DCUM Weblog

The most active thread since my last blog post on Friday was the one about the court proceedings in Georgia that I've already discussed and will skip today. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Best way to keep kid from getting a tattoo while in college" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. When I first read the title of this thread, I thought this was a very esoteric concern given the full spectrum of things that can go wrong during college. But the original poster's explanation, that her son plays a sport in college that has a strong tattoo culture and he is feeling pressured to get one, made the concern understandable. Most of those responding seemed pretty pessimistic about the chances of preventing the child from getting a tattoo. Instead, they suggested offering advice about the placement and design of it instead of trying to prevent a tattoo altogether. Some posters suggested threatening to stop paying for college if he got a tattoo. Others took the opposition approach and suggesting offering a cash reward if he didn't get one. The most innovative idea, though not necessarily the best one, was for the original poster to get a tattoo herself, likely turning off her son from the ideas. This sort of reverse psychology was behind suggestions to praise tattoos and to declare them to be good ideas. I was a bit dismayed that almost none of those responding suggested simply having calm and mature discussions about the pros and cons of tattoos. They all seemed to prefer either control, manipulation, or resignation. One exception was a poster who suggested having a conversation about the opinion of the Maori people about specific tattoo trends and other pitfalls of tattoos. The poster also advised discussing non-permanent ways in which the original poster's son could decorate himself. The original poster explicitly stated that she was not intending to start a debate about tattoos themselves, but that was clearly wishful thinking. Before long, posters who support tattoos and posters who don't were not only arguing, but calling each other childish names. Over half the thread is probably substance-free bickering, none of which had much to do with the original poster's question.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "My mother-in-law called me a ‘sadsack’" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster says that her husband makes enough money that she was able to quit a job that she hated and has been staying home enjoying the chance to decompress. Over the weekend, her mother-in-law came over to babysit and asked the original poster, when she would stop "sitting around like a sadsack." This greatly upset the original poster who has been dwelling on it for several days and even emailed her mother-in-law teling her that she had been offended. The mother-in-law is a retired lawyer for whom work was always very important and she probably can't relate to the original poster's desire to relax for a while. While the purpose of the thread was for the original poster to simply vent, the family relationships forum has an amazing ability to turn the most mundane of topics into a lengthy thread and this one has already reached 16 pages. Much of the discussion is provoked by the specific term used by the mother-in-law, "sadsack". This normally refers to someone who is sitting around moping and feeling sorry for themself. The original poster says that this does not describe her and the suggestion that it does is offensive. Nevertheless, many posters contend that the mother-in-law's choice of that term must reflect her perception of the original poster. As such, some posters suggest ways that the original poster might try to change that perception. Other posters try to explain, if not outright justify, the mother-in-law's description of the original poster. Many posters suggest simply shrugging the whole thing off. On the other hand, a number of posters are sympathetic to the original poster and are critical of the mother-in-law. Some argue that having time to decompress is normal and healthy and that there is no reason to criticize the original poster for not working. What contributes to making this thread lengthy are posts that attempt to read into the original poster's situation, for instance suggesting that there might be some truth to her mother-in-law's remark or, going further, arguing that the original poster is taking advantage of her husband and possibly overburdening him. This in turn provokes complaints about negative stereotypes about women who don't work out of the house. Ultimately, I have to agree with the poster who wrote, "10 pages of handwringing over the word "sad sack." Some of you need thicker skins." Little did that poster know that the handwringing would continue for another 6 pages.

One again, the Travis and Taylor thread was the most active, but like yesterday, I will skip that thread today because I have already discussed it. The next most active thread after that was titled, "2028 Girls Lacrosse" and posted in the "Lacrosse" forum. I know almost nothing about lacrosse so asking me to discuss the topic is similar to asking a group of blind people to describe an elephant. They each might get an individual part of the animal correct, but will probably miss the larger picture. It is my assumption that the "2028" in the title refers to the high school graduation year of the players which would mean that this thread is meant to discuss middle school-aged athletes. But I would not be surprised to learn that I am even wrong about that. This thread was started last November, but became active yesterday after a post beginning, "Here is some pre-season material from BOTC to get you fired up:". I have no idea who or what "BOTC" is, but the post did have the effect of firing up other posters. Or, perhaps "fired up" is too strong but it certainly got them posting. There was a ton of back and forth regarding which teams would do well and how one team might match up with another. But that did not even rise to the level of trash talk. Things got a bit heated when discussion turned to a team — at least I think it is a team — called "Lumberlax". If I understood correctly, a parent associated with that team was accused of "poaching" players from other teams. Moreover, one poster reported that Lumberlax parents had made some controversial statements about another team. But, then it turned out that Lumberlax isn't really a full-fledged team but more or less an ad hoc effort organized for a small number of games primarily to raise money for charity. Moreover, almost everyone denies that the alleged controversial statements by parents that were described had actually been made, but they are deeply sorry if they were. Most posters seem to believe the post about the statements was a troll. The only other thing I picked up from this thread is that it is entirely appropriate to respond to any question by writing, "IYKYK" and not only is there a "IYKYK guy", but he has an assistant. I'm sure that being the assistant to the IYKYK guy is very prestigious and a position to which we should all aspire.

