DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Is Karen considered a racial slur?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that her high school-aged daughter told her about a discussion at school in which a student was corrected by a teacher for using the term "Karen" because the teacher viewed the term as a racial slur. The original poster does not view "Karen" as a slur and asks whether this is a common interpretation. There are a number of issues to consider here. One is that there is no universally agreed upon definition of "Karen". Wikipedia defines "Karen" as "a middle-class white woman perceived as entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is normal." Dictionary.com's definition is slightly different saying "Karen" refers to "an obnoxious, angry, entitled, and often racist middle-aged white woman who uses her privilege to get her way or police other people’s behaviors." When I first encountered "Karen" as a meme rather than a first name, I remember it differing somewhat from both of those definitions. "Karen" was a middle-aged, perhaps middle class, White woman with a bob haircut who wanted to speak to the manager. I always found this a bit bewildering because I was always taught that, if you were not satisfied with the service being provided, you should speak to the manager. In fact, I have spoken to a great many managers in my lifetime. So, what was the problem here? Eventually, the meaning of "Karen" morphed to describe a White woman who uses her racial privilege to harm or otherwise disadvantage others, especially Black men. However, I have seen posters on DCUM use "Karen" to mean any number of things. To some extent, it has simply become a substitute for the word "bitch". "Karen" as a name and in its original connotation as a meme is closely associated with white women. As such, there is no denying its racial and gender implications. Therefore, many consider it to be a racist and sexist pejorative. Several of those responding in this thread argue that "Karen" is used to silence women, particularly White women. An interesting discussion could probably be held on the relationship of race, gender, and privilege and how those things relate to the term "Karen". In its most common usage, "Karen" assumes that White women have racial privilege which they exploit, frequently against Black men. White women, on the other hand, often see themselves not as privileged, but rather suffering from gender discrimination that encumbers them with a host of disadvantages. As such, "Karen" is simply a misogynistic effort to discourage women from standing up for or asserting themselves. Another thing to consider is the difference between how the term many have been meant when used and how it was interpreted. Someone may very well call someone a "Karen" due to the individual's overly-entitled behavior. But, this could easily be perceived as criticism resulting from the individual's race and gender. For this reason, while I think the idea behind "Karen" can be useful, in actual practice, "Karen" is not the appropriate term for it. It would be great to have a term to refer to overly-entitled, self-absorbed, self unaware, obnoxious folks of whatever race or gender. But, instead of "Karen", I propose "Elon".

After taking last week off from this blog, I'll review the most active threads of the 10 day period that I missed. None of these threads will likely be surprises to anyone who has paid even the least amount of attention to the news. The most active thread, by a considerable measure, was titled, "Tourist submersible missing on visit to Titanic" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. This thread followed the initial disappearance, subsequent search for, and eventual discovery of the fate of the OceanGate submersible that was lost during a visit to the wreck of the Titanic. Rather than detail the substance of this now 147 page thread, I am going to take the opportunity to be somewhat self-indulgent. I sometimes enjoy providing a behind-the-scenes look at how things work on this website. We are a two-person operation and are essentially responsible for the website 24/7, including when we are otherwise on vacation. As I announced earlier, this past week we were hosting out-of-town guests and celebrating our younger son's high school graduation. As such, I was hoping to minimize my interaction with DCUM. This thread massively interfered with that plan. Almost immediately, many posters decided that the loss of five lives was an excellent opportunity for jokes and humor. Other posters considered this disrespectful and objected to it. My inbox was soon filled with reports of inappropriate posts. When I apparently didn't respond quickly enough, a poster continued reporting posts, but then also started replying to the posts and simply adding the word "reported". Those posts provoked responses arguing about the reports and reports complaining about the messages saying "reported". So, what might have been a single report morphed into five or more posts or reports, multiplied several times. I was forced to take a break from touring the Udvar-Hazy Center annex to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in order to sit with my phone trying to stem the tidal wave that was flooding my inbox. I blocked the IP address of the poster who continually replied "reported". But, when the block expired, she spent several days posting complaints about the block and creating even more posts for me to remove. There was considerable disagreement in this thread about the applicability of DCUM's "48 hour rule" which prohibits negative posts about deceased individuals for the first 48 hours after their death. In the beginning, this rule was thought by some not to apply because no deaths had been confirmed. Once parts of the destroyed vessel were discovered, some posters argued that 48 hours had already passed since the deaths. My concern was less about splitting hairs but more focused on keeping the thread substantive and on-topic. I didn't see much need for absurd discussion of orcas, unfunny attempts at humor (which in many cases was simply copied without attribution from Twitter), or lame poetry. Ironically, with the thread reaching nearly 2,200 posts, as recently as yesterday a poster was still complaining about posts being removed. I think plenty has been posted and nothing of importance was likely missed.

