Last Week's Most Active Threads

Today I'll look at the most active threads during the past week, but skip any that were covered in the daily posts. The thread with the most replies and the second highest number of views was a bit of a repeat. Titled, "Daughter ruining career prospects" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum, the original poster begins the post by saying that she had previously posted a similar thread in the College forum. Indeed she did, and that thread was the most active over the weekend not long ago. The original poster explains that while she and her husband advised their daughter to study economics, math, or statistics, the daughter chose to major in history instead. The parents then stressed the importance of internships, but their daughter is now planning to work as a summer camp counselor despite having corporate internship opportunities. The original poster asks for advice to convince her daughter to change her mind. If this all sounds vaguely familiar, it is likely because you remember the thread titled, "In tears about my daughter" that I wrote about almost a month ago. However, in that thread, the original poster's daughter chose to study English instead of history. As I mentioned in my summary of the "tears" thread, I received many reports asking if the original poster was a troll. At the time of my writing, I had not come to such a conclusion, but subsequently locked the thread because that turned out to be the case. I did not receive reports about this thread, but early this morning someone started a thread in the "Website Feedback" forum asking that I assure them that the poster was a troll. In this thread, the original poster engaged in considerable sock puppeting, often authoring posts in the guise of a third party and then replying to them identifying herself as the original poster. I am not sure what the original poster gets out of these threads, but she has now accounted for 60 pages of posts between the two. There are a lot of strange people out there, and a good number of them find their way to DCUM. I can't say that this poster is as bad as the poster who is obsessed with people's feet, but I also can't say that she is any better.

I am sorry to report that I have to once again write about the Royal Family. I was going to joke that the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum has become DCUM's version of "The Crown", but this thread was actually posted in the "Beauty and Fashion" forum. Titled, "Kate Middleton's suit", the thread was fifth in number views for the week and ninth in number of replies. My immediate reaction to the thread's title was to wonder just how much could be said about a suit. This feeling was only strengthened when I saw a picture of the suit in question. It's a navy blue suit. With a turtleneck underneath. At least my opinion seems consistent with most of the initial responders who almost uniformly described the suit as "boring", though that was not necessarily meant to be negative. While DCUM certainly has its share of posters with strongly held opinions about navy blue suits, even they could not sustain a thread exclusive to that specific topic for long. Posters also addressed other outfits that Kate wore, scrutinizing photos from various events in which she participated. Anyone with past experience reading threads involving Kate Middleton will know that any such thread will not be complete without two topics being addressed: her weight; and Meghan Markle. Both get some attention in this thread, but luckily Kate changed clothes frequently enough to keep posters mostly occupied discussing her wardrobe. A lime green dress (that color designation will likely be disputed) became the focus for much of the thread, with one poster pointing out that it precisely matched the carpet at the Earthshot Prize ceremony. Another poster explained that "green" was in recognition of the prize's environmental focus. There was considerable disagreement over the shade of green, but given that the ceremony was held in Boston — famous for its Irish connections — I imagine selecting the wrong shade of green could easily have caused a political crisis in the United Kingdom.

A thread titled, "10 year old fatally shoots mother over virtual reality headset- being tried as adult" was not included in the top ten threads for number of replies, but was eighth in number of views. Posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, the original poster focuses on a crime in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in which a 10 year old boy shot his mother because she would not buy him an Occulus headset. The boy has been charged as an adult and the original poster wonders if that is appropriate. Much of the initial discussion in this thread focuses on a report that the boy's mother previously rehomed a dog because she was afraid that it would attack the boy. Whether this was a sign of good or bad parenting and pet ownership was disputed. The fact that the child has an unspecified mental health issue is subject to considerable discussion. Some posters wonder why that was not addressed while others explain the difficulties of accessing mental health care. The thread sort of goes all over the place with posters bringing up gun control — something that always causes gun proponents to cite instances of violence in which guns were not used — and even abortion. The thread is 14 pages long and I haven't read very many of them. However, this thread brought up another issue that has been getting attention. Many posters are unhappy about crime-related threads — especially those that don't take place in the DC Metro area — frequently being discussed in the Off-Topic forum. Some posters have proposed the creation of a new forum specific for crime topics. I don't think I'll take that step but I probably will crack down a bit on topics similar to this one.

The last thread at which I'll look is titled, "Couples therapy and mandatory reporting" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The thread was not included in the top 10 in number of views, but was tenth in number of replies. The original poster explains that her husband grabbed their daughter, leaving marks, after she failed to stop screaming after being repeatedly asked. The original poster and her husband are going to start couples therapy and she wants to know whether the therapist would be required to report this incident to Child Protective Services if it were disclosed during a therapy session. The DCUM relationship forum being what it is, the very first response suggested divorce. All of us could have seen that coming. With that out of the way, posters — including one who described herself as a therapist — confirmed that the incident would have to be reported. Most of the initial responders emphasized that dealing with the husband's anger was more important than concern about a CPS report. Others felt those calling for divorce were overreacting and that this incident may not have been that serious. The thread turns to discussions of multiple aspects of the original post. Posters differed on whether the incident is worth reporting to CPS with some suggesting it was not and others arguing it was better to report it and let CPS determine whether it was worthy. There is considerable disagreement about CPS and its competence. Several posters describe experiences in which contact with CPS was unnecessary and potentially harmful. Others tell of times that CPS was slow to act and not assertive enough. The fear of CPS, which is part of the original poster's motivation for posting, is evident throughout the thread and clearly shared by many posters. I suspect that this is leading to less than truthful visits with therapists and other mandatory reporters. At the other end of the spectrum are posters who think that advocating for anything sort of an immediate CPS visit amounts to protecting an abuser. There are plenty of contentious issues to keep this thread going for some time.