Yesterday the most active thread was the Travis and Taylor thread that I've already discussed and will therefore skip today. The second was a thread about a two-hour delay in opening Montgomery County Public Schools yesterday. However, that thread was started with only a link — a violation of DCUM guidelines — and was simply 12 pages of posters complaining about the delay. It is no longer relevant and combined with the link-only first post, I decided to delete it rather than discuss it. That left the first thread to be discussed today to one titled, "The Senate passed a $95.3 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This aid package has had a long and complicated history. The Biden Administration originally requested significant aid to Ukraine as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, which Congress considered toward the end of last year. Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed the assistance unless it was accompanied by an immigration bill strengthening border security. As a result, the NDAA was eventually passed with only a small assistance package for Ukraine and a bipartisan group of Senators began negotiating an immigration bill that could be part of a larger aid package. This month, Republican Senator James Lankford announced that he had achieved bipartisan agreement on such a bill, but former President Donald Trump immediately announced his opposition to the bill because he would rather have border security be an issue during the presidential campaign. Reflecting Trump's influence, almost all Republicans — even some of those who had helped negotiate the bill — announced opposition to it. Ultimately only 4 Republicans would vote in favor of the legislation which failed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Senators then pulled the foreign assistance package from the combined immigration/foreign assistance bill and voted on it separately. This thread was started after passage of that legislation. However, the bill must now return to the House for passage in that chamber. House Republicans, who had joined Trump's opposition to the bipartisan Senate immigration legislation and rejected immigration reform, are now demanding that immigration reform be part of the bill. This reflects two 180 degree flips in the House Republican position since December. House Republicans face a number of challenges that are preventing them from producing any serious legislation. First, the caucus has a laser-thin majority which will become one seat less after the winner of yesterday's special election to fill the seat of disgraced Republicans Congressman George Santos is sworn in. This, combined with an insistance by Republican hardliners that important legislation be passed with a Republican majority rather than reliance on Democrats, makes a bill of this nature almost impossible to pass. Several Republicans outright reject any further aid to Ukraine and, like Trump, seem to have no concern about Russia taking over Ukraine. So, there just aren't enough Republican votes and passing such a bill with Democratic votes would likely result in the ouster of House Speaker Mike Johnson. Johnson, rather than risk his speakership or see the aid bill defeated by Republicans, prefers to cloud the issue with demands for immigration reform. The result will likely be a stalemate unless the defense industrial complex, with its eye on billions of dollars, can convince Johnson and his Republican colleagues to have a change of heart.

Yesterday a lot of the activity involved threads that I've already discussed. The top three most active threads of the day were ones that I'll skip today because they have appeared in past blogs. Those were the Travis and Taylor, Gaza war, and Super Bowl Halftime threads. Therefore, the first thread that I will discuss today was actually yesterday's fourth most active. Titled, "About to Jump Off a Ledge Over Upcoming MIL Visit, Please Talk Me Down" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum, the original poster writes in a very lengthy post about her distress with an upcoming visit by her mother-in-law. Apparently her mother-in-law just left after a three week long visit and is planning to return soon for another lengthy stay. According to the original poster, her mother-in-law, who is from another country, is very overbearing and controlling. When she visits, she basically takes over the house, redecorating, moving things around, and undertaking tasks that the original poster has asked her not to. The mother-in-law has a frightening personality and most of the original poster's family is afraid of her. The original poster's husband is no help and does nothing to alleviate the situation. Posters offer a lot of advice, but it is mostly things that the original poster has already tried such as simply ignoring her mother-in-law or spending more time outside the house, or suggestions that are easier said that done such as demanding that her husband set limits or "growing a backbone". Several posters argue that the original poster should become much more assertive and willing to set limits for her mother-in-law, or in lieu of that, act passive aggressively to make her visit uncomfortable. Others suggest that the problem is not the mother-in-law, but rather the original poster's husband. His refusal to support the original poster and push back against his mother is a significant hurdle for the original poster. As things stand, the original poster does not think that there is any certainty that, forced to chose between his wife and his mother, her husband would choose her. As a result, she is considering divorce. While divorce is normally the solution recommended by DCUM posters for almost anything, the idea received some pushback in this case with posters recommending less extreme solutions. One idea was to rent an AirBNB, either for the original poster or, even better, for her mother-in-law. But, ultimately, divorce was the solution proposed by some posters, especially those who have been in the original poster's situation themselves.

