DCUM Weblog

The most active thread since my last blog post on Friday was titled, "Let us pick for you…list acceptances" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. For months I've joked about a group of users in the college forum who approach college admissions with the obsessiveness of dedicated sports fans, analyzing the most minute of statistics and debating various rankings and top college lists. I refer to this group as the Fantasy College Admissions League. This thread is the culmination of this phenomenon, the college admissions playoffs if you will. The original poster invites the parents of undecided college applicants to list their options as well as factors influencing their decision and allow others to weigh in. Just in case you doubt the enthusiasm of the College Admissions Fantasy League participants, consider that this thread reach nearly 40 pages in just three days. To be sure, there are some very knowledgeable posters in this forum whose advice is worth considering. But, there are others who appear to be primarily motivated by personal biases rather than the strength of their analysis. The problem is telling which is which. In some cases this is made easier by the amount of effort posters put into their responses. At least in my opinion, the replies that consisted of nothing but the name of the school were not particularly helpful because they didn't explain the reasoning behind the opinion. In contrast, posters who supported their response with substantive reasons for their choice tended to be more persuasive. On the other hand, those posters often opened themselves up to challenges from others who disagreed with their reasoning. Even so, debate between posters was discouraged in the thread with a Northeastern University booster being shutdown when she went a bit far in her advocacy. It is clear that the thread was meant to be lighthearted and mostly for entertainment. That is not meant to disparage the seriousness with which many of the thread's participants approached the topic, but I don't think many final college decisions were made as a result of a DCUM post. I think the highlight of the thread for me had nothing to do with the substance of the topic but rather with a poster who chose to respond with snark to the original poster, "thanking" the original poster for providing instructions because the responder would otherwise not know what to do. This response was on page 34, so clearly a number of posters had found the thread engaging by that point and the snark was not necessary. But the icing on the cake was that the poster messed up the formatting of their post and ended up including their response within the quoted content. The inability of this poster to quote properly suggests that they actually do require instruction. Snark kind of falls flat when it provides evidence of the author's incompetence.

As I have said a number of times, DCUM has almost entirely grown organically with very little of it being planned. For the most part, we have followed the direction set by the users rather than trying to steer things in any particular direction. But to the extent that we had a vision for the website, we saw it as being primarily used for the exchange of helpful information. We wanted it to be a place where struggling parents might find advice to help them confront the challenges of parenthood in the District of Columbia. Obviously, things have turned out somewhat differently. For one thing, rather than relying on DCUM to indulge in their role as parents, for many users it is a temporary escape from those responsibilities. As such, DCUM is often simply a distraction and mindless entertainment. Today's most active thread is a case in point. Titled, "Things that make you irrationally angry" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, the original poster is irrationally bothered by people in the grocery store taking too long to choose pasta sauce or bananas. She wonders what similarly irrational irritations others have. The original poster is not alone in being bothered by the behavior of others at grocery stores. A number of other posters are similarly angered by various grocery-shopping activities. The other major provocation for irrational anger seems to be driving. Just as with grocery shopping, almost any aspect of driving, no matter how normal, is likely to make someone nuts. Obviously this thread was not meant to be taken too seriously, though some posters did address serious topics. More often posters took a humorous approach, such as the poster who is irrationally angered by monocles. Some posters get so irrationally angry when they can't find the scissors that I would hate to be anywhere near them when they finally did find the scissors. Adults eating various types of fruits also seems to set off a number of posters. Eating in general is apparently the source of much irrational anger. I was going to say that all of my anger is rational so I personally have nothing to add to this thread. But then a poster used the term "narc" to refer to someone that they considered to be narcissistic and I nearly flung my laptop across the room. A "narc" is either a narcotics officer or someone who narcs on you. Look it up.