them. Any attempt to add context or explain possible causes is seen as doing exactly that, even if that is not the intention. Again, broadly speaking, others, some of whom may acknowledge the atrocity of the attacks and some who won't, argue that context such as the conditions in Gaza are an important part of the conversation. In today's emotionally-charged environment, there is a real lack of listening and thoughtful discussion. Instead, there is a tendency for black and white thinking. A person who condemns the Hamas attack but doesn't express concern about Palestinian civilians in Gaza may be called a supporter of the genocide of Palestinians. Similarly, someone who suggests that Israeli policies toward Gaza might have created an environment conducive to violence will likely be condemned as a supporter of terrorism. Even those who try to be objective can not escape this trap. Objectivity itself, ironically, may be perceived as taking a side. For instance, discussing the history of Israeli violence against Palestinians will likely be viewed by many as false equivalency in a discussion of the Hamas attacks and pro-Palestinian. I dare anyone to attempt an "objective" explanation of how the Palestinians came to live in Gaza in the first place. Some will say they fled at the behest of Arab armies attacking Israel. Others will say they were forced into exile by Israeli forces. Another argument might be that they are forced to stay there by Arab countries to be used for political leverage. A few extreme voices might argue that there is really no such thing as a Palestinian in the first place. A teacher would have to spend nearly the entire class simply trying to be "objective" with regard to this one historic question and there would still be those who are critical of what was presented. Due to all of this, there are those who argue the topic shouldn't be addressed at all. But, leaving children ignorant is the exact opposite of what schools should do. Regardless of all of this, the thread itself turned into a political discussion and, therefore, I locked it.

The most active thread yesterday continued to be the Israel-Palestine thread that I discussed on Sunday. That thread added another 1,200 new posts. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Invited neighbor friends over" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that her family invited neighborhood friends who they hadn't seen in a while over for dinner and the couple showed up both wearing sweats. The original poster is not really upset but was a little annoyed that they didn't dress nicer. She asks what others think. This is obviously not the most important issue with which the world is dealing at the moment, but that doesn't stop posters from having fairly strong feelings about it. In fact, many of those responding seem to care a lot more about this than the original poster. A significant number of posters wouldn't be bothered by the neighbor's choice of clothing. A smaller number would be put off, though by how much varied from poster to poster. Some of these posters thought that coming to dinner in sweats reflected poorly on the neighbors and suggested a lack of class. On the other hand, a few posters opined that the original poster looked bad for being concerned. A lot of the discussion revolved around exactly what type of sweats the couple was wearing. I learned a new word, "athleisure" which apparently refers to sweats that cost a lot. At some price point it seems that sweats cease to be clothes for working out and become fashionable status symbols. However, the original poster clarified that the the neighbor's were not adorned in athleisurewear. This topic highlighted a host of supposed divisions. Whether these divisions were real or imagined is another story because a lot of them appeared to be based on inaccurate stereotypes. There seemed to be different opinions between young and old, or at least anyone expecting guests to dress up was assumed to be old. Similarly, some posters generalized about relationships between socio-economic status or political leanings and clothing choices. Few of these suggestions seemed to hold up. The thread also had the occasional hardliner such as a poster who would not accept a dinner invitation if she were required to "dress up", where by "dress up" meant wearing jeans.

