August

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Leaked training shows teachers being directed to allow gender & name changes without parent consent, transitioning?" and posted in the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum. Let me be clear and say that this thread was an extremely successful trolling exercise. How schools deal with transgender issues has been a hot topic in most of our schools forums (and even a few non-school forums), but the Fairfax County Public Schools forum has been absolutely obsessed with the topic. Much of that has to do with the school system's refusal to strictly comply with new model policies released by Governor Glenn Youngkin's administration. This thread starts out with the original poster linking to a Fox News report about "leaked" FCPS training documents regarding names that students wish to use at school. One document displayed shows three scenarios in which students might choose to use names other than their legal names. In each of the cases, the document indicates that parental permission is not required in order for teachers to use chosen names instead of legal names. The original poster described these documents as "recently leaked" and complains that they do not adhere to the state guidelines. While nobody seems to have noticed until the 10th page of the thread, the X (formerally tweet) that the original poster embedded is from August 2022, just over a year ago. I have no way of knowing whether the original poster intentionally misrepresented this news or was simply unaware of the date of her own sources. But, either way, the training material preceded the new state guidelines and is certainly not "recent". Regardless of the age of the material, heated debate ensued. Several posters agree with the training document and don't believe parental permission should be required for something as mundane as which name is used in school. Both parents and teachers alike argue that teachers are far too busy and have more important things about which to worry than what name a child wants to be called. Other posters fear that schools' adoption of chosen names of a different gender affirms a student's gender transition which they believe should not be done without parental involvement. I think from now on whenever I have to discuss a thread of this nature I am going to remind readers of the Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board decision. The US Supreme Court let stand a decision that sided with Gavin Grimm, a transgender Virginia high school student, and required that he be allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms matching his gender. While several posters in this thread criticized FCPS for not adhering to the state model policies, they seem to ignore the fact that Youngkin's guidelines are not consistent with current legal precedence. The only mention of the Grimm case I saw in the thread was a single link that offered no explanation concerning to what it was linking. But, I think this case needs to be part of all of these discussions.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "AITA: Getting crap for not attending a Friday wedding because we have no childcare" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster explains that she and her husband have been invited to her husband's cousin's wedding which will be held on a Friday afternoon at a location two hours away. The original poster has two children and has not been able to arrange childcare for them. Moreover, both the original poster and her husband are planning to use their paid time off for an upcoming vacation. Therefore, they have decided to skip the wedding. This has led to some family drama due to another relative coming into town with two kids. He first asked whether he could share childcare with the original poster and when told they were planning to miss the wedding, suggested renting short-term housing at the wedding location and hiring a local babysitter. The original poster is not interested in having her children cared for in a strange house by a stranger. Then the original poster's in-laws suggested that she care for all four kids while her husband went to the wedding. This does not solve the problem of a lack of paid time off and the original poster doesn't want to care for four kids. She wants to know if she is wrong in this situation. This thread is 12 pages and I don't have time to read it so I can't say what happened in most of the thread. But, from what I did read, some posters think the original poster is wrong because she doesn't appear to have tried very hard to find a solution for this issue. Others disagree and put blame on the others who are looking to the original poster to solve both her and the relative's childcare problem.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "The Blind Side scandal" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. This thread has been going for a while but apparently took off yesterday, adding 15 pages to reach 25 pages in total. As most can probably guess, this thread is about the lawsuit filed by former NFL player Michael Oher against Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy. Oher and the Tuohys were the subject of the 2009 movie "The Blind Side" starring Sandra Bullock. Oher claims that he just learned in February that he had not been adopted by the Tuohys as he apparently believed. Not being a family member, Oher says he did not receive payments from the movie that were provided to the couple's children. The entertainment forum seems to have attracted a number of obsessive posters who often appear deeply knowledgeable (though that appearance is often misleading) and are capable of a prodigious number of posts per day. We have seen this in threads about Meghan Markle and Taylor Swift. In this case, I don't think these posters are longtime fans of either Oher or the Tuohys, though it is pretty clear that many posters have been influenced by Bullock's portrayal of Leigh Anne Tuohy. Indeed, quite a few of those posting seem to have gotten most of their information from either the movie or the book on which the movie was based. Many of the posters in the thread are suspicious of the Tuohy's motives and accept Oher's contention that he was misled into thinking that he had been adopted when, in fact, he had not been. Some of these posters believe that the Tuohys exploited Oher, were only interested in him due to his football skills, and had no interest in making him a formal member of their family. Other posters side with the Tuohys, arguing that a conservatorship was more practical than an adoption and that Oher should have been aware of the legal implications. One argument made by Tuohy supporters is that they have not actually received that much money as a result of the book and movie and that the money they spent raising Oher exceeded any income. So they don't expect him to receive anything from the lawsuit even if it is successful. One particularly strong supporter of the Tuohys continually launched attacks on Oher that appear based on nothing more than conjecture. She suggested that Oher is out of money and going after the Tuohys as a money grab. Moreover, she alleged that this was being done at the best of Oher's wife, contending that this was mostly a mother-in-law vs. daughter-in-law conflict. I haven't seen anything to support this view, but given the innumerable mother-in-law/daughter-in-law conflicts that are routinely fought in our Family Relationships forum, it would fit right in on DCUM.

