September

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Second 2024 Republican Primary Debate Thread" and was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. That this thread was the most active yesterday is a little surprising given that it was only created at 8:30 pm. It managed 11 pages of posts in just a few hours. I didn't watch the debate and don't have it in me to read all of the posts in this thread. If what I see on the first page is any indication, the thread is probably not worth my time, or anybody else's for that matter. The first thing I noticed was a Nikki Haley shill. The poster authored one of the first responses saying that Haley had done a great job. Two posts later, the same poster wrote to say that he was 69 years old and had never seen a candidate as strong as Haley. In the very next post, the poster responded to his own post to say that he is 49 years old and agrees. From this we can conclude that Haley is winning the vote of sock puppets between the ages of 49 and 69. I'll leave the question of whether that is a key demographic to others. It also looks like the moderators got more attention from posters than most of the candidates. The very first post of the thread pointed out that collectively the candidates participating in the debate represent only 36 percent of the polling average. If they were a single person, former President Donald Trump would be beating them in polling by 20 percentage points. As a result, it is not clear what these candidates are hoping to achieve. They may be running for second place or hoping to be chosen as Trump's running mate. But, in some cases, both of those goals seem pretty unobtainable. For instance, I don't think Chris Christie has much chance of either. One issue that seems to get a lot of attention in the thread is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' position regarding Mexico. Apparently he wants to send US armed forces into Mexico, a position about which posters were divided. Some posters were actually supportive of the idea of going to war with our southern neighbor. This highlights a big difference between the dynamics of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Among Democrats, pressure is always placed on candidates to show that they are moderate and willing to compromise with their opponents. In the Republican Party, candidates are incentivized to out extreme each other.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Does this Taylor Swift fling with the NFL football brute seem super fake?" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Like the countless British Royal Family threads, Taylor Swift threads could easily take over the entertainment forum. Unlike the BRF threads, however, Taylor Swift threads rarely result in waves of inappropriate posts that require constant intervention. Indeed, about the only complaint I ever get about Taylor Swift threads is that there are too many of them. The posters themselves seem to be extremely well-behaved. Plus, they can take a joke. This particular thread is about Swift's apparent relationship with Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce. Posters are convinced that the relationship is contrived and not authentic. The reasoning, as best I can tell, is that Kelce does not fit the image that fans have for a Swift boyfriend. Some posters argue that this is a means for Swift to bolster her popularity with "flyover country". I know very little about Taylor Swift, but even so I am fairly certain that popularity is the least of Swift's concerns. As posters point out, she is able to fill a stadium within in minutes of ticket sales opening. Some posters see Kelce as little more than a dumb jock who is far from suitable for Swift. Others rush to Kelce's defense and point out a number of factors that could make him appealing to Swift. I simply had to marvel at some of the motivations posters ascribed to Swift. My favorite was a poster who argued that by dating Kelce, Swift is hoping to appeal to the "Tens of millions of men" who have fantasy football teams and convince them that it is okay to listen to Taylor Swift records. But, the goal is not to simply to sell music, but to swing general elections. Unbeknownst to me, listening to Taylor Swift apparently makes you vote a certain way. I am a bit surprised about how even Swift's most loyal fans seem to view her as manipulative and conniving, with her every move being planned out for public relations purposes. The most charitable among them are convinced that she is simply gathering material for future songs.

The most active thread since my last post on Friday was titled, "Buyers can't have it both ways" and posted in the "Real Estate" forum. The original poster notes that in her neighborhood houses are "selling like hotcakes". The houses are all the same age and have been slightly updated or staged. However, one house that has had nothing done to it has been sitting on the market. The original poster blames the lack of interest on the fact that it would require updating after purchase. This leads the original poster to accuse buyers of trying to "have it both ways". On one hand they complain that no houses are on the market and on the other refuse to consider houses that have not been updated. Several posters provide an explanation for why houses in need of updating are avoided by new buyers. After having put nearly every cent of their savings into a down payment and closing costs, new buyers don't have cash for a renovation. If they buy an already updated house, the cost of the renovation is rolled into their mortgage. Several posters see the advantages of buying a house in need of updating. For instance, several would rather do a renovation themselves rather than accept a cheap job done only to enhance a sale and there are the obvious financial advantages. But, if they don't have the money, they can't take advantage of those benefits. A second reason cited for avoiding homes in need of updating is the disruption that comes with renovations. With months long waits for appliances or cabinets, many posters say they would just rather avoid the headaches. However, the length of this thread is a result of one of my most hated phenomenons: a fight between generations. In this case, the battle is between millennials and baby boomers. As I have repeatedly written, I don't like generational labels which I find to be of little value. I especially dislike when posters divide each other with these labels and get into arguments. In this case, millennials are accused of being lazy and too incompetent to paint their own houses while boomers are said to be overly attached to their outdated homes for which they are expecting to get far too much money. The lack of utility of generational divisions is quickly displayed by posts from millennials who not only can paint a room, but apparently have built their entire homes from the ground up with little more than a hammer and screwdriver. Similarly, plenty of boomers claim to be quite happy to spend $40k updating their home in order to charge $80k more for it. 

