June

Today's post is going to be a little different. One reason for that is because almost half of the most active threads yesterday were on the topic of the decision by the US Supreme Court to prohibit race as a factor in college and university admissions. The most active thread of the bunch on this topic, as well as being the most active thread of the day and already the fourth most active thread of the last 30 days was titled, "US Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action in College Admissions" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread is already 73 pages long and has almost 1,000 posts. All in less than 24 hours. The second was titled, "SCOTUS outlaws race as college admissions factor" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. In comparison, this thread is positively subdued at only 42 pages and less than 600 posts. Mind you, that would be enough for the most active thread of the week most times. Several posters reported these threads expecting that I would want to lock one rather than have duplicate threads. But, I was afraid that mixing the Political and College forum users might have an impact similar to that of of crossing the proton streams in Ghostbusters. I couldn't take that risk. When there are events like this court decision that spur incredibly active threads, some posters fear their posts will be lost in the mix and, instead of joining an existing thread, start new ones. The more clever among them will try to find an unique spin because I will lock or delete an obvious duplicate. One such thread was posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum and titled, "Won't the AA ruling be particularly bad for private school URMs?" Similarly, another thread was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum titled, "So what is changing? Questions about SC affirmative action decision". I didn't actually know about the last two until just now or I might have locked them. I haven't read any of these threads, other than a few posts that were reported. We have been preparing for weeks for this Court decision expecting this type of reaction on DCUM and assuming that we would be inundated by reports and basically have to devote ourselves fulltime to moderating the threads. However, there have been very few reports and for the most part we ended up ignoring the threads. They likely could benefit from some supervision, but the threads are simply moving too quickly to keep up.

Yesterday's most active thread was the "Karen" thread that I discussed yesterday. So, I'll skip that one and start with the next most active thread which was titled, "I cannot believe there are still people out there spanking their children..." and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster says that she saw in another thread that some parents still spank their kids and she is "floored". Spanking is a perenial topic that is always divisive. As in this thread, there are posters who believe that spanking is necessary to create discipline. As one of the first posters to respond writes, "It's pretty obvious your kids are the ones disrupting everyone else, OP." Such posters attribute a host of negative behaviors to children who are not spanked. In response, posters with views similar to those of the original poster argue that discipline is possible without spanking. "You do know you can discipline without hitting right?", says one such poster. In between are posters such as one who writes, "I think a swat on the butt is no big deal. Spanking with an eye to hurt is a different animal." Basically, these three positions are stated and restated throughout the thread, along with a large helping of stories about posters' own experiences growing up. Several posters seem to take a perverse pride in having been spanked when they were young. Some posters also discuss laws against spanking that exist in other countries and suggest that spanking is a barbaric and unenlightened practice. Others blame a host of today's problems on a decline in spanking. One of the more bizarre exchanges I stumbled across involved the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation not to spank. A poster argued that this recommendation is not valid because the organization is silent about the practice of "cry it out" which the poster apparently also considers abusive. This left me pondering whether there are people out there who support spanking but find CIO too barbaric. However, it turns out that the poster in question actually opposes spanking. She just has a bone to pick with the AAP and apparently believes that criticizing the organization is more important than acknowledging a policy position with which she agrees. Another argument made in the thread is that far worse things happen to children than spanking so, it is implied, spanking is not worth the concern. I imagine such posters refusing to fix flat tires on their cars because other cars have blown their engines or been totaled in wrecks.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Is Karen considered a racial slur?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that her high school-aged daughter told her about a discussion at school in which a student was corrected by a teacher for using the term "Karen" because the teacher viewed the term as a racial slur. The original poster does not view "Karen" as a slur and asks whether this is a common interpretation. There are a number of issues to consider here. One is that there is no universally agreed upon definition of "Karen". Wikipedia defines "Karen" as "a middle-class white woman perceived as entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is normal." Dictionary.com's definition is slightly different saying "Karen" refers to "an obnoxious, angry, entitled, and often racist middle-aged white woman who uses her privilege to get her way or police other people’s behaviors." When I first encountered "Karen" as a meme rather than a first name, I remember it differing somewhat from both of those definitions. "Karen" was a middle-aged, perhaps middle class, White woman with a bob haircut who wanted to speak to the manager. I always found this a bit bewildering because I was always taught that, if you were not satisfied with the service being provided, you should speak to the manager. In fact, I have spoken to a great many managers in my lifetime. So, what was the problem here? Eventually, the meaning of "Karen" morphed to describe a White woman who uses her racial privilege to harm or otherwise disadvantage others, especially Black men. However, I have seen posters on DCUM use "Karen" to mean any number of things. To some extent, it has simply become a substitute for the word "bitch". "Karen" as a name and in its original connotation as a meme is closely associated with white women. As such, there is no denying its racial and gender implications. Therefore, many consider it to be a racist and sexist pejorative. Several of those responding in this thread argue that "Karen" is used to silence women, particularly White women. An interesting discussion could probably be held on the relationship of race, gender, and privilege and how those things relate to the term "Karen". In its most common usage, "Karen" assumes that White women have racial privilege which they exploit, frequently against Black men. White women, on the other hand, often see themselves not as privileged, but rather suffering from gender discrimination that encumbers them with a host of disadvantages. As such, "Karen" is simply a misogynistic effort to discourage women from standing up for or asserting themselves. Another thing to consider is the difference between how the term many have been meant when used and how it was interpreted. Someone may very well call someone a "Karen" due to the individual's overly-entitled behavior. But, this could easily be perceived as criticism resulting from the individual's race and gender. For this reason, while I think the idea behind "Karen" can be useful, in actual practice, "Karen" is not the appropriate term for it. It would be great to have a term to refer to overly-entitled, self-absorbed, self unaware, obnoxious folks of whatever race or gender. But, instead of "Karen", I propose "Elon".

