DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Biden will run again" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread follows President Joe Biden's announcement by video that he will run for reelection. This thread exemplifies much of what is wrong with the DCUM political forum and, indeed, the entire US political system. First, the initial post is lazy, simply complaining that the country is incapable of nominating anyone less than 70 years old. Hopefully that poster realizes that an announcement of a candidacy is not a nomination. A nomination is still to come. Moreover, the country has previously nominated a number of candidates younger than 70, so this statement is actually untrue. Finally, this topic could have done with a bit more substance. If the original poster is not happy with the current candidates, who does he propose take their place? Which person younger than 70 does the original poster prefer, and why? Most of those replying share the original poster's concern that Biden is too old and another candidate would be better. However, there a few ideas about who that candidate might be and those that are proposed are also met with criticism. Democratic-leaning posters seem to be frustrated with their inability to identify a perfect candidate who lacks even a single flaw. This is a problem because many posters demonstrate that even the slightest flaw is a dealbreaker. Probably the clearest example of this is a poster who says she would not vote for California Governor Gavin Newsome because his ex-wife is in a relationship with Donald Trump, Jr. Has anyone checked on the relationship status of Marla Maples to see if that would disqualify former President Trump? Biden enter the presidential race last time because he believed defeating Trump was essential and he believed that he had the best chance to do it. Enough Americans agreed with him to put him into the White House. Biden seems to believe the same thing continues to be true. Democrats don't seem happy about it, but few have presented much of a case to show that Biden is wrong. To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, you go into the campaign with the candidate you have, not the candidate that you wished you had. As things stand now, the election appears that it will be little more than a referendum on Trump. Biden's main campaign issue will be Trump and all the dangers he presents. Trump's main campaign issue will also be Trump because nothing else matters to Trump other than Trump.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Tucker out at Fox News????" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread is obviously about Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson leaving the network. While Fox's announcement said that the network and Carlson had "agreed to part ways", it is pretty clear that this was a decision taken by Fox management and came as a complete surprise to Carlson. Both Carlson fans and detractors were similarly surprised and the early responses in the thread were a mixture of surprise and joy. The general sentiment was that this was a much deserved outcome to Carlson's years of lying and provocation. A number of posters wondered what Carlson would do next with many speculating that he would simply join another network. Some speculated that he might run for president or vice president. There was quite a bit of discussion about why Carlson was suddenly removed from his position. He had concluded his Friday night broadcast by saying, "We'll be back on Monday" but his unceremonious removal on Monday morning prevented that. Many posters, including myself, guessed that Carlson's departure had something to do with the Dominion lawsuit that just cost Fox $787.5 million in a settlement fee. The Washington Post reported that it was due to private comments Carlson made about colleagues and Fox executives that were revealed as part of the Dominion lawsuit. Yet a third explanation that was widely circulated claimed Carlson's firing was related to a lawsuit by Abby Grossberg, a former booker for his show, that alleged sexual discrimination and a hostile workplace. Carlson fans were in short supply in this thread. A few showed up to defend his intelligence or to predict great things for him in the future, but, in general, they were surprisingly quite. One thing I noticed from reading this thread is the stature given Carlson, not just as a Fox News personality, but as an informal leader of the Republican Party. In many ways, former President Donald Trump has sucked the oxygen out of the party with the leading elected Republican, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, often viewed as a "Republican in name only" or RINO who doesn't command the loyalty of many grass root party members. Only Carlson, with his Fox megaphone, has been able to break through the Trump distortion field. It is unlikely that whoever replaces Carlson at Fox will have near the politcal impact.

