June

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "I said something really stupid/insensitive to gf and now she’s given me an ultimatum" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. I am not going to bother describing the topic of the thread because the poster was likely trolling and definitely sock puppeted throughout the thread. I had actually meant to check this thread yesterday because it came to by attention for some reason, but I didn't get around to it until this morning. Fairly quickly in the thread posters believed that they recognized the writing style of the poster and began linking to other threads that they suspected were from the same poster. The original poster denied being the author of the other threads and even challenged posters to ask me so that I could disprove the allegation. I think that there are significant elements in common between this thread and many of those believed by others to be from the same poster. But, it would take more effort than I am prepared to commit to confirm they are all from the same poster. The sock puppeting in this thread alone is enough to put the thread's authenticity in doubt. For instance, in one post, the original poster writes, "OP is a jerk" and in a subsequent post writes, "OP was already a jerk to begin with." This poster seems to be suffering from both identity and self-esteem issues. For whatever reason, the relationship forum has attracted a lot of drama seekers. The result is thread after thread of likely imaginary relationship conflict. Trolling the forum is a strange pastime if you ask me. I have to admit some amazement with the posters who are able to remember threads from, in some cases, years ago and match them to the poster of a current thread. Trolling an anonymous forum may seem like the easiest thing ever, but be warned. These posters will catch you. I don't know how they do it, but they do it.

After taking last week off from this blog, I'll review the most active threads of the 10 day period that I missed. None of these threads will likely be surprises to anyone who has paid even the least amount of attention to the news. The most active thread, by a considerable measure, was titled, "Tourist submersible missing on visit to Titanic" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. This thread followed the initial disappearance, subsequent search for, and eventual discovery of the fate of the OceanGate submersible that was lost during a visit to the wreck of the Titanic. Rather than detail the substance of this now 147 page thread, I am going to take the opportunity to be somewhat self-indulgent. I sometimes enjoy providing a behind-the-scenes look at how things work on this website. We are a two-person operation and are essentially responsible for the website 24/7, including when we are otherwise on vacation. As I announced earlier, this past week we were hosting out-of-town guests and celebrating our younger son's high school graduation. As such, I was hoping to minimize my interaction with DCUM. This thread massively interfered with that plan. Almost immediately, many posters decided that the loss of five lives was an excellent opportunity for jokes and humor. Other posters considered this disrespectful and objected to it. My inbox was soon filled with reports of inappropriate posts. When I apparently didn't respond quickly enough, a poster continued reporting posts, but then also started replying to the posts and simply adding the word "reported". Those posts provoked responses arguing about the reports and reports complaining about the messages saying "reported". So, what might have been a single report morphed into five or more posts or reports, multiplied several times. I was forced to take a break from touring the Udvar-Hazy Center annex to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in order to sit with my phone trying to stem the tidal wave that was flooding my inbox. I blocked the IP address of the poster who continually replied "reported". But, when the block expired, she spent several days posting complaints about the block and creating even more posts for me to remove. There was considerable disagreement in this thread about the applicability of DCUM's "48 hour rule" which prohibits negative posts about deceased individuals for the first 48 hours after their death. In the beginning, this rule was thought by some not to apply because no deaths had been confirmed. Once parts of the destroyed vessel were discovered, some posters argued that 48 hours had already passed since the deaths. My concern was less about splitting hairs but more focused on keeping the thread substantive and on-topic. I didn't see much need for absurd discussion of orcas, unfunny attempts at humor (which in many cases was simply copied without attribution from Twitter), or lame poetry. Ironically, with the thread reaching nearly 2,200 posts, as recently as yesterday a poster was still complaining about posts being removed. I think plenty has been posted and nothing of importance was likely missed.

