Thursday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Glad MCPS is getting sued". Posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum, the original poster supports the right of parent's to opt their children out of school activities that deal with sexual orientation and gender identity. The poster linked to an article describing a lawsuit filed by three families demanding this opt-out right. Essentially, the battle over books in school dealing with sexual orientation and gender identity has come to MCPS, though in a pretty mild form. While there are posters on both sides of this issue, the majority seem opposed to the opt-out demand. They reject the religious concerns expressed by some posters on the basis of separation of church and state. A few posters are not concerned about the subject matter, but simply don't think that some MCPS's choices aimed at inclusivity are challenging enough. They are fine with LGBTQ-friendly books, they just want them to be better written. While much of the discussion focuses on the controversy aspects of sexual orientation and gender identity, others posters argue that this is actually a fairly technical dispute. As one posters outlines very clearly, the families behind the lawsuit are requesting to be allowed to opt-out based on regulations governing instruction about family life and human sexuality. Since the books in question have nothing to do with instruction of human sexuality, that leaves only family life. The poster asks whether the regulations should extend to any book that portrays family life even if that is simply parents, a baby brother, and a grandmother, or only LGBTQ family life? The lawsuit is clear that the families' objections are to gay families and trans gender people and are a result of the families' religious beliefs. While one family is Muslim, the others are various Christian denominations. Frankly, the books involved are fairly mild and both the original poster and the plaintiffs have to stretch a bit to make them appear controversial. At the same time, they are not asking for a ban on the books so MCPS has not entered in to Florida or Virginia territory yet. Nevertheless, despite protestations in the lawsuit that the plaintiffs believe people of all sexual orientations and gender identities must be respected, they appear quite unwilling to have their children simply learn about the existence of such people. As such, I question how much respect can be given to those about whom you don't even want your children to know.

The next thread I'll discuss was posted in the "Real Estate" forum. Titled, "Where does $500K buy you a nice house right now..." the original poster complains that multiple listing services don't allow searches for a broad number of states at once. The poster has already explored a number of states which he lists, but would like suggestions for places he might find a home matching his requirements elsewhere. He works at home and has limited desires, consisting mostly of grocery stores and parks nearby. Posters provide a number of recommendations, sometimes including links to specific houses. The list of states that the original poster wanted excluded from the recommendations was extensive and several posters seem to have ignored it. As a result, there is a recurring pattern of posters providing lists of recommendations only to be followed by a post saying that those locations were in states excluded by the original poster. Because the original poster asked about a "nice" house, but didn't provide much clarification about what he considered "nice", many of the specific recommendations were met with objections that that house wasn't "nice". Because most of the thread consists of little more than lists of names of towns, it is hard to summarize. Hence, there is not much more that I can say about this thread.

The third thread at which I'll look is titled, "People who have affairs don't regret it" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster linked to a study published by Johns Hopkins University in which users of Ashley Madison were surveyed and found that they rarely regret having affairs. The original poster agrees with the findings and contends that "cheaters" don't regret their affairs, they regret getting caught. Many posters agree with the original poster, with some attributing lack of regret to the same character flaws that those posters believe led to cheating in the first place. Another poster highlights a portion of the study in which a researcher posits that affairs don't reflect the strength or weakness of a marriage but rather illustrate the difficulties of maintaining sexual monogamy over a long period. Another poster pointed out that Ashley Madison users surveyed for the study are likely still in the process of having affairs. She would like to see them interviewed again after they have been caught, kicked out of the house, are no longer being talked to by their children, and have been abandoned by their affair partner. They might have more regret at that point. Due to the group being studied and other reasons, quite a few of those responding believe this is a flawed study and, as such, shouldn't be taken very seriously. There are a number of posters who say that they cheated during marriages. Some of them have no regrets, though most do. However, most of those who have regrets don't regret the affair so much as they regret simply not getting divorced in the first place. Throughout the thread a variety of views are aired about affairs. Of course, most of those responding find the entire concept abhorrent, but a number don't consider affairs to be a big deal. That's true even among some posters who say they have never had an affair and are unlikely to do so. One poster divides cheaters into separate categories depending on their motivations such as those with low empathy, those who no longer love their spouse, and those in sexless marriages. The poster believes the first two groups are unlikely to feel regret while the last group might. Responses in the thread suggest the topic might be even more complex than that with a long spectrum of cheaters.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Rs are terminally out of touch with normal people", the original poster uses the example of Nikki Haley joking about Dylan Mulvaney while campaigning in New Hampshire to claim that Republicans are out of touch with "normal people". The original poster believes that very few people have any idea who Dylan Mulvaney is or the controversy surrounding her. The suggestion that Republican candidates are "terminally" online and have lost touch with the politics of real life is a criticism that has become increasingly common. It is apparent to me that Republicans are much more active online than Democrats. We see that in the DCUM political forum where, despite DCUM being dominated by liberals, conservatives often drown them out. Moreover, a fairly dependable "right-wing conspiracy website -> social media -> Fox News" pipeline has developed which gives what are rightfully marginal or even meaningless stories significant life and even importance. As such, it is understandable why Republican leaders find it difficult to ignore such things. For those included among the "normal" people to whom the original poster referred, Dylan Mulvaney is a transgender woman for whom Bud Light sponsored a single social media post. This led to conservatives boycotting Bud Light. As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, Republicans have devoted considerable energy attempting to portray their anti-transgender actions as efforts to protect children. But, Mulvaney is 26 years old and Bud Light is a product that is illegal to sell to anyone under 21. What childen are being protected in this instance? That this represents nothing more than raw transphobia is illustrated by Haley's repeated misgendering of Muvalney as "a guy" and referring to her as "he". There is no clearer case of Republicans adopting transphobia as part of their political platform. The question is whether fixating on transphobic messages will work for these Republicans or whether, as the original poster believes, they are out of touch with normal people. I have written multiple times in these blog posts and still contend that Republican candidates in Michigan went all in on transphobia during the midterm election and they got their clocks cleaned. Democrats won all top statewide offices and flipped both chambers of the state legislature. This suggests that the original poster may be on to something. The key question in politics today may be whether women voters are more concerned about transgender women or abortion rights. Haley and politicians like here are clearly banking on the former.