September

Several of the most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed. However, that was not the case with the most active thread of the day which easily led engagement for the day. That thread was titled, "Share something that should be general knowledge, but isn't" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. As the title says, the original poster asks for suggestions of things that most people should know but they often don't. Her own example is the fact that "antibiotics only work on bacteria, not on viruses." This type of thread is difficult to summarize because they tend to simply be suggestion after suggestion, often with no real unifying theme. Moroever, this thread managed to grow to 20 pages in just a day. So, I don't have time to read it all. But, among the first suggestions were some good ones such as how tax brackets work and what the First Amendment actually protects. I assumed that in order to reach 20 pages, this thread would have to include some facts that could not realistically be expected to be common knowledge. Skimming the thread, I did come across such examples. For instance, one poster laments that more people are not aware that "acetaminophen" is called "paracetamol" in Europe. I had to Google to discover that "acetaminophen" is what I would normally call "Tylenol". I clearly fall woefully short of that poster's expectations. There were some suggestions in which I sort of feel like the common person is not being given a fair shake. For instance, posters suggested that it is not common knowledge that Europe and Africa consist of more than one country. I would argue that almost everyone is aware of this, but the issue is one of generalizing and lazy speech rather than ignorance. Saying, "I visited Europe last summer" is simply easier than saying "Last summer I visited France, Germany, Poland, and Lithuania." Some of the suggestions were not only not common knowledge, they might not have even have been true. For instance, posters could not agree whether "rounding up" a bill or adding a donation to support charity when checking out at a retail business actually results in more profit for the business. One poster argued that it does and wishes that more people were aware of this while another poster provided a link saying that if these businesses are following the law, this is not true.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Disappointed with Georgetown" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster, in a fairly lengthy post, describes his visit to Georgetown University with his son who is conducting a number of college visits. The original poster applied to and was accepted by Georgetown 30 years ago. However, presented with a better financial aid package by an unidentified liberal arts college, the original poster chose the other school instead. The original poster says that he felt "a sense of longing" as they approached the Georgetown campus, but was almost immediately let down. He was not impressed with the campus, bothered by the noise of airplanes, and intimidated by the competitiveness of admissions. Similarly, his son ended the tour with little enthusiasm for the university, saying that if he could be accepted by Georgetown, he could probably be accepted by somewhere better as well. The original poster then provided his own opinions about Georgetown which boil down to what the school has to offer not justifying its cost and the competitiveness of its admissions. Among those who responded are posters who had similar reactions to the university. On the other hand are posters who attended the school and who suggest that the original poster doesn't understand the strengths that Georgetown offers. Nearly every aspect of the original poster's opinion of Georgetown is disputed. That includes the airplane noise which several posters denied is a problem. This thread reached 18 pages in less than 24 hours so clearly posters have strong feelings about the school. But, I don't have time to read that many posts so this is as much of a summary as I can provide.

Again, I'll start with a reminder of our new "Contribute" page for those of you who may want to help keep video ads off of the website.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Our garbage gym Lifetime Centreville is ripping out the indoor basketball courts and replacing it with all pickleball" and posted in the "Sports General Discussion" forum. As the title says, the gym at which the original poster's family has a membership has converted its two basketball courts to pickleball courts. In addition, the gym removed a rock climbing wall and cancelled birthday parties and summer camps. Clearly, the gym is moving away from family-oriented programs to appeal to the older pickleball crowd. The original poster asks for suggestions for gyms convenient to her that still have basketball courts. Some time ago there were threads similar to this in which posters complained that pickleball was taking over outdoor courts. Now that process has moved indoors. Pickleball proponents make no apologies. They see the gym as simply making decisions that make financial sense and meeting the needs of a fast-growing sport (though some posters dispute whether pickleball can be legitimately called a "sport"). Their only quibble is about being described as "old". Pickleball supporters are adamant that young people also play the sport and, regardless of their own age, they are not "old" and anyone calling them old is ageist. But, at the same time, they are eager to emphasize that older folks buying individual memberships are a more lucrative market than families paying for discounted family memberships. The pickleball fans ask why the basketball players can't play outside and the basketball fans ask the same of the pickleball players. Basketball supporters ask why the courts can't be shared while pickleball supporters argue that basketball players should assimilate and accept that pickleball is the future. The bottom line is that, at least in the original poster's neck of the woods, basketball players are out of luck. There don't seem to be any viable options for them.