The most active thread yesterday was the thread about the lastest indictment of former President Donald Trump. But, since I've already discussed that thread, I'll start with the next most active which was titled, "Is there any way to convince a young man to step it up because he will never do better?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. There is an argument to be made that this thread would be more appropriate for the "Adult Children" forum, but I'll leave it where it is for now. The original poster says that her 25-year-old son has been dating his 25-year-old girlfriend for 5 years. The original poster likes everything about the woman and believes that her son would — in her words — "never do better". However, she describes her son as immature and failing to grow up. His girlfriend has confided in the original poster that she is losing patience with the situation and the original poster is concerned that the girlfriend will break up with her son and he will regret it for the rest of his life. To be sure, there are posters who sympathize with the original poster and urge her to have an open and honest talk with her son to make him understand what he risks losing. But, for the most part, those responding are not very supportive of the original poster. For some, this is just a matter of the son simply not being ready and, as such, he should not be pressured. Many of these posters argue that men can wait longer for marriage than women and 25 is too young. Others, are downright antagonistic towards the original poster, thinking she is way too involved in her son's affairs. Moreover, these posters suggest that the original parent has probably "over-parented" her son all along, leading to his current immaturity. These posters urge the original poster to butt out. Along these lines, several posters suggest that the original poster's son must be allowed to make his own mistakes and, hopefully, learn from them. In a follow-up post, the original poster emphasizes that marriage is not the only milestone for which her son is failing to prepare. She lists things like exploring career opportunities, regions to which to move, or buying a house in which he could take his girlfriend into consideration. She repeatedly comes back to her fear that her son will always regret losing this girlfriend. While some posters do think it is appropriate to have this fear, most of those responding aren't as sure that her son couldn't do better or don't think that really matters if he is not ready.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Rich Men North of Richmond" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. I can't believe that anyone has escaped knowledge of this song by Oliver Anthony that is being discussed nearly everywhere. Indeed prior to this thread there was already a 3 page thread in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum that I locked because it had turned into a political discussion. This song is widely seen as a rallying cry for the lower and middle classes and has been adopted by conservatives as almost an anthem. It turns out that the song's popularity has not grown completely organically, but rather as a result of a well-funded conservative campaign to promote the song. Because of the song's association with the right-wing and the tribal nature of today's society, liberals immediately attacked the song, which does touch on a number right-wing clichés. But Anthony himself says that politically he is in the middle of the road. Read carefully, the song's lyrics do have some lines that appear critical of the right-wing. For instance a line about protecting miners instead of "minors on an island" is seen as criticizing those more interested in Jeffrey Epstein than US mine workers. It is very clearly those to the right, as well as QAnon, who are most obsessed with Epstein whereas Democrats are generally more concerned with workplace safety, including in mines. In fact, the current Republican Governor of West Virginia who is also a US Senate candidate, Jim Justice, is the head of a coal mine empire that has hundreds of safety violations. Whether in the Governor's mansion in Charleston or his home in Lewisburg, Justice is a very rich man who is, if just barely, north of Richmond. Anthony also rails against fat people on welfare eating junk food. One of the ironies of both our food and wellfare systems is that unhealthy foods that lead to obesity are cheaper and more widely available than healthy foods. Our government would have to spend more to enable poor people to eat healthy. Moreover, Anthony — who describes himself as a farmer with a 90 acre farm — is likely eligible for, if not the beneficiary of, many government support programs himself. Regardless of the details, the song has resonated with a large audience. The song's lyrics are such that there is a bit for everyone included. As such, the right-wing has clearly embraced the song and others, including posters in this thread, find messages that would appeal to Bernie Sanders followers.