Before I get started on the most active posts today, I want to draw attention to the new tab our navigation bar titled, "Contribute". This is in response to posters who offered to make donations to DCUM if we would discontinue the video advertisements that we had introduced. If you are interested in such a contribution, the "Contribute" page provides linkes to Patreon and PayPal allowing you to to that. All contributions will be greatly appreciated.

The most active thread yesterday by some measure — more than doubling the number of responses of the next most active thread and racking up an amazing 19 pages in less than a day — was a thread titled, "Travelled to interview, not sure what to think of prospective boss" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster describes an in-person interview for her "dream job" for which she had waited a long time for the previous job-holder to retire. The night before she was flying, her prospective boss texted her to say that he would pick her up at the airport and take her to lunch. This did not go over well with the original poster and, after some back and forth, she was able to get those plans changed. The prospective boss had arranged a full itinerary that included quite a bit of one-on-one time which made the original poster uncomfortable. The trip ended with the original poster being told that she would be offered the job. A few days later, the prospective boss texted her again which bothered the original poster and she told him that she would be available on another day (she later clarified that she was busy organizing a conference). This caused him to angrily reply back saying that maybe he should not offer her the job. The original poster ends by saying she believes that he is interested in more than a professional relationship and that she cannot take the job. She asks for advice about what to do. There are several issues included in this post and even more become evident as posters respond. There is the obvious issue of possible sexual discrimination or harassment. In the original post, the poster does not detail anything like that but seems uncomfortable simply being alone with a man. Some posters accept this as a reasonable concern but others think the original poster is overreacting. A second facet is the question of the boss's management style. Even taking the potential gender issues out of the discussion, many posters suggest that the prospective boss and the original poster may not have compatible working styles. Multiple posters stated that what the original poster described sounds very much like the typical interview in academia and the original poster confirmed that the interview was at a state university. This leads posters to advise the original poster that she likely does not understand what working in academia involves and that her expectations are massively unrealistic. Eventually the original poster did describe a comment by the prospective boss that was likely inappropriate, but posters are divided about whether it amounted to sexual harassment. Whether posters sympathized with the original poster or not, almost everyone agreed that if the original poster is not willing to put up with the boss, her only option was to turn down the job. Nobody seemed to see any effective recourse such as complaining to the human resources departement. I mostly stopped reading after the 4th page but as best I can tell, the same arguments simply repeated page after page with posters getting increasingly frustrated with the original poster.

The most active thread since my last blog post on Friday was titled, "When the Dems Lose 2024..." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started back on September 14 but apparently gained a lot of traction over the weekend. But, since it's 18 pages long, I don't have time to read the entire thing and I am not sure why it was so active over the past three days. I've come to think of the DCUM political forum as sort of junior varsity political discussion, but even that may be overrating it much of the time. It is often just a level or so above drunk guys in the bar blurting out their political opinions. The main point the original poster makes in this thread is that President Joe Biden will lose the upcoming presidential election, leaving Democrats bewildered and confused. The poster starts out saying that Democrats mistakenly believe that the country loves Democrats, something that the poster does not believe to be true. The poster's second point is that the Biden/Harris ticket is untenable and that "you" — apparently meaning DCUM posters but maybe meaning Democrats at large — didn't develop a better option. Next, weirdly enough, the poster blames ActBlue for upsetting grassroots Democrats by emailing them too often. But, the poster really hits it out of the park by concluding that the Democrats should nominate a bipartisan ticket that includes a Republican. In a better world, this thread would have ended after the first post because everyone would have read it and decided it wasn't worth their effort to reply to such nonsense. Sadly, that did not happen. Contrary to the original poster's belief, there is not a Democrat in the world who is not chewing their nails to the quick in fear of Biden being defeated. I guarantee that absolutely nobody will be surprised if he loses. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised. Similarly, Democrats are well aware of the animosity they face in much of the country. Groups of Republicans who routinely stage armed protests in response to anything from Covid restrictions (real or imagined) to drag queen performances leave little doubt about their feelings. In a perfect world, Biden probably would have announced early on that he would not run for a second term. But, that likely would have left him as a powerless lame duck. So, I understand why he didn't. At any rate, this is not something the average person has much influence over. Similarly, we could ask why Republicans haven't found a better candidate than former President Donald Trump. As for the original poster's last point, selecting a ticket that includes a Republican, the original poster shows his true delusion. What motivation do Democrats have to put a member of the opposition party a heartbeat from the presidency? All available evidence suggests that the 2024 election will be close. Between now and then any number of things can happen to change the calculus. Anyone who believes they know the outcome now is fooling themselves.