The top two most active threads were the threads about the Asian student who was rejected from top colleges and the thread about Trump's indictment. Since I've already discussed those two, I'll move to the third most active thread which was titled, "Rose Montoya in the White House" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. For those of you lucky enough to have avoided hearing about this story, Rose Montoya is a transgender woman who is a professional model, social media star, and transgender activist. During the Pride event recently held at the White House, she briefly bared and fondled her breasts while being filmed. The original poster of this thread, who describes herself as a strong supporter of the gay and trans communities, is appalled by this behavior and asks if others are as well. Almost all of those weighing in find the behavior inappropriate. But, for critics of President Joe Biden, the episode provided an opportunity. Some posters argued that since Montoya was not kicked out of the event, it means that Biden condoned the display of nudity. The White House quickly issued a statement disapproving of the behavior and promising never to invite Montoya and others who similarly engaged in nudity back to the White House. But, that did nothing to quell the flood of criticism directed at Biden. Moreover, several posters seized this as a chance for criticisms of the entire trans community. Posters claimed that this incident was emblematic of trans activism and separated trans activist from gay rights proponents, ignoring all of the provocative acts that gay rights activists have undertaken over the years. Other posters pushed back on this saying that Montoya didn't represent the entire trans community and the issue was the inappropriate behavior, not group to which the perpetrator belonged. It is always interesting which individuals are designated as representatives of their entire communities. Montoya, of whom I would bet most DCUM posters had previously not heard, is suddenly the poster child for the trans community. If a Black person had misbehaved, that would similarly be said to reflect poorly on the Black community. But, former President Donald Trump was recently found liable for sexual assault. Nobody argues that reflects negatively on all White men. Indeed, a number of posters don't even think it reflects poorly on Trump. In reality, this is a meaningless incident not worthy of discussion, let alone being among the most active threads. Unfortunately, in today's political environment, it is nearly the perfect storm. The almost wholesale adoption of QAnon ideology by the Republican Party has convinced millions that the Democrats are a party of child groomers trying to turn your children gay and trans. Having a transwoman expose her breasts on the White House lawn at an event that included children does little to disabuse them of that idea and, to the contrary, has given Republicans an opportunity to further amplify the perception.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Asian American student with 1590 SAT score blames affirmative action for rejections from 6 colleges" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original post consists entirely of a quote from an article about an Asian American college applicant who was turned down by six top colleges despite outstanding test scores and grade point average. The student blames affirmative action for these results and has joined in two lawsuits that are trying to end affirmative action. The original poster did not include any of his own thoughts, but they were apparently not needed to provoke discussion on this topic. The topics of affirmative action, discrimination against Asian Americans in college admissions, and the court cases have all been well-covered in our college forum. The court cases, which are currently before the Supreme Court, could literally be decided any day now. A significant number of posters believe the decisions will be favorable to Asian Americans and are looking forward to such an outcome with high expectations. Other posters appear to be getting frustrated with the entire subject and this student's plight was not met with as much sympathy as it might once have been. As posters were quick to point out, two of the schools are "test blind" and, therefore, his test scores wouldn't have been a factor. In addition, while the University of California, Berkeley was one of the colleges that rejected him, California has banned affirmative action in college admissions. The student alleges that he would have had a significantly higher chance of being accepted if he were Black rather than Asian. But, the lawsuit against Harvard alleges discrimination against Asian Americans in favor of White applicants. As such, many of those responding view the student's joining the legal action as performative without a lot of legal justification. Those responding are able to point to multiple factors that they believe make college admissions inherently unfair and don't seem to accept that the process is any more unfair for this student or Asian Americans in general. Despite this student's outstanding stats, many posters are not impressed and claim that such test scores and GPAs are not uncommon. For the most part, this thread simply rehashes the same old arguments about affirmative action and other factors that impact college admissions. There is debate about the value of test scores and GPA versus less objective factors that might indicate an ability to succeed. Everyone seems to agree that the admissions process is unfair, but they all also think it is biased against them. So, they disagree on the nature of the unfairness.