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Do I need to lower my expectations ( dating)" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she is a 27 year old woman who has a career that she loves, makes decent money, owns a home, and has no debt. She has been dating in hopes of finding a husband but coming up empty. She hopes to find a guy who earns as much or more than she does, lives alone, has not been previously married, does not have children, and has no debt. Because she can't find these characteristics in men her age, she has been looking at somewhat older guys. But, since she has been unsuccessful, she wonders if she should lower her expectations. A number of posters suggest easing up on the salary requirements and dropping the requirement that the guy live alone. Living with roommates is both economically efficient and indicates an ability to successfully live with others they say. In response, the original poster emphasized the importance of income because she hopes to quit her job or work part time to raise kids who she also wants to send to private school. Several posters note that she is not considering some important attributes in a mate with one poster suggesting that she look for "someone who shares your values and will be a good partner." As another poster writes, "You sound like you're vetting loan applicants, not life partners." The original poster agreed that shared values are important, but her initial set of expectations was simply to screen for dates. She explores values and compatibility during dates. Posters warned that in order to attract the sort of man she is seeking she would need to meet certain beauty standards. "Are you Instagram fitness model caliber or nah?", asked one poster. The original poster's response, at least in my mind, left that as an open question. But, then on the second page of the thread a poster wrote, "Every single one of these threads lately reads like the ‘wife is a bad sham’/‘using pregnancy as an excuse’ troll" referring to a troll about whom I wrote in yesterday's blog post. Agreeing that this poster was on to something, I began to investigate that possibility. That particular troll uses DCUM in such a way that it is not possible to make conclusive determinations about his/her identity. So, I can't say that I know for sure that this poster is that troll. But, there are signs that indicate this might be the case. Enough signs that I have locked the thread this morning. But, I should emphasize that I could very easily be wrong in this identification. Assuming that I am correct, one reason that this troll has been so successful at creating threads that are among the most active threads of the day is through their shear tenacity. The poster posted more than 50 times in the thread yesterday.

It will be no surprise to anyone living in the DC region that yesterday's most active thread was about the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse. Titled, "Key bridge in Baltimore collapses after cargo ship crashes into it" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, this was actually the second thread on the topic. The first had been posted about an hour earlier in the "Political Discussion" forum, but I locked that one since this is not really a political topic. The initial posts in the thread were mostly aimed at gathering and disseminating information about what had happened. But fairly quickly a number of topics emerged upon which posters focused throughout the thread. One of those involved tugboats with users questioning why the Dali — the ship that hit the bridge causing its collapse — was not under the control of tugboats at the time. While it later turned out that tugboats had initially been used, ships are sent on their own in that part of the river. Next was the question of cruise ships and what would happen to them. Some posters saw this topic as insensitive given the circumstances, but other users were concerned about Baltimore-based cruise ships that would not be able to return to port. Any ships in the harbor are trapped for the foreseeable future and the few Baltimore-based cruise ships at sea will land elsewhere and their passengers will be bussed to Baltimore. Probably the strangest divergence was that dealing with how to escape a car that has plunged into water. A surprising number of posters seem to have long-standing fears of traveling across bridges and described carrying life jackets and hammers for breaking windows when they have to cross large bridges. There was considerable discussion in the thread about the best ways to escape a car that has landed in the water or even the possibility of doing so. Some users touted various tools that are supposed to break windows of a submerged car while other posters said the tools would not work. It turns out that bridge authorities were able to stop vehicle traffic just prior to its collapse and it appears that no cars were traveling across the bridge at the time. The 6 deaths were all construction workers repairing potholes on the bridge who were not warned in time to escape. A topic that was discussed throughout the thread dealt with liability for the collapse. Almost immediately posters were eager to cast blame. Some suggested the bridge was poorly constructed and fell down too easily. Others suggested the port authority and the lack of the aforementioned tugboats were responsible. One poster, supported by a number of others, hypothesized that cost-cutting measures by the Dali's owners may have resulted in a lack of maintenance, leading to the power failure that sent the ship out of control. One thing this incident did was reveal the many-layered owner and management arrangements common among ships of this nature. There are so many different companies involved, with all likely pointing fingers at each other, that it will probably be difficult to determine exactly who is responsible for what. Posters also discussed the economic impact the closure of the port of Baltimore would have on the region. In addition, there was considerable sympathy for the workers who were lost in the collapse.

