This Weekend's Most Active Threads

Today I'll look at the most active threads over the weekend. Leading in the number of replies and second in number of views was a thread titled, "Dave Chappelle on SNL" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. As can be deduced from the title, the thread is about comedian Dave Chappelle's opening monologue on Saturday Night Live. Chappelle spent much of his time discussing recent controversies involving Ye and Kyrie Irving and anti-Semitism. The original poster viewed the act as anti-Semitic and vowed to never support Chappelle again. Others defended Chappelle saying that the original poster simply didn't understand Chappelle's message and praising the monologue as terrific humor.

Chappelle ignited the controversy at the very start of his monologue, mocking performative opposition to anti-Semitism in a manner similar to those who make frequent gibes about "virtue signaling". But, whereas a "Hate Has No Home Here" sign might be ridiculed as meaningless, insincere, or naive, Chappelle implies that expressions of solidarity with Jewish people are more akin to coerced hostage statements, not necessarily believed but required for survival. Many of Chappelle's critics in the thread were upset by this, viewing it as clearly anti-Semitic.

Another factor dividing perceptions of Chappelle's act might be related to how Jews are viewed in society's power structure. Comedy has a long history of being used as a weapon against the powerful — a way of speaking truth to power but allowing a bit of plausible deniability. It's likely that this is how Chappelle's monologue is viewed by his supporters. But, to those who don't see Jews as a powerful group, but rather a small minority that has suffered historically and is currently subject to concerning abuse, Chappelle's words are seen as insensitive and possibly dangerous. In short, it comes down to whether you view Chappelle as punching up or punching down. Proponents of each view are very visible in the thread.

Finally, another major point of contention is related to Chappelle's reminder that Adidas was founded by Nazis and the irony that a company with such a history dropped Ye as a client due to anti-Semitism. Some posters viewed this as Chappelle defending Ye and Irving while others saw it as Chappelle simply calling out obvious hypocrisy. So, again, the interpretation is very much in the eye of the beholder.

A thread that was first in number of views and second in number of replies was titled, "Why do rich men seem to heavily prefer very skinny women? Even over a beautiful face?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. This thread has to win the award for the all time most shallow thread on DCUM. The original poster claims to see a lot of rich men who are with women who do not have pretty faces but are very thin. The original poster wonders if this is a generational thing, especially for Boomers. This is such a troll thread — whether intentional or not — that I am deeply ashamed that so many DCUMers were roped into it. Just look at the original post: it brings up wealth, weight, beauty, and even Boomers in a way to create controversy and division. Do you folks need to see a literal bridge over the original poster's head to get a clue? Plenty of posters eagerly took the bait and almost immediately both heavy and thin people were offended (and I received reports from both groups complaining about posts). Some posters attempted to provide plausible explanations for the phenomenon that the original poster has allegedly observed. I say allegedly because I doubt the original poster's ability to detect wealth on sight and, given that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I am not confident that I, or many others, would actually share her opinions about women's faces.

Part of the length of this thread can be attributed to the original poster's constant egging on of the battles she created. She frequently posted about "The OP" in the third person which is essentially sock puppeting. Even after I locked this thread, the original poster started another version of it which I deleted. I guess some people like to spend the weekend watching football or auto racing while other's spectator sport of choice is a DCUM thread about ugly thin women or pretty fat women and Boomers. Whatever floats your boat I guess. Personally, I watched a Formula One race and it had fewer car crashes than this thread. Depending on your priorities, I guess it could be argued that this thread was the better entertainment choice.

Third in number of replies and forth in number of views was a thread titled, "Will the GOP stop whining about CRT, transgender people, wokeism, and covid moms?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Anyone who has participated in DCUM's political forum for the last couple of years is familiar with the constant posts by conservatives and some Democrats predicting that the topics listed in the title would doom Democratic candidates. Much of this discusion is a result of the victory of Glenn Youngkin in Virginia's government race last year. Because Youngkin exploited fears of CRT, transgender youth, Covid school closures, and a general antipathy for anyone perceived as "woke", many believed that a similar formula in this year's midterms would also prove successful. Ultimately, it appears that it did not. But, that hasn't stopped the posters in this thread from rehashing all the arguments that have been repeated incessantly for the past year. Even the added benefit of many Republican election losses was not sufficient evidence for those who believe Democrats who support teaching about race and gender risk their own demise. Conservatives seem to have a particular fixation with drag queens lately and many posts in this thread address the dangerous threat posed by drag queens to our civilization. I haven't read the thread closely and I might not understand all the posts correctly, but as best I can tell, FEMA has established camps for conservative children where they are subjected to daily readings of the Communist Manifest by drag queens. The parents of these children are quite perturbed and, despite having only voted for liberal Democrats heretofore, are now forced to support the most MAGA candidate they can identify. It's quite shocking really.

The last thread at which I'll look today was fifth in number of views and eighth in number of replies, though it might have been higher in the number of replies before I removed several inappropriate posts. The thread is titled, "Tired of people implying I should have gotten an abortion" and posted in the "Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities" forum. This is a somewhat difficult thread both to read and to describe because the topic is a tough one. The original poster's child has a condition that was diagnosed before birth and is one for which many people choose to abort. The original poster is happy with her choice not to have an abortion and believes her family is providing a good life for the child and, in turn, receiving much joy. Nevertheless, the original poster frequently encounters others who imply that she must have been negligent, uninformed, or overly religious not to have chosen to abort. The original poster is bothered by the suggestion that her child does not deserve to be alive and asks if others have encountered something similar. Many posters offer sympathy and support and decry the behaviors the original poster describes. Yet, many posters engage in exactly those sort of responses. Posters criticize the original poster for not sufficiently thinking about what would have been best for the child, some argue that the child is likely a strain on public resources, and some warn of future difficulties for the child. Incomprehensibly, supporters of abortion rights reacted as if the thread is an attack on access to abortion. These posters must have dictionaries that define "choice" differently than mine and I ended up removing many of these posts as they were off-topic and counter-productive to the thread. One argument that was repeated was that many of the rude comments may have come from a place of kindness lodged in sympathy for the child. Fair enough, but the original poster can't determine intentions, only what actually happens. As such, rude is still rude.