Yesterday the thread about the Asian American student who was rejected by several top colleges continued to lead the most active list. Again, since I've already written about the thread, I'll start with the next one. That thread was titled, "Protest at Mundo on P street" and posted in the "DC Public and Public Charter Schools" forum. Mundo Verde is a District of Columbia public charter school that has a bilingual, experiential, "green" curriculum. As such, it checks a lot of boxes for progressive families who are interested in social responsibility and has been one of the more popular schools among DCUM posters. While schools like Mundo Verde have developed fan clubs in the forum, they have also inspired groups of detractors. Neither side tends to be shy about voicing opinions. This thread is specifically about protests that have been held by 3rd grade families at one of Mundo Verde's two campuses. Based on what I have read in the thread, the third grade has suffered from teacher attrition and had poor academic outcomes. Caregivers are protesting in support of a list of demands including that two adult teachers be provided for third graders, specific goals for teaching math and ELA, and other items. Many posters lament the dismal experience these children appear to have experienced and sympathize with the families. Some posters use the thread as an opportunity to air long-held grudges against Mundo Verde. On the other hand, many posters emphasize that the protests are limited to a single campus and the complaints do not reflect conditions at the second campus where, posters insist, students and families are very happy. Some posters go further and claim the protest only reflects dissatisfaction with a single grade and not the entire campus. Eventually, the thread turned into a wide-ranging debate involving a host of issues including public vs public charter school rivalry, competition between Mundo Verde and various other schools, and the role of the Public Charter School Board.

Once again I have to start with yesterday's third most active thread because the first two have already been discussed. That thread was titled, "Conservative DCUM'ers: how far back do you want LGBTQ rights rolled back?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster notes that this is the first Pride month in decades in which corporations or local governments were afraid to wave the rainbow flag and asks conservatives what aspects of LGBTQ rights they want to roll back. There is probably no way that I could read this entire thread and not end up wanting to blow DCUM up entirely. I don't know how any supporter of LGBTQ rights could feel otherwise. From what I've read of the thread, it consists of posters who are either deep in denial or determined to scapegoat the transgender community. There are Republicans who claim that they have no interest in rolling back LGBTQ rights, ignoring their party's agenda completely. There are Democrats who think the LGBTQ community is too vocal, especially those who are transgender. There is at least one gay man whose knowledge of history is so lacking that I assume he must have spent his entire existence trapped in a cave. Based on the posts I've read, nobody believes there is an effort to roll back LGBTQ rights. None of the posters appear to have heard of Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law. Or, if they did, they blame it on trans people. Hello, it's not called the "Don't Say Trans" law. These posters seem oblivious to LGBTQ-themed books being banned from schools and libraries or the protests provoked by them. In this thread, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' attacks on Disney simply don't exist. According to posters in this thread, the problems involving the LGBTQ community are not caused by Republicans, but by the LGBTQ community itself, particularly those who are trans. Apparently, Pride month should not be celebrated with flags and parades, but by LGBTQ individuals politely returning to the closet so as not to offend all of these self-described supporters of the LGBTQ community who simply don't want to encounter that community's actual existence. A poster complains about "hearing people yap about it all the time", repeating an oft-made criticism. I would agree with this poster if "the people" in question were those constantly attacking the LGBTQ community. Who would have even heard of Dylan Mulvaney had it not been for those who yapped incessantly about her while attacking Bud Light?