The most active thread yesterday was was a thread that I previously discussed that was about former President Donald Trump's inability to post bond that is necessary for him to appeal a fraud ruling against him. Yesterday the bond amount was reduced and Trump was given an additional 10 days to pay. So this thread will probably be back on top shortly. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Can someone explain to me why so many on here would never remarry?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she has read many posts from those who are divorced or thinking about divorce who say that they have no expectations of getting remarried and nor should anyone else. The original poster asks for the reason(s) behind those expectations and offers several proposals herself. Her own suggestions include the first marriage being so bad that it tarnished the entire concept, marriage being primarily about kids, not wanting to care for an older person, and skepticism that they would find a desirable partner or would be desirable themselves. Several posters respond saying that it is all of the above. As you would expect from a female-dominated forum, most of the responses come from women and, therefore, represent a largely women's point of view. Several posters say that in their previous marriages they were required to take care of everyone but themselves. Now they have the freedom to put themselves first and don't want to give that up. Several of those responding say that their financial independence is a factor in not creating an interest in remarriage. A number of responses amplify factors that the original poster suggested. For instance, one poster reported leaving an abusive relationship which was so bad that she no longer has an interest in marriage. A number of posters said that they have children from their earlier marriages with whom they have great relationships and have no interest in another family. The don't want to be responsible for someone else's children and either can't have or don't want more of their own. A common complaint was a lack of eligible and desirable men. Over and over posters questioned what the available men "brought to the table" and suggested that it wasn't much. To the contrary, the available men were generally seen as "entitled, demanding, and whiny". Males posters who weighed in were generally also not interested in remarrying. One expressed love for the "adult Disneyland that exists" due to online dating. He described a nearly endless supply of younger women that he could casually date and feared the financial implications of marriage. This caused the thread to get diverted into a dispute about prenuptial agreements and other ways that men could protect their wealth. Generally, the attitudes of the men justified the skepticism with which the women viewed them.

The most active thread of the weekend will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with DCUM posters' obsessiveness regarding the British Royal Family. Titled, "Palace making an announcement at 2pm" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum, the thread was created in anticipation of an announcement regarding the health of Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales. As readers of this blog will remember, multiple Royal Family-related threads have been among the most active lately. One dealing with a Mother's Day photo released by the Prince and Princess of Wales turned into a litany of conspiracy theories about the health and well-being of the Princess. Some readers were certain that she was in a coma, others said she and Prince William were preparing for a divorce, and a few suggested that she had been stabbed or otherwise harmed through an act of domestic violence. According to other posters, none of those were true, but rather she was suffering from complications of an eating disorder. The announcement turned out to be a video by Kate revealing that she has been diagnosed with cancer. The reaction by many DCUM posters was shock, grief, and sympathy. But, other posters immediately smelled a rat. They demanded to know the type of cancer and immediately began piecing together timelines that they said were inconsistent with Kate's message. The fact is that the crazy, obsessive, conspiracy-mongers have been wrong about nearly everything. But they got lucky with the Photoshopped photo and, rather than considering that the exception that proves the rule, they thought that it proved them right about everything. Therefore, rather than accepting that Kate's announcement revealed the that most of their outlandish claims were baseless, they simply doubled-down in search of revelations that would again show the Palace's duplicity. On the other hand, Kate-defenders who had been forced to stomach a faked photo and one of the most bungled public relations jobs in history, suddenly saw their opportunity to hit back at the conspiracy theorists. They demanded apologies, retractions, and everything short of abject groveling. In the midst of this, other posters opined on the type of cancer from which Kate might be suffering and described their own experiences with cancer. In the absence of further details coming from official channels, posters found themselves with little of substance to discuss. As a result the thread turned to back and forth sniping and arguing. I had no interest in spending my weekend babysitting the thread and, therefore, locked it — less than 7 hours after it had been started. Even with that short lifetime, the thread was still the most active of the weekend. Take note those users who insist that I moderate with an interest in generating traffic. I spent much of the rest of the past two days playing whack-a-mole removing new threads that were created about Kate's diagnosis.