DCUM Weblog

The most active thread over the weekend was the Gaza war thread which I've already discussed and will skip today. The second most active thread was titled, "Why do some women think it's acceptable to get engaged without a ring?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Before getting to a discussion of that that thread, my last post in which I changed the format to include more paragraph breaks was universally disliked. So, I am returning to the previous one paragraph per post format. The original poster of this thread says that both her sister and a friend recently got engaged and neither received a ring. The original poster believes that an engagement ring has important symbolic importance and thinks that getting engaged without a ring suggests that the guy is not taking the engagement seriously. Those responding suggest that the couples may be planning to purchase rings later which allows them to pick them out together and get the rings sized correctly. The original poster says that the couples in this case have no plans to purchase rings. Several posters say that they did not want engagement rings for various reasons and others who did receive rings don't wear them. Some of these posters do wear wedding bands. However, a number of posters don't wear engagement or wedding rings even if they have them, which several don't. They have decades or longer marriages and simply don't like rings or jewelry. These posters don't see any connection between a ring and commitment to marriage. A number of posters don't think it is really the original poster's business what other couples choose to do about rings and consider any concern that original poster has about it to be an issue with her rather than the others. To some extent, attitudes towards rings were related to ideas about feminism. Some posters believe that feminism is incompatible the the suggestion that a women deserves an engagement ring simply because of her gender. Others argued that they could be feminists while still following some traditional gender norms. Another reason cited for passing on engagement rings was some posters' dislike for the diamond industry. Much of this thread was sidetracked to off-topic discussions such living together rather than getting married, what women get out of marriage in exchange for what they give up, and the aforementioned debates about feminism.

As has been the case lately, the first two threads are ones that I've already discussed and, therefore, will start with what was actually the third most active thread yesterday. That thread was titled, "Marriage is hard" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Before getting to the thread, after complaints about the lack of paragraphs in my formatting, I've decided to try things a little differently today. So, let's see how that goes.

Back to the thread, the original poster simply stated that the phrase in the thread's title is common and would like to know what makes marriage hard for others. The first and most common answer is "communication", though it is not clear to me whether these posters mean that communication is difficult or that a lack of communication makes marriage hard. Other posters say that as long as you marry the right person, marriage is not hard.

The most active thread yesterday was the one about women continuing to pursue careers even though their husbands can support them. But I've already discussed that thread and will skip it today. The next most active thread was titled, "Not welcome on vacation" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster, in an extremely long post, describes how her fiancé's mother frequently excludes her, most recently not inviting her on a trip on which the mother had invited the original poster's fiancé. But, I am not really going to talk about this thread. Rather, I am going to describe the original poster's repeated trolling over the last couple of days. First, the story of this thread. Early in the thread at least one poster suspected the original poster of being a troll and accused her of faking the thread. This started a lot of back and forth and, at some point, another poster defended the original poster. The poster who didn't believe the original poster immediately accused this new poster of being the original poster and hiding her identity. That was not true, though ironically the original poster had been posting defenses of herself and claiming to be a "new poster". At any rate, the troll-calling poster and the poster defending the original poster got into a heated exchange which led a report to me and a thread in the "Website Feedback" forum. When I looked into the thread, I saw the posts by the original poster in which she falsely identified herself as a new poster. That spurred me to check what other threads she had been posting. It turned out that two days earlier she had posted a thread titled, "Helping him" in which she claimed that she was divorcing her husband and his mother was paying for his lawyer. Yesterday, the same day that she started the thread complaining that her fiancé's mother left her out, she started a thread titled, "Doesn’t want that time with him" in which she says her mother-in-law doesn't want to spend time alone with her husband. I locked all three threads and exposed the original poster as a troll. But, that didn't stop her. This morning she started a new thread titled, "Feeling guilty about being ‘too’ sad" in which she describes being heartbroken by the death of her husband's grandmother. This one is a real tear jerker. Then, she followed that up a few minutes later with a thread titled, "Delicate DIL situation" in which she is suddenly a mother-in-law complaining about her daughter-in-law. But that post is so convoluted that I can't be bothered trying to figure out what it is supposed to say. To summarize, over the course of three days, the poster has had three different marital statuses, engaged, married, divorcing and has been both a daughter-in-law and a mother-in-law. I understand that sometimes posters fudge details to maintain their anonymity, but this poster also claimed to live in Georgia (something about which I also suspect is not true). Her anonymous posts on DCUM are unlikely to expose her back home. But, beyond that, two threads directly contradict each other with regard to her feelings about the relationship of her husband/fiancé and his mother. Who knows if any part of any of this is true. I suspect it is just a bored person with an overly-active imagination and too much time on her hands.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will, therefore, skip today. The third most active thread was titled, "London is HORRIBLE" was originally posted in the "Off-Topic" forum but I moved it to the "Travel Discussion" forum. Frankly, however, I am not sure which forum is most appropriate for this thread. The original poster epically rants about her dislike of London, bashing the housing (too cold and expensive), the residents (mean, lazy, and drunk), and the food (it sucks). She then concludes that DC is 100 times better than London. A number of those responding have experience living in London and while they agree with the original poster in some respects, they disagree in others. Some posters argue that the original poster, while living in an expensive part of London, is not in an area that shows London's strongest attributes. Many make suggestions for areas that might not only be less expensive, but considerably more enjoyable. As for the food, posters again suggest that the original poster has missed the best examples. One poster said that it takes a special effort to miss the good food that London offers. The Indian food is almost universally praised. Other ethnic foods get mixed reviews, however. Several of the negative characteristics the original poster described are brushed off as normal in Europe and not exclusive to London. One advantage that nobody can deny that London has over DC is the lack of guns, though the original poster did complain about muggings. Those responding also repeatedly praised London's museums, though DC is no slouch when it comes to museums either. Posters were also almost unanimous is praising technological advances in Europe such as easy bank transfers that don't exist in the US. At some point the thread devolved to a discussion of British accents and who does or does not pronounce words correctly. One poster provided a fairly accurate assessment of the thread, saying "The thread is very DCUM in terms of lying squarely at the intersection of pretentiousness and parochialism." Another significant point of contention was London's timezone and how that affects the hours of sunlight per day. A number of posters were certain that London has much less daylight than most American cites while other posters were equally sure that is not true. Several posters were concerned that the original poster might be missing an opportunity by not experiencing more of the good aspects of London. Quite a few posters cautioned that living in a city is different than visiting and that it might simply take longer to feel comfortable. There were a number of good suggestions provided to the original poster that might help her increase her appreciation for the city and she seemed open to the advice. So maybe things won't turn out so bad after all.