I want start with another reminder of our new "Contribute" page for those of you who may want to help keep video ads off of the website. The response so far has been very gratifying and we are very thankful for those who who have supported us.

Today marks one year since I started writing the "most active threads" series. So, I thought that I would take a moment to revisit the origin of these blog posts. Back in 2007 when we moved to this website platform after two years of using another, my vision of the home page blog was that it would be a place for DCUM users who have an interest in writing to contribute blog posts. A communal blog for DCUM posters, if you will. That worked okay for a while with a small group of writers offering regular articles that kept the content fresh and interesting. But, slowly, those authors moved on to other endeavors. That left me as the primary contributor and I was often pressed for time or, more often, simply out of ideas. As a result, the home page content grew stale. Often it was little more than republished press releases. A year ago, the most recent post on this blog was nearly 10 months old. Moreover, we were at the beginning of what would be a seemingly non-stop decline in advertising revenue. Among the advice I received from advertising partners was to keep content fresh. "Surely, that is not a problem for DCUM", I thought. "Our content changes every few minutes if not more often." But, that was the forum content, not the home page. So, I stretched my imagination to its limits — obviously a very short horizon — and came up with the idea of writing about active topics on the website. If popular threads would provide writing prompts, I could write about anything, I believed. My goal was not to attract readers — indeed I couldn't imagine why anyone would read such posts — but only to appease Google's search engine and algorithm. The result was my first post in this series. Originally I also posted on the weekend but eventually stopped that in order to give myself a break. But, outside of weekends I am pretty sure that I have posted every day except the day of my brother's funeral and the day we drove our younger son to college.