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Wedding offenses: rank according to badness" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Lately there have been multiple threads about posters objecting to one aspect or another of a wedding. Perhaps inspired by such threads, the original poster of this thread wants to rank items in terms of how "bad" they are considered. Her own list starts with "no kids" weddings and ends with "Weddings of couples who ask for cash". But, I don't know which of those is supposed to be the worst offense. She also lists "No +1 weddings", "Destination weddings", "Dry weddings", and "No open bar weddings". My first reaction when preparing to write about this thread is that I don't like summarizing threads that consist mostly of lists. But, then I noticed that the thread was 17 pages long and I knew there is no way that posters had stuck to the program for that many pages. Sure enough, while the initial responders did  pretty much keep to ranking their wedding peeves as the original poster requested, by the third page posters starting ignoring the rankings and just expressing their opinions about things others had listed. As could be expected, this caused the thread to devolve fairly quickly as others responded to those posts and the thread was overwhelmed by debates about wedding choices. The first poster to deviate from the assigned task of ranking offenses defended the practice of not inviting kids which was one of the leading wedding peeves. This provoked a rebuttal from a poster whose kids are always well-behaved at weddings. Of course everything that was listed as an "offense" had defenders. Otherwise, none of those things would ever be done at weddings. Some posters rejected other's lists completely, supporting every practice that was ranked as an offense. This seems to be a very popular thread but the topic is lost on me. I barely remember any wedding to which I've been, including my own. I couldn't tell you which ones had cash bars or were dry and I've never been to a destination wedding. My list of offenses would probably be "too long", "uncomfortable seats", and "bad music at the reception".

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "dominate spouse during game night if you're intellectually superior?". The thread was originally posted in the "Off-Topic" forum but I moved it to the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum where it is more appropriate. The original poster considers himself to be considerably more intelligent than his wife. For the past two months they have been playing a game that involves statistics and math principles. The original poster has been letting his wife win. However, the previous night he decided to play seriously and won all four games they played that evening. This upset his wife and she went to bed in a huff. He wants to know what other couples in which one member is "far more intellectually superior" do about games. One of the reasons that the original poster considers himself much more intelligent than his wife is that he has a graduate degree in engineering while his wife has a degree in political science. As could be expected, the original poster doesn't find a lot of sympathy from those who respond. Some posters focus on the competitive aspects of the question and suggest games that rely more on luck and chance which would probably be more fun for the couple. Others suggested choosing games that were more compatible with his wife's skills. Other posters responded about his attitude towards his wife which they found disappointing, arguing that he was contemptuous of her. Still others addressed the topic of intelligence and arguing that strength in some areas does not necessarily translate into overall intelligence. Moreover, several posters noted that while the original poster might have a high IQ, he was severally challenged when it comes to EQ, with many thinking that EQ was more important. I didn't read much of this thread so I am not sure about everything that was discussed. But one other thing that I did notice were a number of posters who are extremely proud of the Scrabble skills.

The most active thread since my last blog post was the thread about the Big Ten expansion that I discussed last week. Therefore, I'll start with a thread titled, "hahaha Fox is sooo mad about Dark Brandon being turned on them" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster embedded a clip from Fox News in which a group of Fox News hosts view video of President Joe Biden drinking out of a "Dark Brandon" coffee mug. For those of you who have not followed the "Brandon" saga, this began following a NASCAR race in which the winner, Brandon Brown, was being interviewed. The crowd behind him was chanting "[Profanity] Joe Biden!" The interviewer misheard them as saying, "Let's go Brandon". "Let's go Brandon" was then adopted by anti-Biden folks as a non-profane version of the original chant. Biden and his staff eventually embraced the "Brandon" moniker and when "Dark Brandon" memes showing Biden with lasers emanating from his eyes began flooding the Internet, the Biden campaign started selling merchandise with the theme. The anti-Biden folks who once thought that they were clever referring to Biden as "Brandon" have now seen the joke completely turned on them. What the Fox News video highlighted by the original poster shows is how poorly those on the right are reacting to be hoisted on their own petard. Originally, "Let's go Brandon" was a way for the right to "own the libs", or provoke liberals into irrational anger. Now, it is a panel of five Fox News hosts left sputtering in rage — clearly completely owned by the Biden campaign — by a meme they helped inspire. As an aside, I really think that not enough attention has been paid to the fact that Fox News is a 24/7 propaganda network for Republicans. Right-wingers can talk all they want about CNN and MSNBC, but neither network would air a segment anywhere close to this one focused on a Republican. The attacks on Biden by the Fox hosts are personal and vicious and include outright falsehoods. From the network's lies about Seth Rich to the misinformation about Dominion Voting Systems that have cost the Network millions, the Fox News is consistently caught having complete disregard for the facts. Sadly, as many responses in this thread demonstrate, far too many Americans are susceptible and accepting of the indoctrination the network conducts. Nevertheless, it is fascinating that the Biden campaign managed to completely knock the network out of kilter with something as simple as a mug.