Tuesday's Most Active Threads

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.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. Titled, "Parking no longer free on Saturdays in MoCo lots starting 7/8/23", this thread was started a week ago in response to policy changes in Montgomery County that will require paying for parking on Sundays in county-owned lots. For reasons of which I am not quite clear, it took on a new life yesterday, adding 8 pages of posts. The local politics forum has become a battleground between those with different visions for development in our area. On on side are those who favor low density, car-centric ideas. This group is notable for its hatred of anything having to do with bicycles. On the other side are those who support higher density development and alternatives to car travel. They are strongly supportive of bike lanes. Parking is important to car proponents who see any obstacle to parking as an obstacle to driving. Parking fees on Sundays, something that didn't previously exist, is such an obstacle and, as such, an attack on their entire way of life. Or at least that is the impression one gets from their posts. To hear them tell it, parking fees on Sundays will discourage potential customers from frequenting local businesses which will, in turn, go out of business resulting in a loss of jobs. Therefore, this will have the opposite effect of creating the urbanist dream of high-density developments that attract foot and bike traffic. The urbanists, on the other hand, are happy to see anything that might discourage car traffic and increase interest in public transit, walking, and biking. Most of the recent posts appear to just be arguing about the different visions of development and have little to do with parking fees.

Next was a thread titled, "Furious over Father's Day" which was posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster explains that her siblings and parents arranged a cruise for Father's Day and didn't invite her. She is understandably bothered by this and asks if she has the right to be upset. This situation is complicated because the siblings are actually the original poster's half-siblings and the mother is her step-mom. The fact that her father has a second family that doesn't include her is upsetting. Posters are sympathetic to the original poster and many believe she has the right to be upset. Others try to provide explanations for the behavior that might make the original poster accept the situation easier. Other posters don't have the slightest bit of empathy with one simply telling the original poster that people have the right to go on vacation with whomever they want. True, but that is hardly the point. For reasons I can't explain, many posters are eager to delve into the details of the various relationships involved in this story. They pose lots of questions to the original poster who, for the most part, answers them. Some posters suggest ideas to the original poster for how to respond. For instance, one suggests planning her own trip to Europe. Some posters recognize the original poster from earlier threads that she has posted — something the original poster concedes — and build on advice offered in those threads. One poster predicted that the original poster would continue to face issues that provoke such threads until she accepts that her father is not capable of the type of relationship that she is seeking.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Real Estate" forum thought it might have been equally appropriate for the family relationship forum. Titled, "Sister buying me out of parent's vacation home", the original poster explains that her parents both recently passed away, leaving their house to the original poster and her sister. The home is in a vacation area in the midwest and the original poster has no interest in it. Her sister on the other hand would like to keep it. Based on what a real estate agent suggested the house might sell for, the original poster proposes to sell her half of it to her sister for $150,000. This price reflects a discounted value but still might require her sister to get a small mortgage. The original poster asks what others would do. Many posters believe that the price suggested by the original poster is fair. Others propose discounting it further so that her sister can avoid a mortgage. In contrast, several posters are in favor of having the home professionally appraised and then setting the price based on fair market value. Somewhat along these lines is advice from some posters that the house be viewed as if it were funds in a bank account. There wouldn't be much discussion about how to split such money fairly and a house shouldn't be treated differently. Some posters expressed concern that the original poster's sister might sell the house and reap the benefit of any discount provided by the original poster. Therefore, they advised a written agreement stipulating a length of time the sister would have to wait before selling.