Yesterday there were two threads tied as the most active of the day. I'll give the nod to a thread titled, "am I a ‘Karen’ for not wanting my driveway blocked?" which was posted in the "Real Estate" forum. This thread was originally quite a bit longer but I removed several off-topic posts. The original poster says that she lives in a cul-de-sac with limited parking. Three to four days a week, contractors working on her neighbor's home block her driveway with their trucks. In order to pick up her children from school, she has to go over and ask for the trucks to be moved so that she can get out. After this occurred a number of times, her neighbor posted in their Facebook group that she was being a "Karen" and didn't have the right to interrupt the contractors' work. I've often said that DCUM could be be a good topic for someone's PhD thesis because it demonstrates so much about human behavior that could be analyzed and dissected. One characteristic is for posters to respond to posts with little regard for the actual topic, but instead to focus on their own personal crusade of the day. In this case, four posts into the thread a poster chastised the original poster for using the term "Karen". I've written before about how I don't like the name "Karen" being used as a pejorative (and I proposed that it be replaced by "Elon"), but it is clear that the original poster is only using the term because that is what her neighbor called her. If this was somehow too subtle for some readers, the original poster explicitly explained this in a response to the previous poster. Nevertheless, the thread was significantly diverted by posters protesting the use of "Karen". I removed those posts, otherwise this thread would have overwhelmingly been the most active yesterday. The second characteristic of human behavior that might be worth studying is the tendency to — for lack of a better term — nitpick or find fault with the original poster no matter what. While the original poster said that her driveway was being blocked, she also said that sometimes she was able to maneuver her car around the trucks and get out, albeit with some difficulty and only after moving another of her family's cars. One poster latched on to this as evidence that the original poster was, at best, not being truthful and, at worst, was trolling. This really misses the point. The third characteristic demonstrated is the lengths to which some folks will go to excuse bad behavior. One poster agreed with the original poster's neighbor because the contractors don't have anywhere else to park and, therefore, blocking her driveway is understandable and asking them to move is wrong. On the brighter side, several of those responding offered a good solution of purchasing some traffic cones and placing them at the end of her driveway.

Over the years DCUM has expanded from its parenting roots to include several topics that are not directly related to parenting. Even so, most days parenting threads are still among the most active. Today is not one of those days. The most active topic yesterday is related to parenting only by the fact that the main personality involved is a father. The thread is titled, "Youngkin pardons Loudoun county father" and was posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. The "Loudoun Country father" is the father of a high school student who was the victim of a rape that took place in a high school bathroom. The boy convicted in the case occasionally dressed in women's clothes, but is not transgender and was involved in an ongoing relationship with the girl. They had previously met for consensual sex in the school bathroom and had arranged to meet each other in the bathroom when the rape occurred. In normal circumstances, this would be considered a case of date rape. However, the assault took place during a time when the Loudoun County Public School Board was debating the school system's policies regarding transgender students and right-wing activists had been fanning fears that the policies would allow boys into girls bath and locker rooms and, thereby, put girls in danger. School board meetings had become extremely contentious with frequent interruptions. During one such meeting, the board was told that there had not been cases of boys assaulting girls in school bathrooms, causing this father to become irate and begin shouting. He resisted as police tried to remove him from the room and pictures and video of him struggling with police officers were widely circulated and used to demonstrate the hostility of anti-trans activists. Liberals and the Commonwealth’s Attorney saw this case as part of a nationwide wave of protests against school boards that had involved frequent threats of violence. As such, the Commonwealth’s Attorney was unusually personally involved in prosecuting the case. The father was convicted of two misdemeanor charges. He was sentenced to 10 days in jail which were suspended pending good behavior. Meanwhile, right-wing anti-trans activists exploited the fact that the boy involved was wearing a skirt at the time of the attack to further anti-trans sentiments. The father became a hero to these activists and a symbol of the overreach of school boards at the expense of parents. This aligned almost perfectly with Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin's campaign of supporting parental rights and rolling back pro-trans measures within schools. It is no surprise, therefore, that Youngkin has now pardoned the father. I don't have much to say about the posts in this thread because they do little more than rehash the same arguments that have been made in a number of previous threads dealing with this assault, as well as a second one later committed by the same boy, and school trans policies.