As is my habit now, I skipped blogging for the weekend. Therefore, today I'll review the most active threads since Friday. During that period, the most active thread was titled, "Why don’t U.S. hospitals let women sleep quietly for the night in the hospital after giving birth?" and posted in the "Expectant and Postpartum Moms" forum. The original poster argues that hospitals should allow postpartum mothers to sleep through the night while the baby is put in a nursery. The poster says that recovery should be treated like recovery from a surgery with no interrupted sleep. A nurse immediately corrects the original poster to say that patients recovering from surgery are also awaken several times per night to take vitals, administer medicine, and draw blood. Nevertheless, several posters agree with the original poster that new moms should be allowed to sleep. Multiple posters explain that this is what is known as "baby-friendly" care aimed at encouraging breastfeeding and bonding. The majority of those responding clearly consider it "mother unfriendly". This is a 21 page thread so I can't read it all, or even very much of it. But, from what I see, posters have strong opinions about the best way to treat mothers who have just given birth. Most, like the original poster, would be happy to get a good night's sleep after hours of labor. A few don't want to give up their babies for even a minute and prefer the baby be left with them. While the original poster was addressing the immediate aftermath of giving birth, quite a few of the responders looked at the topic more broadly. Several described checking out of the hospital within 24 hours and recovering at home. There are clear socio-economic and cultural factors at play. Posters with means were able to hire postpartum doulas and other homecare professionals. Obviously, not every woman could afford to do this. There is considerable discussion of birth and recovery practices in other cultures and countries. The US healthcare system is subjected to considerable criticism. Much of the discussion stems from the fact that medical care in the US is largely treated as a business. Therefore, hospitals strive for efficiency and cost-savings and adequate staffing is often an issue. In other countries, healthcare is viewed as a service and emphasis is placed on its quality and efficacy, resulting in what many posters view as more appropriate practices. One of the biggest differences of opinion concerns whether the baby should be treated as a patient with staff dedicated to its care or whether care of the baby should be primarily left to the mother and whatever support she can muster (the father being the most common suggestion). Advocates of both viewpoints weigh-in vociferously.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "The Witch Trials of JK Rowling podcast" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. As can be expected from the title, the thread is about a podcast discussing JK Rowling and her views regarding the transgender community. The original poster says it is one of the best podcasts to which she has listened recently and she considered it to be balanced and rational. I haven't listened to this podcast, but it doesn't appear that many of those posting have either. Moreover, the discussion isn't so much about the podcast but rather Rowling and trans people. Topics on trans issues have become among the most controversial on DCUM and tend not to go well. As such, I generally end up locking or deleting them. In the case of this thread, I eventually locked it. Threads on transgender topics tend to have a familiar arc. They start out with posters demonstrating the best intentions, stressing that they are not anti-trans, indeed they are actively supportive, but they have questions or slight disagreements. In the case of this thread, Rowling is essentially used as a proxy to demonstrate this position rather than posters immediately attributing it to themselves. For instance, one of the first to respond writes, "Rowling is consistently measured in her speech and clearly has real compassion for transgender people...". But, as such threads continue, more and more responses are not only not "measured" but clearly anti-trans. The same poster claiming that Rowling has "compassion" for trans people goes on to imply that trans individuals are suffering from "delusion". Apparently the podcast compares support for the trans community to the Salem Witch Trials. Many of those responding point out that Rowling is succeeding brilliantly as a best-selling author and extremely wealthy person. Newly-passed laws are not limiting the rights of those like Rowling — who at worst risk being the target of mean tweets — but transgender people who are seeing restrictions on their most basic rights. On the other hand, a poster who describes herself as the "mother of a trans teen" who has listened to the podcast argues that Rowling is not exactly transphobic and that activists have overreacted to her. The real threat, this poster suggests, comes from right-wing politicians. As is common in such threads, posters complain that they can't engage in "respectful debate". The problem is that posts like those suggesting that trans people are "delusional" go unchecked or are even