The most active thread yesterday continued to be the Israel-Palestine thread that I discussed on Sunday. That thread added over 1,200 new posts yesterday and shows no sign of slowing down. When a topic is generating so much activity, posters are often motivated to create spin-off threads. They may want to address a specific aspect of the topic in depth or simply don't want their post to get lost in the deluge. Posters will also often find fairly creative ways to shoehorn the topic into other forums. I would not be surprised to see a thread in the Pets forum titled, "Has the Hamas-Israel war caused you to forget to walk your dog?" The second most active thread yesterday was a spin-off, though not nearly as egregious as that and was also kept in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Getting Palestinian civilians to safety", the original poster says that she believes getting Palestinian civilians who are trapped in Gaza moved to someplace safe is an imperative. This topic highlights what is a moral issue to many of us, but also an important political and strategic concern. I don't think anyone denies that Israel has the right to seek the harshest retribution imaginable against Hamas. But, Hamas is currently embedded in the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated places on earth. Over 2 million people, half of them children, live cheek by jowl with no place to hide. Israel has announced a full seige and cut off electricity and water to the territory. This raises the specter Gaza's inhabitants slowing starving to death, if they are not killed by Israeli bombs first. Is a country whose identity is so tightly bound to genocide really willing to starve 2 million people? Is the world willing to stand by and watch it happen? The current Israeli government may well be perfectly happy with such an outcome and several world powers may find themselves constrained from doing anything about it. But, such an outcome is simply not going to be acceptable to much of the world. Israel will eventually find itself under considerable pressure regarding the fate of Gazan civilians. One solution that seems obvious at first glance would be for Egypt to open its border with Gaza and allow civilians to seek refuge there. Historically, once Palestinians flee from areas of Israeli control, they are not allowed to return. As a result, Palestinians have spent decades living in refugee camps in the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Indeed there are even refugee camps in Gaza. Egypt is likely uninterested in assuming what would likely be permanent responsibility for 2 million refugees. Moreover, Hamas has no interest in seeing the civilians flee. If Gaza is empty of all but Hamas fighters, Israel would be free to flatten every square inch. The civilians are effectively human shields for Hamas. The result, as things stand now, is that civilians remained trapped. Egypt doesn't want them, Hamas has an imperative to keep them, and Israel appears prepared to kill them all. This is intractable problem that will only get worse. As for the thread, it fairly quickly went off topic to a number of unrelated issues such as whether or not Jews and Palestinians are White. As a result, I locked it.

The most active thread since my post on Friday was, as expected, the thread about the attack by Hamas on Israel. That thread has already reached 142 pages. But, since I covered that in a post yesterday, I'll move to the next thread today. That thread was titled, "Mean girls mean moms" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster says that the "not so nice" girls in her daughter's class have "not so nice" moms. She says this is probably an obvious observation, but she wonders how to break the cycle. Most posters suggest that it is futile to worry about breaking the cycle and that the best approach is to avoid the mean girls and moms and teach your own daughters to be better. Other posters know of mean girls who have nice moms. This provokes responses saying that nice moms are too nice to properly discipline their kids, resulting in them being mean. Some posters report that their daughters have not encountered mean girls. This is a 17 page thread and I don't have time to read all of it, but it looks like much of the thread is devoted to posters describing their own problems with mean girls, mean moms, or simply unfriendly school environments. Some posters tell tales of mean girls that they encountered when they were in grade school. There is disagreement about what constitutes a "mean girl". To some, mean girls are those who take affirmative actions to hurt someone on an emotional or physical level. To others, simply not making friends with another girl is a form of "bullying" and being a mean girl. Several posts really have nothing to do with mean girls or mean moms, but rather simply describe normal social behavior. For instance, parents and kids who have lived in the same neighborhood and attended the same schools for years and made close friendships may not be very welcoming to a newcomer. For some, this is mean behavior. For others, it is something to be expected and simply takes time to overcome.

Normally I would not post to this blog over the weekend. But, it is clear that the most active thread this weekend is going to be the thread titled, "Looks like a new Gaza war has started" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. So, I may as well address that thread now. As some readers of this blog are aware, I originally came to Washington, DC in order to study at Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. I devoted a number of years of my life to studying the Middle East and have lived and traveled in the region. That part of the world remains one in which I have a particular interest.

