Saturday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Was this rude of me?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster describes having a lazy Saturday during which her husband went to the gym and then generally relaxed at home. During that time, the original poster tended to their child and did some housework. Needing a break and also wanting to finish a work project, the original poster suggested that her husband take their child to the park. Her husband seemed put out by this request and the original poster asks if she had been rude. I personally would have no issue with the original poster's approach and several posters who identified themselves as men similarly said her request was fine. Some posters argued for a more direct approach and, frankly, I found most of their suggestions far more off-putting than what the original poster described. But, what pushed this thread to 9 pages and put it at the top of the most active list was one particular poster. There is an Internet phenomenon known as the "reply guy". These are men who are prone to respond to women in ways that are generally inappropriate. DCUM has its very own reply guy who, when joining this thread, described the original poster as "manipulative" and selfish. In true "reply guy" fashion, he would not give up and was still posting on what is currently the last page of the thread. In the course of the thread he accused the original poster of being a liar, of being "passive aggressive", of having "poor organizational skills", of being "an abusive person" and "mentally ill", and of precipitating an inevitable divorce. Ultimately, the reply guy worked himself up to the point where he declared the child involved did not even belong to the original poster's husband. As entertaining as this fellow is, I've blocked him. Though generally posters like this have plenty of experience being kicked out of forums and know how to find their way back.

Next was a thread posted in the "Real Estate" forum titled, "Carmel IN looks amazing, great schools, good people safe, etc". The original poster asks if anyone has any first-hand experience with Carmel, Indiana which, the original poster says, makes McLean, Virginia "look like trash" while only costing half as much. Posters familiar with Carmel have plenty of good things to say about it. But, the area has its detractors as well. Basically at issue are two visions of America. On one hand are those who see nice but affordable houses, good schools, low crime, and what they view as an enjoyable lifestyle. This is viewed as the American dream. On the other hand are posters who, while not exactly seeing this as an American nightmare, view it as representing much that is wrong with America. Careful gerrymandering of school and city boundaries keeps diversity and poverty at a minimum. A poster who describes himself as a person of color who lived there as a child describes it as one of the most "overtly racist places I’ve ever experienced". Other posters knock it for being boring and lacking entertainment opportunities. Several posters take issue with the Republican-dominated politics of the area. Most of the thread consists of posters arguing either in favor of or in opposition to either of these perceptions.

The third thread that I'll discuss was titled, "Am I the only woman not offended by the Tiger Woods tampon incident?" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. I was not aware of any incident involving Tiger Woods and a tampon and, therefore, had to educate myself by Googling. If anyone else lives in a cave similar to mine, what happened is that Tiger Woods significantly outperformed his competitors at a recent golf competition and, after out-driving one opponent, handed him a tampon. Apparently my ignorance of tampon-related controversies is matched by my lack of a sense of humor because I don't find this funny and can't imagine any circumstance in which it would be funny. Though, possibly because I am a male and therefore miss important context, I also don't find it terribly offensive. It just seems like a stupid antic and, in a world full of stupidity, there are other things I'd rather worry about. The original poster of this thread, a woman, appears to feel similarly. She says that while she understands why other women find it offensive, she is not all that bothered by the incident and wonders if others feel the same way. I haven't read all of the responses in this thread, but I have read enough to see that there is divison between posters who agree with the original poster that this is not a big deal and those who see it as emblematic of ingrained misogyny, something to which those who are not offended must be desensitized. A few posters either thought it was funny or think anyone who is offended is a humorless scold. The thread contains a lot of name-calling and frankly, the thread epitomizes the saying that "ignorance is bliss". I could have lived a perfectly good life not knowing about Tiger and the tampon.

The last thread at which I'll look was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Wokeness as a platform", I think the thread would have been better titled, "Anti-wokeness as a platform" because the original poster points to recent actions by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders as highlighting Republican intentions to run against "wokeness". While I believe that the original poster has correctly identified Republican plans, I am so tired of any topic involving the word "woke" that I can't bring myself to read this thread. I have written several times now that my view is that Republicans do not stand for anything beyond tax cuts for the rich and, therefore, are forced to define themselves by what they oppose. Basically, they oppose anything that liberals support. The more clever of Republican leaders focus on so-called "wedge issues" which, these days are mostly cultural issues. Hence, we get DeSantis and Sanders talking about bathrooms, drag queens, and critical race theory. The original poster wonders whether this is enough. Virginia governor Glen Youngkin appears to have ridden a wave of anti-wokeness into the Virgina Governor's mansion, giving hope to those who support such a platform. However, similar culture war based campaigns in Michigan fell flat. I think the difference is that Youngkin successfully distanced himself from Former President Donald Trump's insistence that the election was stolen from him, while the Michigan Republicans fully embraced the theory. An otherwise reasonable-sounding anti-woke candidate can probably be appealing in some circles, but an anti-woke candidate who insists the election was stolen and may or may not believe that Democrats are hiding child sex slaves in the basement of a restaurant that does not have a basement is probably going to get beat. The more that mainstream Republicans rely on the language of QAnon, such as "groomer" in the course of displaying their opposition to wokeness, the easier it will be for Democrats to paint them as extremists. The question is which, if any, of the candidates can find the correct line.