The top two most active threads were the threads about the Asian student who was rejected from top colleges and the thread about Trump's indictment. Since I've already discussed those two, I'll move to the third most active thread which was titled, "Rose Montoya in the White House" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. For those of you lucky enough to have avoided hearing about this story, Rose Montoya is a transgender woman who is a professional model, social media star, and transgender activist. During the Pride event recently held at the White House, she briefly bared and fondled her breasts while being filmed. The original poster of this thread, who describes herself as a strong supporter of the gay and trans communities, is appalled by this behavior and asks if others are as well. Almost all of those weighing in find the behavior inappropriate. But, for critics of President Joe Biden, the episode provided an opportunity. Some posters argued that since Montoya was not kicked out of the event, it means that Biden condoned the display of nudity. The White House quickly issued a statement disapproving of the behavior and promising never to invite Montoya and others who similarly engaged in nudity back to the White House. But, that did nothing to quell the flood of criticism directed at Biden. Moreover, several posters seized this as a chance for criticisms of the entire trans community. Posters claimed that this incident was emblematic of trans activism and separated trans activist from gay rights proponents, ignoring all of the provocative acts that gay rights activists have undertaken over the years. Other posters pushed back on this saying that Montoya didn't represent the entire trans community and the issue was the inappropriate behavior, not group to which the perpetrator belonged. It is always interesting which individuals are designated as representatives of their entire communities. Montoya, of whom I would bet most DCUM posters had previously not heard, is suddenly the poster child for the trans community. If a Black person had misbehaved, that would similarly be said to reflect poorly on the Black community. But, former President Donald Trump was recently found liable for sexual assault. Nobody argues that reflects negatively on all White men. Indeed, a number of posters don't even think it reflects poorly on Trump. In reality, this is a meaningless incident not worthy of discussion, let alone being among the most active threads. Unfortunately, in today's political environment, it is nearly the perfect storm. The almost wholesale adoption of QAnon ideology by the Republican Party has convinced millions that the Democrats are a party of child groomers trying to turn your children gay and trans. Having a transwoman expose her breasts on the White House lawn at an event that included children does little to disabuse them of that idea and, to the contrary, has given Republicans an opportunity to further amplify the perception.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Asian American student with 1590 SAT score blames affirmative action for rejections from 6 colleges" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original post consists entirely of a quote from an article about an Asian American college applicant who was turned down by six top colleges despite outstanding test scores and grade point average. The student blames affirmative action for these results and has joined in two lawsuits that are trying to end affirmative action. The original poster did not include any of his own thoughts, but they were apparently not needed to provoke discussion on this topic. The topics of affirmative action, discrimination against Asian Americans in college admissions, and the court cases have all been well-covered in our college forum. The court cases, which are currently before the Supreme Court, could literally be decided any day now. A significant number of posters believe the decisions will be favorable to Asian Americans and are looking forward to such an outcome with high expectations. Other posters appear to be getting frustrated with the entire subject and this student's plight was not met with as much sympathy as it might once have been. As posters were quick to point out, two of the schools are "test blind" and, therefore, his test scores wouldn't have been a factor. In addition, while the University of California, Berkeley was one of the colleges that rejected him, California has banned affirmative action in college admissions. The student alleges that he would have had a significantly higher chance of being accepted if he were Black rather than Asian. But, the lawsuit against Harvard alleges discrimination against Asian Americans in favor of White applicants. As such, many of those responding view the student's joining the legal action as performative without a lot of legal justification. Those responding are able to point to multiple factors that they believe make college admissions inherently unfair and don't seem to accept that the process is any more unfair for this student or Asian Americans in general. Despite this student's outstanding stats, many posters are not impressed and claim that such test scores and GPAs are not uncommon. For the most part, this thread simply rehashes the same old arguments about affirmative action and other factors that impact college admissions. There is debate about the value of test scores and GPA versus less objective factors that might indicate an ability to succeed. Everyone seems to agree that the admissions process is unfair, but they all also think it is biased against them. So, they disagree on the nature of the unfairness.

As has been my habit, I skipped this blog over the weekend so today I'll look at the most active threads since my last post on Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "Lock him up indictment FL" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread is about the indictment of former President Donald Trump on federal charges related to government documents that he took from the White House and kept illegally in his Mar-a-lago residence. The thread is 46 pages and, therefore, too long for me to read completely or provide much in the way of a summary. Suffice it to say that there are significant differences of opinion between Trump critics and Trump supporters. The first group was overjoyed with many posters repeating Trump's frequent demand with regard to Hillary Clinton to "lock her up". This expression, which is mocked in the thread's title, appears to have come back to haunt the former president. Trump's fans, on the other hand, also referenced Clinton, arguing that the failure to prosecute her displayed a double standard. While there is probably nothing that will break through the cloaks of ignorance in which these posters are determined to ensconce themselves, there are significant differences between the cases. As Secretary of State, Clinton established a private email server at the advice of predecessors. Investigations later showed that a very small number of the emails sent to the server contained classified information. However, investigators did not find evidence that Clinton had intentionally or willfully mishandled classified information. In addition, investigators could find no evidence that the server had been compromised by adversaries. Moreover, Clinton made no effort to maintain possession of the classified information once it was discovered. Similarly, a researcher discovered classified documents that had been inadvertently included among documents donated by then Vice President Joe Biden to the University of Pennsylvania. These documents were immediately returned to the government. Subsequent searches by Biden's lawyers discovered classified documents stored in other locations and they were also returned. In Trump's case, his possession of classified documents was discovered fairly quickly and efforts made to have them returned. Trump not only failed to comply, but — according to the indictment — actually obstructed the effort to return the documents. So, whereas the cases of Clinton and Biden involved the inadvertent mishandling of classified information which they cooperated to return, Trump's case involves the failure to comply and actual obstruction of efforts by the Government to regain possession of the documents. It is highly likely that had Trump cooperated instead of obstructing the retrieval of the documents, things would not have come to this.