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "If adults kids don’t have kids what’s the point?" and posted in the "Adult Children" forum. The original poster laments that she gave up 22 years of her life for her kids and apparently has no grand children. Therefore, she questions the point of her sacrifice and dreads what he expects to be a lonely, sad life with empty Thanksgiving tables. I am familiar with parents who live their lives vicariously through their children, but this was the first time I can recall encountering this phenomenon with regard to grandchildren. However, since a few other posters agreed with the original poster, I guess it is not uncommon. From these posters' perspective, all that they worked for in their lives was not for themselves, nor even for their children, but for their grandchildren. Without grandchildren, it was all for naught. For some of these posters this is an issue of "keeping their line going". One poster claims to be from an aristocratic family to whom a "line" is very important. On the other hand, some posters mocked the idea of a "line" that had any value. For the original poster's part, I don't think she was all that concerned about her "line". Rather, she seems to view grandchildren as something that would give value to her life. She is not interested in future generations after she's gone, but simply the remaining years of her life. Many posters disagree with the original posters' thinking. They argue that having children is a personal decision that should be done because the parents want the experience of raising children, not as a duty to their own parents. Many are critical of the original poster for not finding other things of value in her life. Almost universally, those posters who expect grandchildren react by threatening not to leave money to their children. More than one poster describes having worked diligently to amass fortunes big or small with the plan to pass them on to grandchildren, but will now find ways to spend the money. Not too many posters find this decision to be problematic and they agree that parents have no obligation to leave inheritances to their children. Generally, I found this thread to be very bizarre and, based on several responses, so did a number of other posters.

The most active thread yesterday was once again the thread in the "Political Discussion" forum about the indictment of former President Donald Trump. But, I've already discussed that thread so I will start with a thread titled, "What Schools Do You Consider ‘Prestigious?’" which was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster asks what universities people in the DC metropolitan area consider to be prestigious. Ater reading this thread, it occurred to me that this thread would be great research material for both a psychologist and a sociologist. But, sadly, those are both fields that I suspect are terribly unappreciated by the participants in this thread and, as such, any findings by those professionals would be ignored. Nevertheless, of interest to a psychologist would be the original poster himself. The poster's main interest in the thread appears to be to include Duke University among elite colleges. The poster posted multiple lists of schools he believes to be prestigious, always including Duke. The poster then repeatedly sock puppeted responses to his own posts expressing approval of his own lists. The poster would respond to other posters' lists suggeting that entries on their lists be replaced with Duke. The poster also posted standalone posts arguing that Duke was an elite school. At one point the poster favorably compared Duke to Stanford University. I am not sure if "delusions of grandeur" would be the correct diagnosis here, but probably not too far off. A second participant in the thread with whom a psychologist might be intrigued is a poster whose obsessions is with "ALDC" applicants. That refers to "recruited athletes, legacies, those on the Dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff", or those who are often granted advantages in college admissions. This poster posted at least 20 times in the thread, almost always either mentioning "ALDC" or replying to posts that did. The poster seems to consider "ALDC" synonymous with "rich white people" and implies that they are academically weak relative to other students. The poster also argues that the entire concept of "prestigious" universities is an effort by rich white people to make themselves feel good. The poster writes off entire universities due to their perceived popularity with ALDC students and dismisses certain majors as being the choices of ALDC admits. A sociologist might be interested in how this thread illustrates the decreased lack of esteem in which DCUM posters seem to hold traditional liberal arts educations. There is an argument throughout the thread about whether Yale University should be included among elite colleges, apparently due to its perceived weakness in STEM fields. Traditional liberal arts majors such as English are downplayed, even if taken at Harvard. Poster after poster suggests greater prestige for schools with strong STEM programs rather than those that have strong liberal arts offerings.