As I often do, I am not really going to discuss the thread itself, but rather use it as a jumping off point for my own thoughts. Writing about Israel and the Palestinians is like walking through a minefield. One wrong step and you blow yourself up, or at least upset a lot of people who are unlikely to be shy about expressing their displeasure. So, if I in anyway offend anyone, I apologize in advance.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Son blind sided by GF" and posted in the "Adult Children" forum. Someone reported this thread yesterday asking if the original poster is a troll. I don't think she is, but I knew the minute I saw the thread that I would be writing about it today. The original poster's adult son has had a girlfriend for three years who has suddenly decided that she wants to move back to her hometown about 6 hours away. She wants the original poster's son to move with her. The son is not interested in moving because his friends and business network are located here. The original poster doesn't seem to like the girlfriend much and says that if her son and the woman would have a family, she knows she would never see her grandchildren. Knowing DCUM posters, I assumed that there would be a massive wave of responses telling the original poster to stay out of it. Indeed, one of the first responses was exactly that. But, there were a number of responses supportive of the original poster because her son had contacted her about the situation. In a follow-up post, the original poster described her son's girlfriend as having "misrepresented herself". That didn't go over well with many posters and provoked a considerable amount of criticism of the original poster. She basically bowed out of the discussion at that point, telling everyone to "Keep on hating". By that time, many of the responders were too invested in the thread to let it go and heated exchanges continued so that the thread reached 12 pages before the end of the day. Some posters sided with the girlfriend, saying that she had the right to change her mind about where to live while still dating and several suggested the original poster was herself a good reason to move away from Washington. Others argued that her son should take this opportunity to break up with the woman due to several negative characteristics they attributed to her. Critics of the original poster accused her of painting the girlfriend in a negative light and not being objective. Defenders of the original poster said that of course a mom wouldn't be objective, that is not her role. There is a huge debate about to whom a man can turn to for advice. For reasons not entirely clear to me, posters rule out moms. Others rule out friends. Dads get a vote of confidence, but that's about it. In addition, an incredible number of posters read only a couple of posts and immediately replied only to repeat the same thing that had already been posted numerous times on previous pages. When you boil the thread down, there are probably less than a half-dozen unique replies and one of those is some guy suggesting the original poster's son date "latinas and Asian babes".

The two most active threads yesterday were topics that I discussed yesterday. So, skipping those, the next most active topic was titled, "Test optional is total BS" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The subject of college admissions examinations is a well-trod topic in the college forum. Such tests have been frequently criticized as not being reliable indicators of a student's intelligence. Rather, critics say, they are gamed by students who take test preparation classes or have the financial means to repeatedly take the tests. When schools began to make tests scores an optional component of applications, criticism arose that this was simply a means to admit less qualified underrepresented minorities. Two stereotypes — one of robot-like Asian kids who underwent years of text prep and the other of minority students unable to perform well on tests — became part and parcel of the forum's conventional wisdom. In the case of this thread, the original poster argues that test scores should be used as a means of weeding out weak students. According to the original poster, grade point averages are inflated and, therefore, not trustworthy indicators of performance. The poster accepts completely and without reservation the belief that test scores are effective indicators of college success. Moreover, the poster argues that, because of test optional policies, only applicants with high scores submit them and, therefore, the average scores for the schools goes up. The original poster is bothered by students with high GPAs but mediocre test scores discussing to which colleges to apply. This is a 15 page thread and, as I said, the arguments are well-worn and I simply don't have the patience to read 15 pages of the same thing being repeated. Or, even one page for that matter. Frankly, I don't understand why the original poster is so worked up about other kids' test scores. If her child has a high score, that will help him. If not, it's good for him that tests are optional. I think that using test scores as simply an optional data point for fleshing out an application is a good thing. Colleges are frequently interested in athletic achievement. A student who places first in a state-wide athletic competition will probably include that on her application. On the other hand, nobody will, for instance, list that they placed near the bottom or last in that sport at their school. Test scores should be treated similarly. College applications are an opportunity to present your strengths. If a test score is one of those, take advantage of it. If not, hopefully you have other strengths to demonstrate.