I'm going to have to work my way up to discussing the most active thread yesterday. As many are aware, DCUM originally started as a mailing list. The first use of forums was to offload posts advertising or searching for nannies because they were creating too much traffic for the mailing list. After that, the forums grew organically and we mostly added them at the request of users. I don't remember the circumstances that led to the creation of the "Family Relationships" forum, but I am fairly certain that it would have been due to users' requests. I would never have come up with the idea for this forum and have never had great expectations for it. For years the forum trundled along almost like a backwater with nothing much happening within it. But more recently the forum has become a source of endless drama. Posters have a knack for turning the most mundane of interactions in to a double-digit page length spectacle. Such was the case with yesterday's most active thread. Titled, "Invitations haven't been sent yet" and, as I alluded to, posted in the "Family Relationships" forum, the original poster's conflict could hardly be less remarkable. Her niece, who lives across the country, will be getting married this summer. Apparently a date for the wedding has been agreed upon, but not officially announced. The original poster contacted her sister to ask if the date is solid because she wants to purchase airline tickets while they are still cheap. It will be an expensive trip regardless and she doesn't want to have to pay even higher prices later. The original poster's sister responded by saying, "Invitations haven't been sent yet" which angered the original poster and seems to have brought to the surface other longstanding resentments she has towards her sibling. The original poster seems to have meant this post mostly as a vent. The entire incident is pretty simple from the original poster's point of view. Her sister is strange and inconsiderate, she provided a strange and unhelpful response, not for the first time she has upset the original poster, and the original poster will simply ask her niece about the date instead. Personally, I can't imagine a response to this post beyond, "I understand your frustration and I hope it all works out." That, of course, is only if I bothered to respond at all, which I wouldn't have. But, those who did respond are not like me. Instead, multiple posters attacked the original poster with one calling her "way out of line" and accusing a her of pressuring a stressed-out bride. Others analyzed the sister's response, suggesting it might mean that either the wedding is in trouble and might not come off or that the original poster is not invited. No amount of assurances by the original poster that this was not the case would stop the speculation. I am not sure why the original poster chose to repeatedly engage the responders. That only seemed to cause them to pick more holes in her story or find new reasons to criticize her.

