Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Once again I have to start with yesterday's third most active thread because the first two have already been discussed. That thread was titled, "Conservative DCUM'ers: how far back do you want LGBTQ rights rolled back?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster notes that this is the first Pride month in decades in which corporations or local governments were afraid to wave the rainbow flag and asks conservatives what aspects of LGBTQ rights they want to roll back. There is probably no way that I could read this entire thread and not end up wanting to blow DCUM up entirely. I don't know how any supporter of LGBTQ rights could feel otherwise. From what I've read of the thread, it consists of posters who are either deep in denial or determined to scapegoat the transgender community. There are Republicans who claim that they have no interest in rolling back LGBTQ rights, ignoring their party's agenda completely. There are Democrats who think the LGBTQ community is too vocal, especially those who are transgender. There is at least one gay man whose knowledge of history is so lacking that I assume he must have spent his entire existence trapped in a cave. Based on the posts I've read, nobody believes there is an effort to roll back LGBTQ rights. None of the posters appear to have heard of Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law. Or, if they did, they blame it on trans people. Hello, it's not called the "Don't Say Trans" law. These posters seem oblivious to LGBTQ-themed books being banned from schools and libraries or the protests provoked by them. In this thread, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' attacks on Disney simply don't exist. According to posters in this thread, the problems involving the LGBTQ community are not caused by Republicans, but by the LGBTQ community itself, particularly those who are trans. Apparently, Pride month should not be celebrated with flags and parades, but by LGBTQ individuals politely returning to the closet so as not to offend all of these self-described supporters of the LGBTQ community who simply don't want to encounter that community's actual existence. A poster complains about "hearing people yap about it all the time", repeating an oft-made criticism. I would agree with this poster if "the people" in question were those constantly attacking the LGBTQ community. Who would have even heard of Dylan Mulvaney had it not been for those who yapped incessantly about her while attacking Bud Light?

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Health and Medicine" forum. Titled, "Excellent NYT piece about shaming people to take Ozempic, etc for weight loss", the original poster links to the article referenced in the title and opines that "It’s like the reporter reads DCUM". The original poster's opinion has some justification. Weight loss drugs such as Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Ozempic have been the subject of countless threads on DCUM, most often in the "Diet and Exercise" forum, though some posters strongly believe that they rightfully belong in the "Health and Medicine" forum. I personally don't care which forum the threads are in and am content to leave that decision to the posters themselves. Regardless of in which forum the threads are posted, they tend to generate hostile responses. DCUM has a significant number of users who believe that the sole cause of weight gain is eating too much and not exercising enough. Therefore, the way to lose weight is to eat less and exercise more. The new class of drugs has generated a wave of resentful posts from those who almost take their use as a personal affront. This thread has many posts from those who have been the subject of such criticism getting their revenge. They take swipes at the "anti fat bigots" and those with "an attitude of superiority" due to their natural thinness. But, those who see weight loss as a moral struggle cannot be restrained forever. One poster writes, "It’s not that thinner people aren’t hungry, they just resist the hunger" and another says "they need to ... exercise some amount of discipline with both their diet and activity level". I'm not sure whether these posters realize that they are making the point of the article. Other posters are concerned about the cost of the drugs and the possibility that they are leading to increases in insurance premiums. A poster counters that the obesity leads to healthcare expenses which impact the cost of insurance. But, that just leads back to the argument that the obese should simply eat less. To be sure, a number of posters joined in the thread to express happiness for those who have benefitted from these drugs. Their posts counter the general negativity of the drugs' critics. But, still more posts in the thread seem to illustrate the point of the article than contradict it.

Next was a threat titled, "ILs mad that I won’t mow massive field on their ‘vacation’ property" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. Apparently the original poster's in-laws own a large plot of land in West Virginia, though they live several states away. Each summer, the in-laws host the original poster's family for what they describe as a "vacation" but which is really an opportunity to do some annual upkeep on the land. The land is not developed and consists mostly of fields which the original poster and her husband help to mow using large mowers. When they are not working, the in-laws and the original poster's family sit around near a camping trailer eating food from coolers. The original poster finds this incredibly boring and this year has decided to let her husband and children go without her. She is looking forward to spending the week without them. However, her in-laws just called and asked her to come because they need her to operate one of the mowers. The original poster refused and the in-laws called her "selfish". This has angered the original poster. This thread is not the first by this poster to end up among the most active posts that I discuss. Nor it is the first thread involving complaints about the poster's in-laws. The poster either has a fairly dramatic life or is able to dramatize it as such. I'll leave that to readers to decide. Either way, I am not prepared to read a 10 page thread about the original poster's in-laws. I assume that some posters support the original poster and some don't. But, that is pure speculation.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Titled, "Feminism is a scam- I want to be a trophy wife!", the original poster simply says that she hates working, is exhausted all the time, and thinks that feminism is a scam. DCUM has several poster archetypes, some of which I've previously discussed. This poster is representative of another archetype, posters who seem to think that any thought that enters their heads is worthy of a thread. The result is often quantity over quality. This poster recently started five threads in one day and six threads the day before that. As is the case in this thread, the poster often disappears after posting and is not around for much in the way of follow-ups. In this case, the poster managed one subsequent post in the thread which added no substance whatsoever. Meanwhile, the poster went on to create two additional threads. Clearly, this was little more than a mindless vent and not meant to be taken seriously. That's too bad, because the topic could be interesting if it were given serious treatment. Women have gained education and employment opportunities that equal, if not exceed, those of men, but often fail to find the sort of happiness to which those achievements were expected to lead. Whether that is the fault of feminism is highly debatable and whether resorting to life as a trophy wife is the answer is even more questionable. I haven't read this entire thread — it doesn't make sense for me to put more effort into it than the original poster — but it looks like some of those responding did give the topic serious thought. Others responded much more in the spirit in which the thread was created.