Monday's Most Active Threads

Frequently when I look at the list of the most active threads there are a few that I don't recognize and know nothing about. That's normally an indication that no posts from that thread were reported but also means that the topic didn't catch my eye for whatever reason. However, it is rare when every thread in the list is unfamiliar to me. That is essentially the case today. The most active thread was titled, "Where are people’s manners?" and posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. When I saw the thread's title, I was quite sure that this was the first time I was encountering it. But, then I remembered that there had been a single report complaining that posters were piling on the original poster. I had glanced at the last page of the thread and decided things didn't look too bad and left it alone. So, while, strictly speaking, this morning was not the first time I've been exposed to the thread, I really didn't know anything about it. The original poster says that her family and another family rented a beach house together. They invited a third family to visit for one day. When that family arrived, the kids were hungry and immediately ate all the snacks in the house. Even the dog was hungry and the orignal poster had to feed it. The family went through the refrigerator, kitchen cabinets, bedroom closets, and made use of the bedroom and swimming equipment. All without asking. The original poster wonders whether people have no sense of personal space or personal property anymore. Based on the responses, people do not. Surprising to me, posters seem to have no problem with the guests rummaging through the cabinets and closets and eating everything in sight. Most of those responding found ways to place blame on the original poster. The original poster might be faulted for not having adequate snacks on hand and maybe could have been a bit more assertive in offering things before the visitors were compelled to take things into their own hands, but generally those responding seemed eager to find fault with the original poster. Some posters straight out claimed that the original poster was either inventing or embellishing the story. This leads me to an observation about the DCUM forum. The perceived tone of a post has a hugely significant impact on how others respond to it. If a poster is perceived to be whiny, they are not likely to find much sympathy. Similarly with posters who appear to be exaggerating or over-reacting. The forum can be very supportive of those whose situations appear to be objectively difficult, but it can be quite mean to those believed to be complaining unnecessarily. Several posters were almost explicit about this, complaining that the original poster was being overly dramatic and justifying their unsupportive responses on that basis. Multiple posters said that the original poster sounded "really uptight". A few posters did pay more attention to the facts than the tone and those posters tended to side more with the original poster. It makes me wonder whether the same post, written slightly differently in order to evoke a different tone, would have generated a more supportive response.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum and titled "How would you respond if somebody asked you a question that you didn't want to answer?" The original poster didn't really provide much in the way of explanation for this question, only asking how others would respond. This is another thread which I definitely haven't encountered until just now. My immediate reaction was to wonder how this question could be answered without further details. But others had no problem providing stock answers. Several said that they would reply by saying variations of "I don't want to answer that question". Other posters said they would have trouble being so direct and preferred other approaches such asking them a question in response. There was disagreement about responding by saying a variation of "why do you ask?" A number of posters liked this response but others thought the reason for asking would be obvious or the question would simply extend a conversation that they preferred to end. The issues of the questioner's motive played a big role in responses. Those posters who like to ask, "why do you ask" thought their question might reveal the motive and allow them to respond in a way that is helpful while not necessarily answering the actual question. But, for others, a questioner's suspected motive is a major factor in their not wanting to respond to the question. For example, one poster described not wanting to answer a fairly innocuous question because she suspected the person asking her would scrutinize and second guess her answer. Similar to my initial reaction, several posters pointed out that the actual question and the context affect how they would respond. My own made-up example to illustrate this would be someone who does not like to reveal their age being asked how old they are. That person would probably respond much differently to this question if it came from their boss than if it were asked by someone standing in line behind them at Giant. Moreover, they would likely respond differently than in both of those situations if the question were asked by a doctor giving them a physical. This really doesn't seem like a one-size fits all question. Surprisingly, even though DCUM posters are renown for demanding posters provide more details, there seemed to be very little interest in more information from the original poster. Perhaps posters suspected that she wouldn't want to answer?

Technically I had heard of the next most active thread because I was the one who started it. That was the thread about video ads that I discussed yesterday. But, I'll skip that one today and move to a thread of which I definitely was not aware until just now. That thread was titled, "Passive Aggressive Wedding Invites" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. What the original poster describes as "passive aggressive" wedding invitations seem to simply be invitations to weddings whose schedules are inconvenient for the original poster. She is particularly bothered by weddings that are scheduled on Sundays because, if travel is involved, they require her to take Mondays off from work. She went into great detail about one recent invitation. Among other things, she is perturbed that the bride and groom did not adequately consider the needs of her 16-year-old daughter and her dog. Back to my point about a message's tone, this is one in which I would expect the original poster to be in for a rough time of it. There were a number of posters who were compelled to remind the original poster that other people's weddings do not revolve around her, but most of those responding were fairly well-behaved. Many posters advised the original poster to just decline the invitation. Some argued that the scheduling suggested that that the couple was trying do discourage guests from attending. A number of posters suggested that the 16-year-old could stay home and take care of the dog. That would remove those obstacles from the original poster attending. However, that idea did not go over well with some posters, including the original poster. Other posters were more concerned that the wedding would conflict with NFL football games. There is quite a bit of discussion about whether a Sunday wedding is a Catholic tradition. Some said that it was, others had never heard of such a thing, and others still suggested it was normal when a Catholic marries a Protestant.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. Titled, "Parents of 3- do you wish you’d stopped at 2 or 1", the thread is another one of which I was not aware until just now. The original poster has three children, all of whom she loves very much. However, she still feels that stopping at two would have been better for her family. She wonders if others feel the same way. Responses are all over the place. Multiple posters say that they were so happy about having three children that they had a fourth, or wish they had had a fourth. A small number of posters do suggest at least sometimes feeling regret for having a third. Several posters are concerned that the original poster is asking this question and either advise therapy or suggest simply asking the question shows that she wishes one of her children did not exist. Very quickly this thread degenerated into an argument about family sizes. Some saw a relationship between the number of children and social class. One poster pointed out that for middle class families, the cost of college education makes three kids prohibitively expensive. Similarly, several posters argued that having more than two children is a status symbol for the wealthy. Many posters described either their own experiences or those of families to whom they were close and provided stories in which things turned out great and stories of cases in which they didn't. There were several arguments about which family size is better with posters arguing in favor of both small and large families. Several parents of more than two children took pride in their ability to rise to the occasion and being able to care for three or more children. They described themselves as considerably less overwhelmed than acquaintances with only one child. One poster seemed to be particularly negative about the entire topic of children, let alone more than two. The poster didn't see becoming a parent as much of an accomplishment and believes that children, especially more than two, are a "massive drivers of climate change". More than one poster saw a relationship between the gender of the first two children and a desire or suggestions from others for a third child. For instance, the mother of two girls might frequently be asked if she would try for a boy or the mother of two boys might be asked if she would still want a daughter.