The three most active threads over the weekend were ones that I have discussed before and will therefore skip today. That means that I will be starting with what was actually the fourth most active thread. That thread was titled, "Why do parents have such an issue with DEIB" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. I was aware that Diversity, Equity, and inclusion or DEI initiatives had become a popular bugaboo in certain quarters, in many cases replacing Critical Race Theory, or CRT, as the root of all evil, but I was hitherto unfamiliar with the additional "B". Some quick Googling revealed that the "B" is for "belonging" and that "DEIB" is a popular alternative to "DEI". The original poster of this thread suggests that many parents have misconceptions of what is involved with DEIB and that she never sees assignments of the sort that others claim are prompted by DEIB. She says that she knows of parents who claim to be basing school choices on the avoidance of DEIB and wants to know why they are so threatened by it. This is the sort of discussion that can go one of two ways on DCUM. Because DCUM's users, especially in the private school forum, tend to be highly-educated, experienced, and, might I say, worldly, there could be a nuanced, sophisticated, and intelligent discusion. But, this is a polarizing topic and the discussion could be one that reflects simplistic and overly-generalized arguments that are often based on stereotypes or false impressions. Because the smart move would be to avoid this type of discussion in the first place, there are more posts from the second category than the first. In very broad strokes, the extreme positions in this thread are, on one hand, that any one who opposes DEIB is a racist and, on the other hand, that White people are tired of being called racists and, therefore, don't like DEIB. A more nuanced example was a post suggesting that an emphasis on race and gender ignores other important social divisions, particularly those involving class. While affinity groups for Black or LGBTQ groups are embraced, one poster wondered how parents would react to "a ‘working class’ affinity group in the schools? Particularly one in which teachers shared their experiences of their salaries and what it’s actually like to teach the children of the upper class?" Many of the criticisms of DEIB seem to of the sort described by the original poster and demonstrate a misunderstanding of DEIB. Throughout the thread posters make claims about DEIB but then, when asked, are unable to provide specific examples. Several posters say that they support the goals of DEIB but that efforts have "gone too far". One dilemma with which I see posters struggling is how to reconcile often conflicting values. For instance, affinity groups can be both important support mechanisms for groups that don't align with the majority, but also divisive factors that hinder unity and cohesion. This thread also attracted a couple of posters who seem to perennially argue about DEI, DEIB, wokeness, and so on.

Yesterday's most active thread was the one about the soccer club merger. The rumor that started that thread finally turned out to be true with official announcements of the merger. The most active thread after that was titled, "Per NYT, Yale now ‘test flexible’" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. I was disappointed with the effort put into the initial post by the original poster. While the title referenced a New York Times article, there was no link to the article. Nor was an excerpt provided, but rather a short, one-sentence summary. Yale University has decided to once again require that standardized test scores be submitted by applicants. However, the policy that Yale describes as "test flexible" will allow applicants "to submit scores from subject-based Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate tests in lieu of SAT or ACT scores." I have discussed a number of test-related threads in this blog and this thread has much in common with previous threads. The various points of view are well-established. At one end of the spectrum are posters who believe that standardized tests are the best method of identifying the students most likely to be successful in college. These posters often claim that test optional policies are simply a ruse allowing admission of less prepared minority students. At the other end of the spectrum are posters who oppose tests which they believe may be biased against minorities and subject to gaming by affluent families who can afford extensive test prepration and test retakes. As was the case earlier when Dartmouth University reversed its test optional policy, this policy change is being cast as being in the interest of underrepresented minority students. The theory is that such students have not been submitting their scores because they believed them to be too low. However, schools would have viewed the scores in context of the students' background and given weight to scores even if they were lower than those of more privileged students. Therefore, by not submitting test scores, these students were actually hurting their chances. This sounds great in theory but I am skeptical about how it will work in practice. The Supreme Court decision prohibiting race from being a factor in admissions was based on evidence that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina were admitting minority students with lower test scores than White or Asian students. Now, Yale and Dartmouth are essentially saying that they plan to do exactly that. When asked about the legal implications of this by the New York Times, Yale's dean of undergraduate admissions basically shrugged it off. As a result, I am somewhat suspicious that the claims about URMs are a cynical cover story and the real motivation for dropping test optional policies is to appease certain stakeholders who are likely to benefit from requiring test scores (or at least believe they will benefit). So it will be interesting to see how this plays out in practice.

The two most active threads yesterday were both threads that I discussed in yesterday's blog post, the one about about broke men on online dating and the one about the soccer club merger (still no official announcement). I will skip those two and start with a thread titled, "Talk me off a ledge" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that her daughter has been offered a full scholarship to East Stroudsburg University and even though she has been accepted by more prestigious universities — though without aid — she is considering accepting the scholarship. The original poster does not appear to be very impressed by the university and cannot find any information about its outcomes for pre-health (e.g. pre-med) studies which her daughter plans to pursue. The original poster is worried that choosing this school will limit her daughter's chances for graduate school and professional opportunities. She asks that others help her gain some perspective. This is a situation over which the college admissions fantasy league players salivate because they can not only game out undergraduate admissions, but graduate admissions as well. Most of them simply requested more information about other schools that accepted the student. A number of posters suggested giving the school a chance and possibly transferring later. Quite a few other posters thought that East Stroudsburg might be an ideal choice. The original poster's daughter could hopefully stand out as a big fish in a small pond, earn a high grade point average, and be a great candidate for medical school. Moreover, not paying for undergraduate studies will leave money for graduate school. Later in the thread, the original poster says that anyone who reads the college forum generally would understand her concerns. This alludes to the fixation most of the forum's posters have on top universities. There seems to be a conviction among many of the forum's posters that failing to attend a school within the top 50 is a sign of failure. Another concern about East Stroudsburg that some posters had was not about the academics, but rather the social aspects of the school. These posters thought that the relatively small non-commuter student body and the perceived caliber of students that attend could have a significant impact compared to the atmosphere at other schools. Several posters strongly rejected the idea of attending a school such as ESU. For the most part these posters did not explain their reasoning, perhaps believing the explanation was self-evident, but they were very adement that paying for another university would be better than attending ESU for free.