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Westfield HS-Student murdered" and posted in the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum. The original poster provided a link to a Washington Post article about a shooting in Fairfax County in which a teenager was killed. The original poster says that individual was a student at Westfield High School. The original poster also says that her daughter who attends Westfield has told her that the school is "full of police". Because the shooter has not been caught and the original poster fears he may be in the school, she is concerned for her daughter's safety and asks if others would pick up their kids from school in such circumstances. Whenever an incident of this type is discussed, there are always posters who seem to be primarily concerned with protecting the reputation of the school and distancing it from the events as much as possible. B the fifth response in this thread a poster was already complaining that the title of the thread was inaccurate because the student was not killed at the school. The poster also reported the thread to me with the same complaint. I was confused because I did not understand the title to say that the student was killed at the school. But, I later figured out that the poster was interpreting the hyphen between "HS" and "Student" to be more like a colon and signifying that the event occurred at the school. At any rate, the discussion about the title continued throughout the thread. There was a second objection that the thread didn't even belong in the Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) forum but rather in the metro politics forum because it didn't involve the school. A poster went on to write, "the posters who start these threads usually want to encourage trash talk about the schools". Multiple posters claimed that I was keeping the "click bait" title in order to generate traffic and ad revenue. To be clear, I didn't change the title because I correctly understand the purpose of a hyphen. Overlooked by almost everyone was the fact that the original poster's main concern was whether she should pick up her daughter from school early due to safety concerns. There is no indication that she is interested in bashing the school that her daughter attends. It later turned out that the suspected shooter had indeed attended Westfield in the past but was not currently enrolled in any FCPS school. Therefore he was unlikely to be at the school and the original poster's daughter did not face at threat related to him. But then a discussion broke out about whether the suspect and the victim should have attended another high school instead of Westfield with many posts devoted to school boundaries. The primary message that many want you to get from this thread is that regardless of anything suggested by thread's title, this incident had nothing to do with Westfield and any attempt to argue otherwise is either a right-wing attack aimed at making the school look bad or an effort to generate ad revenue.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Neighbor is living her best life on Disability with ‘Long Covid’" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster writes that her neighbor, who is a federal employee, has not worked since the summer of 2020 because she has long COVID. Nevertheless, the neighbor plays tennis, hosts a book club, and frequently leaves on vacation, all the while collecting disability. The original poster concludes by saying that if this is what long COVID looks like, she would like to be signed up. I have no evidence that this is a troll post, but if it were a troll post, it is almost perfectly designed. It is full of hot button issues. It not only has COVID, the inspiration for multiple most active threads, but long COVID. The neighbor is said to be a federal employee, a group constantly attacked on DCUM as being lazy. Finally, the specter of welfare cheaters living lives of luxury is one that has long been used to manufacture outrage. So, of course, plenty of outrage was manufactured. "I hate people who take advantage of the system. She is taking advantage of the system" wrote one responder. Similarly, another replied, "I hate scammers." But, not all of those responding were ready to immediately grab their torches and pitchforks. To the contrary, one of the most frequent responses was to tell the original poster to mind her own business. As the original poster had predicted, many cautioned that the symptoms of long COVID are not always obvious and that the original poster has no way to know the neighbor's true health situation. Others explained that obtaining eligibility for disability is a complicated process that would require that doctors support the neighbor's diagnosis. Some pointed out that disability does not pay that much and questioned whether it would fund the type of lifestyle the original poster describes. A few posters claimed that long COVID is itself a scam. On the other hand, some posters were willing to accept the original poster's allegations at face value and offered advice as to how to respond. They suggested contacting the federal agency that employs the neighbor and provide an anonymous report. Others suggested that there might be a hotline that she could call. There were also suggestions to contact the Social Security Administration's fraud department. There are enough angles to this scenario to keep posters busy debating various combinations of them. For instance, there is considerable debate about how exactly disability works and whether or not the neighbor might be expected to do another job if she is unable to do her original job. As for her part, the original poster appears to have disappeared after a single follow-up report, perhaps leaving on vacation or catching a quick game of tennis.