The first thread that I'll discuss today was titled, "NYT Article on ‘Rise of Single-Parent Families is Not a Good Thing’" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster commends and briefly quotes from an opinion article in the New York Times which discusses an increase in single-parent families and the disadvantages those families face. The original poster agrees with the article's emphasis that while stable two-parent families have significant advantages, single-parent families should not be shamed. Reading the article, I felt that the Times' headline writer had done both the author and the article itself a disservice by framing single-parent families negatively as "not a good thing". The author's book upon which the article was based and the article itself looks at things from the opposite point of view, focusing on the advantages of two-parent families. It's not that single-parent families are inherently bad, but that they generally lack the advantages of two-parent families. The two major advantages of two-parent families that the author cites are fairly obvious. The first being greater financial resources due to normally having two incomes instead of one and the second being greater parental involvement as a result of two parents being able to contribute to childrearing. The author laments that the government is unlikely to step into to help resolve either of these disadvantages single-parent families face and argues that society must find ways to promote two-parent families. I think a number of issues are ignored in what is obviously a brief overview of the author's entire body of work on this topic. For instance, when the financial disadvantage of single-parenting is removed, most of the negative factors impacting single-parent families also go away. Several posters in the thread describe examples of single-parents who are doing amazing jobs raising children. Almost exclusively, these parents are financially successful. The article mentions the Covid-era expanded child tax credit but fails to mention the tremendous success that program had in reducing childhood poverty. Instead of giving up hope on future government assistance, perhaps we should campaign for this program to be reinstated? Moroever, as several posters note, anti-abortion policies being implemented by several state governments directly contribute to single-parent families. This should also be part of any discussion of this sort. Moreover, the article does not discuss the quality of parenting or two-parent relationships. Is it really better for a child to be raised in a toxic environment involving two parents whose relationship is destructive than to be brought up in a supportive single-parent family? I would argue that it is not and, therefore, a two-parent family should not be promoted as a magical solution. It is not enough to simply encourage two-parent families, but rather healthy and nurturing families regardless of the number of parents. We should also make efforts to reduce the financial challenges often faced by single parents.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Handling fancy destination wedding with small kids" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster is thinking about how to handle her brother-in-law's wedding which will be held next year in an expensive tourist town located two time zones away. Her main concern is what to do about her two young children. In past blog posts, I've discussed threads about destination weddings and threads about children and weddings. So, I expected a wedding that both involves children and a destination wedding would be full of challenges. But, it turned out to be almost completely to the contrary. In contrast to past threads in which children were not invited, the original poster's children are not only invited, one of them has been asked to be the ring bearer. Where in previous cases finding childcare at the location of the destination wedding seemed all but impossible, the original poster has a nanny that they could bring along and her own parents, who are also invited to the wedding, have offered to provide childcare. The original poster is reluctant to bring the nanny due to the added expense. She originally forgot to mention her parent's offer and, after bringing it up, still seemed hesitant to turn to them. Those responding simply don't see many hurdles in this situation, but instead, see many readily available solutions. They recommend renting an Airbnb instead of staying in a hotel and then bringing the nanny. Alternatively, they suggest missing a couple of the planed events in order to handle childcare. After it is revealed that the original poster's parents have already offered to help with childcare, that becomes the obvious solution. Many posters actually appear exasperated that solutions are so easily available and are frustrated with the original poster for not recognizing it.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "VA Democratic House candidate performed sex acts online for tips". This thread, which was posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum, is about the revelation that Susanna Gibson — a 40-year-old mother of two who is running for Virginia's House of Delegates in a suburban Richmond district — has been posting sexually explicit videos of herself and her husband online. This is really going to test the maxim of whether there is such a thing as bad publicity. But, on the positive side, Gibson will probably soon rival all Virginia politicians in terms of name recognition. For those who want their politicians to be transparent, Gibson has left very little to the imagination. There was a time when it didn't take much of a scandal for a candidate to withdraw from an election. But, that time appears to be gone. Numerous politicians have attempted to ride out — many successfully — scandals of varing degrees. Who can forget that former President Trump, while still a candidate, was caught on tape admitting to sexually assaulting women? Gibson shows no indication of backing down and has, instead, gone on the offensive against the Republicans who are behind the disclosure of the videos. Whether it is due to increased partisanship or changing mores, it is not clear whether this controversy will hurt Gibson. The first indications are that she has successfully increased her campaign fundraising in the aftermath of the disclosure. Those responding in the thread are divided between posters who think the videos are disqualifying and those who believe that consensual sex with a spouse is completely acceptable even if there is a bit of a twist. Conservative posters accused liberals of only being concerned about abortion and gun control and, therefore, ignoring anything negative about Democratic candidates. Democratic posters agreed that they only care about abortion and gun control and don't care what Gibson is live streaming herself doing. A significant number of posters contended that they would have to watch the videos in order to have an educated opinion. Gibson and her husband apparently solicited monetary tips in exchange for requested activities. This, Republicans argued, made this more than a matter of consensual sex and instead made it a form of prostitution. I am fairly certain that prostitutes are viewed more favorably than politicians among significant numbers of voters, so this line of attack may backfire on conservatives.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Boomers can’t downsize" and posted in the "Real Estate" forum. As I have written many times, I hate generational labels which I consider to have little validity and generally to be unhelpful. In this case, the original poster is a self-described boomer who is upset that he cannot find an affordable house in which to retire in one of his preferred locations. I really don't understand why, in a forum that is full of boomer-haters, one of them would put a big huge target on their butt with a giant "kick me" sign above it. But that's essentially what this poster did. His post leaves him open to many obvious criticisms and few posters miss such inviting opportunties. Younger posters have long complained that "boomers" refuse to retire and, therefore, prevent younger employees from taking their jobs. In addition, some have complained that boomers refusing to move out of their houses have constrained the housing supply and driven up prices. Generally, younger posters have complained that boomers should get off the lawns that the younger posters would like to acquire (and then build auxiliary housing units on). The original poster's point is that suitable retirement houses in Rehoboth Beach, the Hamptons, the beaches of the Carolinas, or the "good" parts of Florida are too expensive. As such, he can't afford to sell his current house and move to one of those places. One might think that this is due to other boomers who have also wanted to move to those places and, therefore, driven up demand while supply remains limited. But, no, the original poster doesn't blame other boomers. Instead, he blames younger people who are working remotely while living in those coveted locations. The original poster's solution, therefore, is to require employees to return to the office so that these younger work-from-home types will be forced to move out and he can buy one of their places cheaply. Most of this thread consists of posters of various ages calling each other "entitled" and selfish. Even though practically every member of every generation wants access to affordable housing in desirable locations, each sees their own aspirations as reasonable while the other generations' as entitled. Eventually this discussion expanded from its focus on housing and, instead just became an argument about boomers. There are debates about the college tuition boomers paid, whether or not they have pensions, and other generalizations often made about boomers. This supports my dislike of these labels. They are broad generalizations that have so many exceptions as to have little utility. In this thread there is even an argument about in which years boomers were born.