The most active thread over the weekend was the one that I previously discussed about the special counsel investigation in to President Joe Biden. Skipping that one, the next most active thread was titled, "Non-football Super Bowl 2024 talk" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The Super Bowl is one of those rare sporting events in which the sport itself almost secondary, attracting many viewers who are not football fans and may not even know much about the sport. Hence, as this 24-page thread demonstrates, the pregame and halftime entertainment, commercials, and even audience members can attract as much, if not more, attention as what happens on the field. This thread was created exclusively to discuss the non-football aspects of the event. One off-field drama that has been dominating headlines for weeks involves the relationship between Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce and singer Taylor Swift. The couple, who even have their own dedicated DCUM thread, have been the subject of considerable discussion concerning everything from Swift's travel from Japan to Las Vegas for the game to hopes (among some) that the game might be the venue for a marriage proposal. The other major topic was the halftime show that one posters dubbed the "Usher Concert". Headlined by Usher, a number of other entertainers also were schedued to participate and much of the early discussion involved speculation about who might make an appearance. Opinions about Usher were definitely split with some posters proclaiming Usher to be the only thing of interest in the event and others saying that they were not familiar with any of his songs. Just about everyone's fashion choices were either criticized or praised but Kelce's sparkling black suit was the subject of an especially high number of posts. Reading this thread I am inspired to paraphrase Winston Churchill and summarize the thread by saying, never have so many said so much that amounted to so little. Despite the over 370 posts in the thread, there is not a lot of juice that can be squeezed. But, since the fairytale like marriage proposal didn't materialize, we can assume that the Travis and Taylor show will go on.

Yesterday's most active threads had a distinctly political slant with three of the four top threads dealing with political topics. The first of those was titled, "Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As the title makes clear, this thread is focused on yesterday's oral arguments before the Supreme Court as it reviewed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the presidential primary ballot. Several of the posters were listening to a live stream of the proceedings and then posting their immediate reactions. Mixed in with those posts were questions, statements, and opinions from other posters. Almost everyone was pessimistic that the Court would keep Trump off the ballot, they only disagreed about why the justices would make such a decision. Explanations ran the gamut from such a decision being legally and morally justified to it being the result of a corrupt and bought-off court. One of the issues that both the justices and and posters debated was whether removing Trump from the ballot would result in Republican states removing Democratic candidates in the future. While many posters saw this as a realistic possibility, they were frustrated by the suggestion that removing Trump for a real reason — provoking an insurrection — would result in Democrats being removed for manufactured reasons. One poster responded to this discussion by writing, "If Trump murdered someone and we sent him to jail for it, would that open the floodgates to accusations that Democrats committed murder even if they never killed anyone?" Both the justices and DCUM posters agreed that potential problems could be avoided if the Court defined what is or is not an "insurrection", but justices made their reluctance to do such a thing clear. Posters also critiqued a distinction that some justices attempted to make between an officer vs an office. Ironically, given that this case hinges squarely on Trump's involvement in an insurrection, the Court mostly stayed away from addressing the insurrection or Trump's involvement. Not only did the Court shy away from suggestions that it define "insurrection", but despite the wish of many posters that the Court decide whether or not Trump engaged in an insurrection, that is not the role of the Court in this instance and there were no attempts to address that question. Several posters expressed consternation that Justice Clarence Thomas had not recused himself from this case due to his wife's involvement in the January 6 insurrection. To them this exemplified both Thomas' corruption and the larger Court's illegitimacy.

Yesterday the King Charles thread was again the most active thread of the day. But since I have already discussed that thread, I'll go on to the next which was titled, "Tufts tuition" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that he checked the cost of Tufts University on the school's website and saw that it comes to $88,300 per year. The title only mentions tuition, but this amount is actually what colleges refer to as the "cost of attendance" that includes food, housing, books, and other expenses. The original poster seems astounded by the price and asks how any school can be worth this amount and wonders what Tufts offers to justify charging 2 or 3 times the price of other equally-good colleges. Several posters question whether there actually are comparable universities that cost significantly less. They argue that this is simply the going price for private colleges and even many public universities. Some posters attribute this to the market pricing of universities and suggest that as long as someone is willing to pay the cost, that is what it is worth. Others argue that students are simply paying for the name or connections that can be made at the school and that the education is not significantly better. Posters suggest Michigan State University and Florida State University as colleges that offer merit aid to highly-qualified students that brings down the cost to less than half of Tufts. Another poster suggested Rutgers University. Other posters contested the idea that any of these schools were the same caliber as Tufts. There are a couple of different arguments going on in this thread. One is that expensive colleges such as Tufts offset the price by offering merit aid to "high stats" students. But one poster, whose son has great grades and extracurriculars, says that their experience is that even with merit aid the colleges are too expensive. The second dispute is similar to those about the value of private k-12 schools compared to public. Posters point to smaller class sizes and a more exclusive student body as advantages. Much of the college forum is taken up by threads about admissions and who is being advantaged and who is getting an unfair deal. But, increasingly, discussions about the cost of college are becoming almost as popular. Thread after thread highlights that while the super wealthy can simply write a check and the very poor can count on financial assistance, those in the middle are challenged by the costs. Posters can make any argument that they want to justify the cost of selective private colleges — and indeed they make many — but if others can't afford the cost, none of those advantages matter. As a result, in real life just as in this thread, many are beginning to see more value in lower-cost public universities.

