Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread was titled "BIL brought dog that growls at children to Christmas dinner" and originally posted in the "Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers" forum. However, after reading a few posts, I moved the thread to the "Family Relationships" forum because the topic wasn't really about children. The original poster writes that her brother-in-law brought a dog to their Christmas dinner even though he had been told not to. The dog has a tendency to grow at children and when it had previously been brought to the family's Thanksgiving dinner, the original poster spent most of her time trying to protect her children from the dog. This time the dog was kept outside due to the original poster's insistance, though she ended up leaving the dinner early with her baby because of the dog. The original poster is considering reporting the dog to the city and wants to know if this is an overreaction. Initially posters were mostly sympathetic to the original poster though some were confused about what the dog could be reported for and/or whether reporting it would do anything. But, as the original poster revealed more details, posters started to side more with her brother-in-law based on the fact that the dog had been kept outside at Christmas and not growled and any children at that time. Some posters even began questioning the original poster's actions, saying that the root of the issue is that she doesn't like her in-laws and the dog was just a pretext for getting angry. For her part, the original poster is adamant that the dog presented a threat and that she was acting solely in the interest of safety and any suggestion otherwise is "gaslighting", a term with which anyone reading this thread will become quite familiar.

Yesterday's second most active thread was posted in the "Family Relationships" forum and titled, "Whose attendance at a funeral is more important?". The original poster's elderly parent has recently passed away and the family is attempting to schedule a funeral. On one proposed date, adult children of the deceased are able to attend, but the siblings cannot. The opposite is true for a second proposed date. The siblings can make it but two out of three children cannot. The original poster asks which group is more important to accomodate. While most posters seem to agree that the children of the deceased were more important than the siblings, several were shocked that the children could not reschedule their conflicting obligations. There was also some confusion and surprise about how long the funeral is being delayed (it won't be held until late January). The original poster updated quickly to say that the sibling who was arranging the funeral had chosen the date that two children cannot make. This focused more attention on the inability or unwillingness of the children to find a way to attend. Several posters stated that nothing short of their own health emergency would prevent them from attending. All aspects of this situation are analyzed in great detail and disputed from all angles.

The third most active thread was titled, "Do all women only care about money?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster explains that he works for a nonprofit and only makes 50K per year. Dating is difficult because when women learn about his salary they ghost him. He asks if there is any hope for him. The good news for the original poster is that likely none of this is true because the poster is clearly a troll. The original poster only replied once in the thread and that time was in the guise of a woman who had married a man employed in a low-paying non-profit job who had subsequently abused her. A day after starting this thread, the original poster started one in which the poster had magically become a 36 year old Indian woman having trouble finding dates on dating apps. She should hit up her alternative personality because they would likely be a good match. She will just have to lower her financial expectations. Before I realized that this poster is a troll, he/she had managed to hook 11 pages of responses. Surprising me and at least some of those responding, the Incel Battalion failed to make an appearance. As such, this is really not that bad of a thread. However, had the original poster been real, he would have been even more discouraged than he began because, based on the responses, it appears that women do place a high priority on money and will dump guys that won't be able to afford the lifestyle to which they plan to become accustomed. 

The final thread of the day was posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum and titled, "Airbnb preditors" (the original poster later clarified that he meant "predators"). The original poster was a victim of the Southwest Airlines cancellations. When he contacted the host of the Airbnb that he had reserved, he was refused either a full or partial refund or a chance to change the date. The original poster feels that the host is taking advantage of him. I didn't read all of the responses in this thread, but the ones I saw sided with the owner because he was in line with the cancellation policy. Several posters criticized the original poster for not purchasing travel insurance. The original poster does not appear to be easily mollified and is pretty combative, arguing with those who respond. Hence, there is a lot of debate about travel insurance, what actions are "predatory", and whether Airbnb sucks. The bottom line appears to be that it is not the Airbnb host's problem that Southwest cancelled the original poster's flight and that the original poster should have had travel insurance. The original poster concedes nothing.