On Monday one of the most active threads that I wrote about dealt with a fight between Montgomery County Public Schools high school students from Bethesda-Chevy Chase and Walter Johnson high schools. As I noted in that post, I had locked that thread because several users had fixated on the race of those involved with some posts including racist statements. Posters asked me to unlock the thread so that more details about what had occurred could be learned, but I asked that a new thread be started instead. That thread, titled, "WJ/BCC Fight - No racism please!" and, of course, posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum, was the most active thread yesterday. Despite the interest in the thread, there was not much news to be shared. Posters reported that the police were investigating the incident and relayed rumors learned from students at the school. There was considerable discussion about the reaction by MCPS officials, something with which several posters expressed dissatisfaction. Filling the vacuum of actual news were esoteric discussions such as whether the incident Friday night constituted a "fight" which some posters argued might be legal or an "assault" which would clearly be against the law. Similarly, a number of posters debated why students would have been congregating near the Metro station. One poster seemed completely incapable of understanding that kids might actually be there for the purpose of accessing transportation. In addition to the Metro train, several Metro buses have pickup locations at the station. Moreover, nearby restaurants are popular with the students. As in the earlier thread, some posters argued that what had occurred was less a fight between students from opposing schools and more of an attack on WJ students by students from B-CC. In contrast, at least one poster questioned whether students from either high school were actually involved. There was continued discussion about the appropriate punishment for the attackers. The lack of news about what, if anything, would be done frustrated some posters, while others reminded that information about juveniles was normally not released. There was a lot of concern expressed about the condition of the students who were seen on video being beaten and hope that they would recover quickly. But, as with most other aspects of this topic, there were very few actual facts in this regard to be shared.

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 most active thread yesterday was titled, "Thomas Jefferson High School drops to 5th in latest US News ranking" and posted in the "Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)" forum. This thread was inspired by a new release of U.S. News & World Report’s “Best High School Rankings”. Thomas Jefferson High School, or TJ, as the school is normally called, has led these rankings for the past three years but is listed as 5th in the latest list. U.S. News says that this is not a big deal, the school's supporters say it is not a big deal, and those who think it is a big deal are largely ignoring the facts. So, in many ways, this thread is a whole lot of todo about nothing. First, regarding the position change itself. As a U.S. News managing editor is quoted as saying, the top schools are so close that very small changes in the data can result in what appear to be big changes. "But it doesn’t mean too much has really changed there." Next, the reason for the change. As anyone even vaguely familiar with the recent history of TJ will well know, the school recently underwent a change in its admission policies. Opponents of the changes have warned that the best applicants are no longer being selected and, as a result, the quality of the school will decline. Therefore, some saw this drop in rankings as an indication that their prediction is coming true. The flaw in that thinking, however, is that, as the article to which the original poster linked makes clear, the data on which the rankings were based was collected prior the admissions changes. This did not prevent some posters from still blaming the changes. One poster was so insistent that the admissions changes have harmed the school's quality that he literally wrote that it didn't matter how many times others posted the quote saying that the data was prior to the changes. He claimed that the significant impact of the changes was being ignored. Other posters pointed out that TJ must indeed be a leading STEM school if it was capable of developing a time machine that went back to the past to influence data based on changes that hadn't occurred. As is the case with almost all TJ threads these days, this one soon devolved into a debate about race and ethnicity. Posters argued that Asian students were denied admissions in favor of less-well prepared minority students. Others pointed out that Asians remain the largest group of students admitted to the school. The rhetoric suggesting that Asians have been victims of discrimination often has as unfortunate tendency to become racist itself. One poster suggested that minority students admitted under the new policies are "lazy kids who just want a quota for them to get in". To be clear, no quota exists and the new admissions system is race blind. The racist slant of these threads tends to snowball, causing me to lock the threads. So, it's not clear how long this thread will remain open.