The most active thread yesterday was the one about King Charles which I already discussed and will, therefore, skip today. The next most active thread was titled, "Question for child health experts: Does a tween/teen HAVE TO shower every single day?" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster explained that she was performing a support role in a meeting between a child therapist and a 15-year-old girl and the therapist advised the girl that a daily shower or bath is medically essential. The girl in question does not have any hygiene problems and the original poster was shocked by this advice which contradicts much of her prior knowledge. She asks for opinions about whether a daily shower or bath are medically necessary, but she wants to limit responses to "therapists, pediatricians/doctors, counselors, psychologists, and child development experts." This stipulation is obviously not going to be adhered to by DCUM posters. The one place that you never want to find yourself is between a DCUM poster with an opinion and a keyboard because nothing is going to stop them from posting. In fact, the very first response is not only not from such a professional — or at least has no appearance of being from one — and does not address the topic, but rather questioned the original poster's motives. While a few of the professionals whose opinions were requested did reply, the limitation was honored more in the breach than the observance. More common were parents simply explaining their own children's showering habits or giving their personal preferences and opinions on the topic. Needless to say, this resulted in posters slugging it out from various points of view. Some think that daily showers are absolutely necessary. Some believe a day or perhaps even two can be skipped. Others argued that it depends on other factors such as whether the child has been exercising or done something else to become especially smelly or dirty. At least one poster argued for a more nuanced approach and said that showering needs can differ between children. A few posters argued that a lack of desire or interest in showering or bathing is connected to mental health and could be a sign of depression. In this regard, the posters thought the therapist might have been clumsy in the manner she discussed the issue, but not out of line. In the end, the original poster concluded from the responses, as well as additional opinions from professionals whom she knows personally, that there is no medical necessity for a daily shower or bath. However, she recognized that daily showers could have other benefits such as making it easier to fall asleep. The most surprising revelation of this thread for me is that there is a poster who has established a reputation due to her habit of changing underwear three times a day. Moreover, the poster does not seem to be perturbed by being identified as such. The poster further implied that those who don't share a similar dedication to hygiene are simply blind to their own body odor.

There are very few topics that can produce 28 pages of posts in just a few hours. But, one of those topics is the British Royal Family. Yesterday when news broke that King Charles had been diagnosed with cancer, a poster apparently was so eager to post about it that she seemed to have lost use of her mental facilities in the process. The poster referred to "Prince" Charles in the thread's title and posted nothing more than a link — a violation of DCUM's policy that requires threads to be started with discussion and not just a link. So, I deleted that thread. Shortly after that, another thread titled, "King Charles diagnosed with cancer" was posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. I wouldn't say that there was an immediate outpouring of sympathy from DCUM posters. Far from it. The first responses mostly dealt with Prince William's appearance and then a discussion of the "Alanis Morrisett" song "Ironic". Next, the thread turned to whether this would bring about a reconciliation with Harry. Amidst all of this was a smattering of conspiracy theories involving the Duchess of Wales. The same instant cancer experts that came out of the woodwork in the thread about Kate Middleton being hospitalized made reappearances to speculate about the type of cancer afflicting Charles. It should be noted that despite the discussion about Kate, there is no indication that her hospitalization had anything to do with cancer. Meanwhile, posters began tracking Harry's movements like little kids following Santa's path on Christmas Eve. DCUM's Royal Family obsessives were attracted to this thread like moths to flame. And, quite a diverse group they are. There are Kate fans and Kate-haters. Those obsessed with Meghan who are mostly haters, but also some fanatical supporters. There are those who are most interested in Harry, either seeing him as sympathetic and misunderstood or as a cynical money grubber who has sold out his own family. Posters who detest the Royal Family due to their sins of the past took over the more recent pages of the thread. Beyond that, a number of posters already have Charles dead and buried and are debating who will do what in terms of Royal duties when William is King. Depending upon who you believe, Harry will have no choice but to return and shoulder some of the responsibilities or he will find that he has lost any opportunity of rejoining the family due to animosity between him and William.