Yesterday the thread about the Asian American student who was rejected by several top colleges continued to lead the most active list. Again, since I've already written about the thread, I'll start with the next one. That thread was titled, "Protest at Mundo on P street" and posted in the "DC Public and Public Charter Schools" forum. Mundo Verde is a District of Columbia public charter school that has a bilingual, experiential, "green" curriculum. As such, it checks a lot of boxes for progressive families who are interested in social responsibility and has been one of the more popular schools among DCUM posters. While schools like Mundo Verde have developed fan clubs in the forum, they have also inspired groups of detractors. Neither side tends to be shy about voicing opinions. This thread is specifically about protests that have been held by 3rd grade families at one of Mundo Verde's two campuses. Based on what I have read in the thread, the third grade has suffered from teacher attrition and had poor academic outcomes. Caregivers are protesting in support of a list of demands including that two adult teachers be provided for third graders, specific goals for teaching math and ELA, and other items. Many posters lament the dismal experience these children appear to have experienced and sympathize with the families. Some posters use the thread as an opportunity to air long-held grudges against Mundo Verde. On the other hand, many posters emphasize that the protests are limited to a single campus and the complaints do not reflect conditions at the second campus where, posters insist, students and families are very happy. Some posters go further and claim the protest only reflects dissatisfaction with a single grade and not the entire campus. Eventually, the thread turned into a wide-ranging debate involving a host of issues including public vs public charter school rivalry, competition between Mundo Verde and various other schools, and the role of the Public Charter School Board.

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?

As has been my habit, I skipped this blog over the weekend so today I'll look at the most active threads since my last post on Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "Lock him up indictment FL" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread is about the indictment of former President Donald Trump on federal charges related to government documents that he took from the White House and kept illegally in his Mar-a-lago residence. The thread is 46 pages and, therefore, too long for me to read completely or provide much in the way of a summary. Suffice it to say that there are significant differences of opinion between Trump critics and Trump supporters. The first group was overjoyed with many posters repeating Trump's frequent demand with regard to Hillary Clinton to "lock her up". This expression, which is mocked in the thread's title, appears to have come back to haunt the former president. Trump's fans, on the other hand, also referenced Clinton, arguing that the failure to prosecute her displayed a double standard. While there is probably nothing that will break through the cloaks of ignorance in which these posters are determined to ensconce themselves, there are significant differences between the cases. As Secretary of State, Clinton established a private email server at the advice of predecessors. Investigations later showed that a very small number of the emails sent to the server contained classified information. However, investigators did not find evidence that Clinton had intentionally or willfully mishandled classified information. In addition, investigators could find no evidence that the server had been compromised by adversaries. Moreover, Clinton made no effort to maintain possession of the classified information once it was discovered. Similarly, a researcher discovered classified documents that had been inadvertently included among documents donated by then Vice President Joe Biden to the University of Pennsylvania. These documents were immediately returned to the government. Subsequent searches by Biden's lawyers discovered classified documents stored in other locations and they were also returned. In Trump's case, his possession of classified documents was discovered fairly quickly and efforts made to have them returned. Trump not only failed to comply, but — according to the indictment — actually obstructed the effort to return the documents. So, whereas the cases of Clinton and Biden involved the inadvertent mishandling of classified information which they cooperated to return, Trump's case involves the failure to comply and actual obstruction of efforts by the Government to regain possession of the documents. It is highly likely that had Trump cooperated instead of obstructing the retrieval of the documents, things would not have come to this.

The two most active threads yesterday were threads that I've already discussed so I'll skip them. As a topic, discussion of air quality easily overwhelmed everything yesterday with threads on various aspects of DC's smoke-filled air popping up in nearly every forum. One of those titled, "Red air quality, are you limiting activity?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, was yesterday's third most active thread. The original poster said that she had moved a meeting that had been planned for outdoors to the inside and was debating about what to do about her kids' swim team in the evening. In many ways, yesterday's reaction to the poor air quality was reminiscent of the COVID pandemic, right down to debates about masks. Many posters went into full panic mode, avoiding nearly any outside exposure and making dire warnings. Others proudly bragged about having just returned from long, maskless runs outside. Posters snarked at those showing concern, implying that they were Chicken Littles. While some posters described a range of adverse reactions to the smoke including watering eyes and sore throats, others claimed to feel nothing as a result of the poor air quality. Discussion turned to related topics such as how to mitigate poor air quality by using air purifiers and who or what was responsible for the smoke. Throughout the thread posters reported about various events being cancelled, again bringing back memories of COVID shutdowns. The COVID analogy was even more explicit in several posts with their authors engaging in past arguments from COVID discussions.