Once again the two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed and, therefore, I'll start with yesterday's third most active thread. That thread was titled, "Sharing pronouns at work" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster says that she just attended inclusivity training at her company and, for the second time, employees were asked to include their pronouns in their email signatures and when they introduce themselves in meetings. The original poster did not comply the first time that employees were asked to do this and doesn't understand why her not doing so would offend others. She asks to be enlightened about the importance of sharing pronouns. The announcing of pronouns in work and social situations has been controversial on DCUM for a while. I am not sure that this thread advances the conversation in any meaningful way. As usual, there are posters who support sharing pronouns in order to be inclusive of those whose pronouns might not be obvious. They say that providing pronouns avoids those whose pronouns might not match their gender expression being singled out and it proactively signals acceptance to them. On the other hand, there are posters who consider listing pronouns to be nothing more than woke virtue singling. Some of them get irrationally angry over the subject and one poster considers a requirement to include pronouns to be a threat to democracy. Some posters don't care about the culture war aspects of pronouns. They just want to know how to address someone properly. For others, this is simply an issue of adhering to company standards. Some of the female posters who work in male-dominated industries have a different perspective. They prefer that their gender not be obvious because they feel they are taking more seriously if they are mistakenly considered to be male. Some will even make an effort to identify themselves ambiguously in order to make their gender less obvious. Whether true or not, there is a perception that the current emphasis on pronouns is being driven by youth. As a result, some of the resentment about sharing pronouns is mixed with disdain for young people. More than one poster would love for Zoomers to get of their lawn and take their pronouns with them.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "what is with parents serving alcohol at parties for kids who are 15 and 16?" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. The original poster says that she has kids in two different "Big 3" priviate schools and in the past week both kids have been invited to parties marking either the end of the school year or graduation at which alcohol has been served by parents. The kids range in age from 15 - 18. When the original poster asked one of her children about this, she was told, "it's a private school thing mom. All the parents do it." The original poster asks if this is really true and if she is just out of touch. The responses to this post are, in my opinion, odd. This is basically a "yes" or "no" question, but rather than provide such answers, posters point out that drinking by teenagers is common in Europe, that drinking occurs at public school parties also, and that Americans are puritanical. So, I guess the answer is "yes" and these kinds of parties are common. In spite of this, several posters side with the original poster in thinking these parties are not a good idea. Some are simply opposed to young people drinking, but others are more concerned about legal liability and kids possibly driving home drunk. Comparing attitudes about drinking between the US and Europe is common throughout this thread, though even some Europeans opposed these type of parties. One topic of contention is what this behavior indicates about parenting. Several posters insist that adults who serve alchohol at parties are trying to be "cool" or friends with their kids. These posters argue that kids need "parents", not "friends" and consider this to be terrible parenting. Several posters said that they no longer let their children visit homes of parents that are known to serve alcohol to those who are under-aged. I didn't read every post in this thread, but I didn't see any posts from parents saying that they actually hosted such events and offering a defense of their behavior. Generally, justifications were of the "it's common in Europe" type.

Most of yesterday's most active threads might cause feelings of déjà vu. The first of those was titled, "$300k house near swim and tennis clubs, sports facilities, and great schools and jobs anywhere in the US" and posted in the "Real Estate" forum. I recently discussed a very similar thread in which the poster had a somewhat higher budget of $500,000. The original poster of this thread is recently divorced and must downsize. The poster has a child who is about to enter high school and who is a gifted athlete. The poster says where they live now is too expensive and she would like recommendations for a place where a house can be purchased for $300,000 and has good schools, available sports activities, and good jobs. The responses in many cases remind me of the expression, "good, fast, cheap, pick two" meaning that you can't get all three of those things. In this case, those responding suggest the list is more like, "affordable, quality schools, good jobs, pick two" because as the availability of good jobs and good schools goes up, so does the price of housing. Even so, many responders have suggestions. However, most of the suggestions actually come from the original poster herself who has independently identified potentially suitable cities and asks for opinions about the high schools. Other posters caution about high property taxes in some areas that have otherwise affordable housing. The original poster also seems to prioritize the weather, ruling out several places because they are too cold and also worrying about the bugs and humidity in southern states. Suggestions from other posters as well as from the original poster herself are for locations all over the place with little coherence. One repeated suggestion that also came up in the earlier thread was to look for college towns based on the assumption that the professors would demand good schools.