made by the folks who claim to be "measured". It is hard to have a respectful debate when one side's starting position is that the other side is delusional. In the case of this thread, it turned into a several page argument about whether criticizing Rowling meant support for rape and arguments that the trans community was motivated by misogyny. Rowling, and many of those posting, see advancement of trans rights as often resulting in set-backs for women's rights. Posters argue that they, and Rowling as well, only want to protect women's places. Because this necessitates restricting access by trans women to those places, this is viewed by supporters of trans people's rights as anti-trans. Repeated experience has proven that a nuanced discussion of that point is simply not possible on DCUM.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "I got an email telling me my daughter is a mean girl." and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster explains that she received an anonymous email saying that her teen daughter is a "mean girl" who gossips and excludes others. The original poster says that she knows that her daughter is popular and is sometimes frustrated by expectations that she be everyone's friend, but does not have a feeling that she is a mean girl. The original poster asks for advice about what to do. This is a 14 page thread and I've only read a few pages of it. Based on that limited exposure, I am inclined to say that the original poster is one of the most level-headed participants in the thread. She is neither ruling out nor completely accepting the accusations in the email. While she recognizes that her daughter has faults and is therefore willing to consider the possibility that she is a mean girl, the original poster doesn't feel like the email is sufficient evidence of this being true. Some posters were prepared to accept the email as fact and declare the child a certified mean girl and, by implication, her mother a bad parent. Others were more skeptical, suggesting nefarious explanations for the email in which the original poster's daughter was more a victim than a victimizer. Much of the discussion in this thread is less about how to react to the email and more about the appropriateness of anonymous emails. Quite a few posters view this as a completely valid means of communication while others are critical of both the practice and those who condone it. Personally, as a recipient of many generous, but unlikely to be true, proposals from random Nigerian governmental officials, I don't trust anything that comes in email these days.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Is this a legitimate reason for a divorce?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Given the tendency of posters in the relationship forum to recommend divorce for almost any reason, I would expect that the answer to the question posed in the thread's title would be "yes". The original poster's complaint in this instance is that her husband does not defend her from criticism (she calls it "attacks") by others. She describes two examples, which were apparently the only cases of this happening. Everything else in their marriage is good, but she considers her husband to be "wimpy" and doesn't want to stay married to him. For once, most posters seem to be opposed to divorce, especially because the couple has four kids. The original poster doesn't provide a lot of details about the "attacks", but what she does provide are not convincing to many posters. Quite a few believe she is greatly overreacting. Several posters advise the original poster that everyone has flaws and that she has to take the good with the bad. Even posters who sympathize with the original poster and think that her husband should have defended her don't believe this is divorce-worthy. Some posters are even able to find a bright side to a conflict-avoidant husband. To be sure, there are a few proponents of divorce — it wouldn't be the DCUM relationship forum if there weren't — but they are relatively sparse.

The most active thread yesterday was somewhat of a surprise to me. Titled, "Succession - Season 4" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum, the thread is obviously about the HBO Max television series chronicling the Roy family and their business empire. This thread was originally started back on March 26 but added slightly over 10 pages yesterday. I only just watched this episode yesterday, saving me from reading through pages of spoilers in order to write this post. But, in consideration for anyone who hasn't caught up yet, I'll try to avoid spoilers now. A moment in the episode that basically went over my head was caught by our mostly female user base and became the subject of much discussion. I'm still not sure of its significance and based on the pages of discussion it provoked, there is no consensus about its importance among our users. Several posters, however, have strong opinions about the matter, often drawing on personal experience to argue their points. Beyond that, the posts mostly recount fairly memorable scenes. There is a bit of a debate about whether the show should be watched as light entertainment or whether it has deeper meaning worthy of causing introspection among viewers.