The most active thread yesterday was a bit of a surprise. Titled, "ECNL forcing Brave & Union Partnership" and posted in the "Soccer" forum, this is the second thread from the soccer forum to be among the most active threads this month. Like the earlier one, this thread consists mostly of rumors and discussion of rumors. The thread was started nearly a week ago with a post simply saying, "Fall 2024 - ECNL is forcing Brave to partner/merge with Union. Confirmed." As I said when I discussed the soccer thread last week, I have no idea what any of this means. I think that ECNL is some sort of administrative body or league within which various clubs compete. Brave and Union, I deduce, are clubs that have both boys and girls teams of various ages. The thread added roughly 9 pages of new posts yesterday which accounts for its being the most active thread of the day. A couple of caveats: this is a 28 page thread and I have read very little of it. I have no idea whether the original rumor is true, but one of the latest posts in the thread says that a formal announcement will be made today. So, I guess we will see. The only other thing that I will say is that this thread is a perfect illustration of how you ruin a website such as DCUM. Because the original post was completely based on a rumor with nothing to support its validity, many posters did not believe it. The original poster's use of the word "Confirmed" became an object of mockery with posters posting outlandish rumors followed by saying "confirmed". Basically the thread consists of little more than pages of nonsense and I don't know why anyone would waste their time reading it. Some time ago, the soccer forum became so unruly that I changed it to require registration in order to post. This led to months of posters repeatedly requesting that I remove that requirement, which I eventually did. But, this thread suggests that posters in the forum still do not have the ability to behave responsibly. The forum participants are also terrible about policing themselves. Just about the only ones to ever report posts in the forum are coaches who have been bashed and want the negative posts about them removed. The regular posters seem to be quite happy with endless drivel. As a result, not only was this thread the most active yesterday, but it was probably also the most useless. Confirmed.

The most active thread yesterday was the Gaza war thread that has held this position frequently. But, since I have discussed that thread already, I'll move to the next most active. That one was not altogether unrelated. Titled, "I tipped over the line this week and can’t support Biden", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster says that she has finally reached the point where she can no longer vote for President Joe Biden. She says that she cannot vote for a candidate who supports genocide and emphasizes that she is a 50-something Christian with no direct connection to the Gaza conflict. She agrees that former President Donald Trump is worse, but says that is not enough and she will sit this election out. I am not sure that Biden and his campaign staff are aware of how widespread this sentiment is among otherwise faithful Democratic voters. Many are aware that this position is widespread among Arab and Muslim Americans, as well as young voters who are allegedly influenced by TikTok, but it is increasingly common among those such as the original poster who don't fit those categories. This is a real danger to Biden's reelection which was already in trouble without this added risk. The responses to the original poster are basically the same as those we see on the national political scene. The the most frequent response, that Trump is worse, is obviously true, but has already been considered and rejected by the original poster. Others try to argue technicalities such as disputing that Israel's actions in Gaza amount to genocide or that Biden doesn't actually support the most extreme measures. Arguments about what is or is not genocide matter little to those such as the original poster and arguing that the killing of nearly 30 thousand people, most of whom are civilians, is not genocide is not convincing. Almost weekly the Biden administration publicizes its concerns about Israel's actions, but immediately follows those up with approvals of more arms transfers. Actions matter more than words, regardless of the number of leaks about Biden's private irritation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Another reaction is a lot of foot stomping and bullying by Biden supporters. But this is likely to backfire and simply make things worse. Name-calling, ridicule, and attempted intimidation are not particularly successful methods of persuasion. The United Nations Security Council is currently considering a resolution calling for a permanent ceasefire. The Biden administration has already promised to veto the measure. This action will be interpreted by the original poster and others as support for Israel's continued devastation of Gaza and only make Biden's problems with such voters worse. Perhaps demonstrating some understanding of the electoral threat, Biden is reportedly considering a substitute resolution calling for a temporary ceasefire. But Biden's ability to dig himself out of this hole with half-measures is doubtful.