Today I'll look at the most active threads since Friday. During that period, the most active thread was titled, "Why don’t college students understand that they’re supposed to preserve optionality?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Somehow this thread managed to escape my notice until just now and at 14 pages in length, I'm not able to do more than skim a few pages. Because I am unfamiliar with the term "optionality", I was immediately confused by the title. After reading the original post, I realized that the original poster simply meant "options". I see that the first poster to respond had almost idenical thinking. The original poster strongly believes that college majors and even first jobs should be chosen with the goal of preserving options. The poster recommends pursuing STEM majors and then working in the fields of investment banking or management consulting. Several of those responding have little regard for those fields and don't seem to believe any number of options would be worth preserving if working in such jobs were a requirement. Skimming this thread, it appears to be a rehash of a common theme of the college forum. The original poster sees the primary goal of college to be upward mobility, preparing students for a job which should put them firmly on a path for financial success (where "financial success" is defined as "wealthy"). Not explicitly said, but clearly implied, is that these students must, of course, attend elite colleges. The path of top high school -> elite college -> Goldman Sachs or McKinsey is somewhat of a DCUM archetype, aspired to if not always achieved by a number of posters. In contrast to this idea of the road to success is the view that the point of college is to get an education and that success is achieved through happiness and a range of goals beyond the purely financial. In some ways, this debate is a version of the STEM vs humanities clash that seem ever present in the college forum, but with a twist because the goal of the STEM degree is investment banking or management consulting rather than in a FAANG company. There are representatives of both sides of this dispute in the thread with many who see some truth in the original poster's position, either claiming to have followed a similar path or known those who did. In contrast are posters who are working in fields that they love and wouldn't wanted to have done things differently. As one of them says, "I’m 50 with a successful career and I can’t imagine anything worse than working for one of the Big 4 or similar types of consulting firm."

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Who are foreign people always talking to?" which was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that whether she is in a taxi, an Uber, or a nail salon, she encounters people speaking loudly on their telephones in foreign languages. The poster thinks this is strange behavior and wonders to whom these people are talking. When I first saw this thread yesterday, I assumed that it would be offensive and result in lots of upset posters. But, for the post part, that was not the case. Even those who objected to the original poster's observations kept their responses calm and substantive. I don't think any noteworthy fights broke out in the thread which is a pleasant surprise. Instead, those responding took the topic seriously and tried to provide useful responses. For instance, one of the first to respond said that her foreign-born mother is just gossiping with anyone available to take a call. Another poster who describes herself as an immigrant admits to being guilty of this and explains that she talks to a broad range of friends and relatives. She says that it is a cultural norm for them to keep in close touch and that they communicate about about a wide variety of topics. Several posters bring up the culture aspects and say that they come from much more communal cultures where people are rarely alone. Talking on the phone replaces the in-person communication to which they were accustomed. Several posters mentioned that they speak foreign languages and can often understand those on the phone. They report hearing themselves being talked about in many cases. On the other hand, a poster who described herself as a foreigner said that neither she nor her husband spend much time on the phone. She suggests that the original poster has "observational bias" and is simply more likely to notice and remember those speaking in foreign languages. Similarly, another poster has encountered many non-foreigners speaking loudly on their phones in the grocery store. One poster says her husband, who has no foreign ties, is also always on the phone and has a need to constantly be chatting. For some posters, the language being used on a call was of little matter. They hate hearing people talking on their phones regardless of the language.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Large early inheritance to only 1 of 3 siblings?" and posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. It's always somewhat surprising to me when the most active thread is one of which I was completely unaware. That is the case here, with the thread reaching 8 pages without me knowing about it. The original poster describes a scenario in which elderly parents have three children who are all married and professionally employed. One of the three siblings works in a church and, while financially comfortable, is less well off than the other two siblings. That sibling was the beneficiary of a $1 million gift from the parents that allowed them to live at a higher standard of living than the others, purchasing a large house in the most desirable neighborhood of the city and sending their children to private school. The parents do not plan to provide similar gifts to the two other siblings and any future inheritance will, presumably, be split evenly. The original poster asks for thoughts or advice about this situation. I almost immediately noticed that the original poster was sock puppeting on a fairly large scale. Most of those responding argue that the parents can do whatever they want with their money. The original poster, without identifying herself, doesn't disagree with that but describes it as "a bad idea" that is "strange" and "awkward". That provokes a question about why it is a bad idea. To which the original poster replies, again without identifying herself, "I’ve got three kids and it certainly seems like a bad idea to me." This sort of back and forth is a pattern throughout the thread. The original poster tries to support her original post surreptitiously, but only creates more questions and backlash. Other posters, not really engaged with the original poster's narrative, explain what they would have done in the parent's place or describe their own plans for dividing money between their own children. Several posters argue that good relations among siblings are more important than money and urge the original poster to focus on that. One poster finds the dispute so pathetic that she promises to give any estate she has to charity rather than have her children argue over money. The original poster, still not identifying herself, agrees that would make more sense than giving it to one child.