Once again the two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed and, therefore, I'll start with yesterday's third most active thread. That thread was titled, "Sharing pronouns at work" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster says that she just attended inclusivity training at her company and, for the second time, employees were asked to include their pronouns in their email signatures and when they introduce themselves in meetings. The original poster did not comply the first time that employees were asked to do this and doesn't understand why her not doing so would offend others. She asks to be enlightened about the importance of sharing pronouns. The announcing of pronouns in work and social situations has been controversial on DCUM for a while. I am not sure that this thread advances the conversation in any meaningful way. As usual, there are posters who support sharing pronouns in order to be inclusive of those whose pronouns might not be obvious. They say that providing pronouns avoids those whose pronouns might not match their gender expression being singled out and it proactively signals acceptance to them. On the other hand, there are posters who consider listing pronouns to be nothing more than woke virtue singling. Some of them get irrationally angry over the subject and one poster considers a requirement to include pronouns to be a threat to democracy. Some posters don't care about the culture war aspects of pronouns. They just want to know how to address someone properly. For others, this is simply an issue of adhering to company standards. Some of the female posters who work in male-dominated industries have a different perspective. They prefer that their gender not be obvious because they feel they are taking more seriously if they are mistakenly considered to be male. Some will even make an effort to identify themselves ambiguously in order to make their gender less obvious. Whether true or not, there is a perception that the current emphasis on pronouns is being driven by youth. As a result, some of the resentment about sharing pronouns is mixed with disdain for young people. More than one poster would love for Zoomers to get of their lawn and take their pronouns with them.

The two most active threads yesterday were threads that I've already discussed so I'll skip them. As a topic, discussion of air quality easily overwhelmed everything yesterday with threads on various aspects of DC's smoke-filled air popping up in nearly every forum. One of those titled, "Red air quality, are you limiting activity?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, was yesterday's third most active thread. The original poster said that she had moved a meeting that had been planned for outdoors to the inside and was debating about what to do about her kids' swim team in the evening. In many ways, yesterday's reaction to the poor air quality was reminiscent of the COVID pandemic, right down to debates about masks. Many posters went into full panic mode, avoiding nearly any outside exposure and making dire warnings. Others proudly bragged about having just returned from long, maskless runs outside. Posters snarked at those showing concern, implying that they were Chicken Littles. While some posters described a range of adverse reactions to the smoke including watering eyes and sore throats, others claimed to feel nothing as a result of the poor air quality. Discussion turned to related topics such as how to mitigate poor air quality by using air purifiers and who or what was responsible for the smoke. Throughout the thread posters reported about various events being cancelled, again bringing back memories of COVID shutdowns. The COVID analogy was even more explicit in several posts with their authors engaging in past arguments from COVID discussions.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "what is with parents serving alcohol at parties for kids who are 15 and 16?" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. The original poster says that she has kids in two different "Big 3" priviate schools and in the past week both kids have been invited to parties marking either the end of the school year or graduation at which alcohol has been served by parents. The kids range in age from 15 - 18. When the original poster asked one of her children about this, she was told, "it's a private school thing mom. All the parents do it." The original poster asks if this is really true and if she is just out of touch. The responses to this post are, in my opinion, odd. This is basically a "yes" or "no" question, but rather than provide such answers, posters point out that drinking by teenagers is common in Europe, that drinking occurs at public school parties also, and that Americans are puritanical. So, I guess the answer is "yes" and these kinds of parties are common. In spite of this, several posters side with the original poster in thinking these parties are not a good idea. Some are simply opposed to young people drinking, but others are more concerned about legal liability and kids possibly driving home drunk. Comparing attitudes about drinking between the US and Europe is common throughout this thread, though even some Europeans opposed these type of parties. One topic of contention is what this behavior indicates about parenting. Several posters insist that adults who serve alchohol at parties are trying to be "cool" or friends with their kids. These posters argue that kids need "parents", not "friends" and consider this to be terrible parenting. Several posters said that they no longer let their children visit homes of parents that are known to serve alcohol to those who are under-aged. I didn't read every post in this thread, but I didn't see any posts from parents saying that they actually hosted such events and offering a defense of their behavior. Generally, justifications were of the "it's common in Europe" type.