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Violence in Kindergarten- Sligo Creek Elementary" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. The original poster describes an unbelievable amount of violence occurring among kindergartners that has left children "knocked out cold", caused one teacher to leave, and sent a second teacher to the hospital. The original poster is frustrated because it does not appear to her that the school's principal is doing anything about it. When I say the violence is "unbelievable", I am not exaggerating as many posters don't believe it. Those who do believe it have a range of suggestions including contacting the media, switching to another school, or even contacting the police. Few think that the police can or should do anything about a 5 or 6 year old, but many see value in a police report that might motivate parents. Many posters complain about the lack of options available to the school, saying that it is nearly impossible to have a violent student removed from the classroom and the support required for the student is not easily obtained. While the original poster places blame with the principal, other posters say the problem lies further up the chain of command with the central office. The principal's hands are tied, they say, and the process for dealing with students with extreme needs takes too long and unnecessarily exposes the other students to trauma. While most posters were eager to publicize the violent incidents in hopes that might encourage a solution, many other posters seemed to be more interested in protecting the school's reputation or protecting the children responsible for the violence. Almost immediately after the thread was started it was reported to me with a request to delete the thread. I continued to receive reports throughout the day yesterday. Posts within the thread also suggest that it should be deleted and a number of posters accused the original poster of trolling and not being truthful. No students were named or even described in any detail whatsoever. Nobody who is not associated with the school would have any clue about the identity of the students involved. Anyone close enough to the situation to connect the dots likely already knows full well what is going on. So I don't have concerns about the chance of children being identified. I do have an interest, however, in posts being accurate. The original poster's claims seemed outlandish, but appear to be independently supported by multiple posters. I put quite a bit of effort into ensuring that the confirming reports were not sock puppeted and concluded that this would either have to be the best and most extensive trolling I've ever witnessed or the original post is largely accurate. Nevertheless, a number of posters throughout the thread make a tremendous efforts to deny or downplay whatever occurred.

The two most active threads yesterday were the two British Royal Family related threads (Kate photo, Meghan lifestyle brand) that I've already discussed and will skip today. As it happens, I finally lost patience with the need to constantly moderate those threads and locked them both yesterday. So this should be the last we hear of those threads, if not the personalities involved. The next most active thread was titled, "I guess I don’t get why infidelity is a big deal if sex before marriage isn’t" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. To be honest, I had quite a bit of trouble understanding all that the original poster was trying to say and I will probably make a shambles of summarizing it. The bottom line is that she (I am assuming the poster is a woman) notes that society has more or less accepted sex before marriage but once a couple is married, sex suddenly becomes "sacred" and has entirely different connotations. She doesn't seem to believe that sex should have elevated importance in this manner. Rather than seeing infidelity as a traumatic betrayal, she views it more as mistake, "a really really bad one, but a mistake nonetheless." Several posters hasten to point out that the issue with infidelity is not so much the sexual acts, but rather the violation of trust. One of the earliest posters to respond explained this viewpoint very well, saying, "The sex isn't the point, the vow of fidelity is the point" and argued that the original poster was "trying to frame infidelity [as] an extension of sex positivity, but what you're looking for is a free love scenario." As with this poster, most of those replying focused on infidelity as breaking a commitment and suggested that they maintained a zero or near-zero tolerance for what is essentially breaking a contract. A few agreed, at least in part, with the original poster. They were less worried about the physical act of sex than the often common impacts of an affair. These include lying, gas lighting, loss of affection, and other negative fallout. As such, they could imagine scenarios that avoided the negative ramifications, resulting in infidelity being forgivable or even, in some cases, acceptable. There were a number of outliers in the thread who had viewpoints that weren't widely shared and, subsequently, also not widely discussed. This included a poster who contended that humans are not meant to be monogamous. That mostly only elicited responses saying that some are and some aren't. Another poster argued that sexless marriages justify infidelity. Posters with this viewpoint are a fixture of the relationship forum and I think most posters simply ignore them now. The few posters that took notice simply said that the sexless poster should either divorce or reach an agreement that infidelity was allowable.