Because I took the weekend off from the blog, today I'll review the most active threads since Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "I dropped the hosting rope and now ILs think I’m ‘mad’ at them" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster recounts that she has hosted her in-laws for years for holidays and vacations. Each time, she is forced to be responsible for all cooking, cleaning, childcare, and logistics. Meanwhile, her husband neglects everything while simply hanging out with his family. When her husband suggested hosting for Easter, the original poster told him that he would have to take responsibility this time. There were a few issues with meals, and a few logistical problems, but it generally worked out. After the holiday, however, the original poster's mother-in-law contacted her asking if she was mad. The original poster explained that she hadn't felt like hosting this holiday. This caused the original poster's husband to ask why she had been rude and why she was mad at them. The family relationship forum has become a frequent venue for lengthy and contentious threads. As is often the case on DCUM, I am astonished at the topics that gain attention. While I understand that this is likely an important topic to the original poster, I am amazed that complete strangers have any interest in the thread at all. Nevertheless, it has already reached 25 pages. But, further investigation reveals that the interest was not all from complete strangers. By my count, the original poster has posted 53 times in this thread, many times referring to herself in the third person or offering anonymous support for herself. Even on page 24 she is continuing to defend the "original poster" while speaking in the third person and calling critics of the original poster "old biddies". Since all signs point to a likelihood that the poster will extend this thread ad infinitum, I've locked it.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Massive pentagon leak re Ukraine conflict" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started back on April 6 after the New York Times reported about a leak of secret US military documents regarding Ukraine. The thread gained interest yesterday due to the arrest of the alleged leaker. This story, and as a result the thread, has had an interesting trajectory. When the leak first occurred, it was portrayed as being bad for the Biden administration because it allegedly documented that that Ukraine-Russian war was going worse for the Ukrainians than it was being portrayed. When it was shown that some of the leaked documents had been doctored, many concluded that this was a Russian disinformation operation. As is true of almost everything these days, posters reacted based mostly on their political leanings. Biden supporters blamed the leaks on MAGA supporters aligned with Russia and downplayed the importance of the leaked information. Anti-Biden posters claimed that the leaks undermined public statements about the war and demonstrated that Biden was a liar. Much of the discusion focused on the origin of the documents. The New York Times article noted that the documents were circulating on Twitter and Telegram, but posters soon learned that prior to reaching those networks, the documents had surfaced in various discussion groups on Discord. The trail eventually led to a Discord group that had been disbanded. Many posters were convinced that the leaker must be member of Congress and there was quite a bit of discussion about which Member of Congress or which party might be behind the leak. Those suspicions eventually proved unfounded. The New York Times, working with an investigator from Bellingcat, was able to identify and interview a member of the now disbanded group and provide information about the leaker whose name the newspaper revealed yesterday. The leaker turned out to be a member of the Air National Guard who allegedly only intended to use the documents to educate members of the small Discord group about world affairs. Liberal posters were quick to claim vindication for predicting a conservative was behind the leak. Conservative posters were not able to respond with a cohesive message. Some tried to portray the leaker as a libertarian rather than a conservative. Posters who followed Donald Trump's lead and insisted that this was the most damaging leak in the history of leaks suddenly saw this as the brave act of an anti-war patriot. Some of the more conspiratorial-minded theorized that the airman was a fall guy for higher ups and urged posters not to trust the New York Times or Washington Post who are — according to these posters — in Biden's pocket.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Prince Harry to attend coronation without Meghan" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. I locked this thread less than 6 hours after it was posted because it was basically nothing more than 18 pages of Meghan bashing, much of it quite bizarre. I am no longer surprised that threads involving Meghan turn out like this, but I still find the fanaticism regarding her to be very strange. Both her haters and her supporters are way too obsessed. The numbers speak for themselves. In the few hours this thread was open, it reached 18 pages of posts, becoming the most active thread of the day. At least 11 posters managed to post in the double digits before I locked it. All of this because it was announced that Harry would attend the coronation of King Charles without his family. The irony is if the announcement had been that Meghan would be joining him, the thread would have been equally long and equality acrimonious. All that is required is a mention of Meghan. It doesn't matter what she does or doesn't do. All of this on DCUM where most of those involved know that I am hostile to these threads and will likely lock or delete them. Can you imagine the sort of traffic that sites that welcome such discussion must be observing? Their servers were probably melting down. If due to some incredible and extremely unlikely series of events Meghan ever manages to become Queen, I will convert DCUM to the DC Urban Meghan Forum. I would never read the forum, but no descendent of mine would ever have to work a day in their life thanks to the ad revenue that would produce.