The most active thread since my last blog post on Friday was titled, "My kid is in a class with a chair thrower" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. Last week I wrote about another thread about a disruptive child in class and I initially thought this was that thread before realizing that I had confused the two. This thread is about a student in the original poster's child's first grade class who threw a chair. The original poster is concerned about her child's safety and wants to know what recourse is available to her. A surprising number of posters in this thread have children who have been in classes with kids who throw chairs. Their attitudes towards violent children and their advice for the original poster run the gamut from calling the police to moving to private school. The biggest division in the thread is between those on one hand who view such children as being in need of compassion and advocate for what is best for such children and, on the other hand, those who are more concerned about the potential victims and who oppose the non-violent students' rights being treated as secondary. While many posters are in the middle of these extremes, it is the posters at the extremes who get the most attention. Those who advocate on behalf of the violent child are seen as dismissive of the needs of the other children. In contrast, those more interested in the safety of the other students are viewed as lacking compassion for children suffering from things outside their control. Several posters explain the hurdles and challenges that are often required in order to provide appropriate care for a violent child. There are legal, financial, and other resource constraints that lead to a time-consuming and often frustrating process. This is often perceived by victims or potential victims as a lack of concern by school administrators and teachers. This, in turn, causes some to advocate for rather extreme measures. For instance, some advocated for calling the police and reporting violent incidents, though others strongly disputed the appropriateness of involving the police with a six-year-old. Others suggested that such students should be moved to special classes or required to attend virtual school online. Other posters opposed such ideas as not being effective treatments. Several posters were frustrated that solutions that might serve the needs of both the violent student and his classmates are easily identifiable, but not easily implemented due to a lack of resources. The discussion in the thread was so heated and so divided that the thread reached nearly 60 pages before I decided enough was enough and locked it. I also had to lock a 2 page thread in the Website Feedback forum that was about this thread.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Sept. 6 WSJ Rankings" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The Wall Street Journal issued college rankings based on "how much a college improves its students’ chances of graduating on time, and how much it boosts the salaries they earn after graduation." The original poster is interested in seeing the list but had been unable to find it when visiting the library. The original poster also mentioned that the College of William and Mary had dropped significantly on the list which caused an immediate diversion of the thread to discuss William and Mary. Posters suggested ongoing construction at the university and the quality of the food in the cafeteria might be responsible. However, it doesn't appear that either of those would be factors that the WSJ considered. When posters finally got back to discussing the rankings, several posters had the same reaction that I did which was to the question the emphasis on those particular metrics. Other posters, however, argued that return on investment is among the most important factors when considering colleges. This is another example of a phenomenon in the forum about which I have complained in the past in which a significant number of posters seem to view universities as little more than glorified vocational schools. Of course, this WSJ rankings are the ultimate expression of that view. Schools are ranked, not by their effectiveness at teaching or spreading knowledge, not by the contributions of their graduates to the public good or society, but solely on their ability to pump out graduates as quickly as possible and put them into high-paying jobs. Universities are seen less as fountains of knowledge and more as widget factories, the widgets being employees for the worlds of tech and finance. The focus of the WSJ methodology caused some colleges to drop considerably from where they normally appear in rankings, provoking surprise among some posters. Others noted that top schools were penalized for having strong programs in low-paying majors.

The most active thread since I last posted on Friday was titled, "Fight btw BCC & WJ students after game @ 8:30 Friday night" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. The original poster embedded an X (formerly tweet) showing video of a brawl near the Bethesda Metro station between students from Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School and Walter Johnson High School. The incident apparently occurred following a football game between the two schools. The thread grew to 30 pages before I locked it yesterday. If you appreciate careful analysis and thoughtful dialogue, this is not the thread for you. Instead, posters seemed to simply use the thread as an opportunity to spout off about their own personal agenda. Several posters immediately acted to distance MCPS and the two schools from the violence by pointing out that it occurred off school property and that there had been good security at the game itself. Proponents of MCPS high schools in other parts of the county congratulated themselves on the outcomes of their schools' games that did not include fighting. Critics of MCPS claimed that this was another sign of the school system's decline. One poster even blamed "teaching controversial topics rather than focusing on academics" and school closures during the Covid pandemic for the fighting. Those opposed to the restorative justice process practiced by MCPS made their usual snide remarks. There were demands to kick aggressors out of school and send them to prison. Other posters demanded that parents be held responsible. The video included in the original poster showed an attacker kicking a White student who was on the grown. Many thought the student doing the kicking was Black and, as a result, fixated on race. For instance, one poster wrote that this was bad because, "People already fear and mistrust black teenagers". Racism is never far from the surface in these discussions. But, others thought the attacker was White. Subsequent video showed that both White and Black kids were attacking other students. But, the issue of race remained throughout the thread with a number of posters insistent that this was a racially-based hate crime, Most posters simply saw it as a fight between students from different high schools in which race was not a factor. At least one poster, and probably more, was adamant that B-CC students had initiated the fighting by seeking out WJ students and attacking them. Administrators of both high schools issued a joint letter in which they condemned the violence and promised that those involved would be disciplined. Other posters quoted similar letters going back several years to demonstrate that fights such as this are nothing new.