October

The two most active threads yesterday were both threads that I've previously covered. The Gaza war thread saw somewhat of a revival of interest and gained over 800 new posts. The Speaker of the US House of Representatives thread was second with 325 new posts. The Republicans finally managed to elect a speaker so maybe that thread will see a decline in interest. Both of those threads were in the "Political Discussion" forum, as was the next most active thread. Titled, "When the smallest doubt is treated as support of the other side", the original poster complains that political partisans require full support for their cause of the day and consider the slightest disagreement to be unacceptable. This is a 12-page thread and I don't have time to do more than skim a few pages of it. But, I see that a number of examples of events, political causes, or topics are presented in which this type of thing has occurred. A point with which I agree may have been made earlier in the thread, but I noticed it in a post on the last page. That post suggests that social media and online communication has probably contributed to this phenomenon. In a world in which support for a cause is represented by changing an avatar or through short bits of text, there is little room for nuance. To the contrary, everything becomes very black and white. The response I referenced above also touched on what I think is the other side of this coin which is a hypersensitivity to disagreement. In subsequent posts, the original poster listed a number of things she claims that "you can't say". In fact, you can say them. No law prevents you from saying them. But, if you say them you may well have someone disagree with you and state their objection. As the saying goes, if you can't take the heat, don't go into the kitchen. In addition to the folks who are ready to pounce at anything less than full compliance with their agenda, there are a whole bunch of people who are very heat adverse and don't want to go anywhere near the kitchen. Going back to social media, I think that it reinforces both of these tendencies. The medium does not encourage nuance and polite phrasing is rejected for more directness. But, the type of thing that might be acceptable when said privately between two friends is unwelcome when it is essentially a public rebuke posted on social media. Another aspect of this may be rooted in the American two-party system. Whereas many countries have multi-party systems that provide for a variety of views, our two-party system encourages picking a side. This is reinforced when the media interprets "objectivity" as presenting "both sides". There are many issues that have more than two sides, but those nuances get lost. If increased respect for the views of others could be combined with everyone having a bit thicker skin, we might all be better off.

The thread about the war in Gaza continues to lead as the most active thread with over 750 new posts yesterday. The next most active thread is somewhat related to that conflict. Titled, "Wealthy donors pull funding from from Harvard and U Penn for failure to denounce ‘antisemitism’" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread is about wealthy donors to universities pulling funding to the schools because the institutions have not been forceful enough in speaking out against anti-Semitism. There are a number of different issues that come up in the thread. The first, something that the original poster touched on, is whether universities even have a duty to comment on political topics. Several posters pointed out that schools have issued statements in regard to other issues and that being silent at this time would be seen as condoning anti-Semitism. But, this immediately led to disputes about whether actual anti-Semitism is involved in these cases. After the the Hamas attack on Israel, many supporters of Israel demanded unequivocal condemnations of Hamas. Because almost everyone expected massive retaliation by Israel that would result in significant numbers of Palestinian civilians being killed — something that is now coming to pass — many of those issuing statements combined denunciations of Hamas with expressions of concern about Gazans. In some places, including a few colleges, there were protests in support of Palestinians and, in some cases, even in solidarity with Hamas. Any or all of these actions were labeled as "anti-Semitic" by various parties. In response, others argued that even in the most extreme of these examples, the activities were anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish. This touches on a long-running debate about whether being anti-Israel or anti-Zionist is anti-Semitic. Another long-running debate is about free speech and the ramifications of being punished due to speech. Several posters saw the withdrawing of funding as anti-free speech actions while others disagreed, saying that free speech often comes with a cost. Many objected to what they perceived as wealthy Jews using their influence to control what is considered to be acceptable speech at universities. But, one of the examples highlighted by the original poster, Jon Huntsman Jr, is not Jewish. Moreover, the trope of rich Jews controlling society is itself anti-Semitic. Universities have been hotbeds of contention over the Israel-Arab conflict for some time and it is clear that pro-Palestinian viewpoints have made significant headway among students. Whether reactions such as these will influence this trend one way or another remains to be seen.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed. The first continued to be thread about the Gaza war. The number of posts in that one dropped to less than 600 which is about half of what the thread had been seeing daily. The second thread was also in the political forum and is about the new Speaker of the House of Representatives. That was revived because there will be a vote today that could result in Jim Jordan becoming Speaker. Skipping those threads brings us to a thread titled, "Homecoming dresses are so short!" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. Exactly a week ago I discussed a thread that I predicted was the kickoff of DCUM's annual "criticize how teen girls dress" season. The original poster (who, by the way is definitely not "judgy") continues that honored tradition by finding current homecoming dresses to be too short and "slutty looking". The thread immediately entered the predictable pattern of some posters agreeing with the original poster that girls are dressing like "street walkers" while other posters argue that teens always push the limits and that their parents didn't like the way they dressed either. But, then the thread turned to the suggestion that this all was a demonstration of internalized misogyny. As a poster pointed out, regardless of style changes, boys stay fully dressed while girls' attire becomes increasingly revealing. There was quite a bit of agreement with this notion, but then that discussion sort of got lost in a debate about whether criticizing how girls dress is "slut shaming" with the implication being that this was also misogynistic. Some parents described how they managed their daughter's fashion choices, in some cases requiring that biker shorts be worn underneath short dresses and in other cases helping to choose looser and longer outfits. There was also quite a bit of comment on a trend of which I was not aware in which girls wear sneakers with their dresses. One more big debate had on one side posters who argued that girls should either be taught or develop a sense of style. Rather than wearing what everyone else does, they should choose clothing that fits their style and body type and flatters them. The other side contended that girls don't need to do anything to please the first group, could wear whatever they wanted, and that the first group should leave them alone. Just as I was about to publish this post I received a fairly angry report demanding that I lock this thread because it was degrading high school girls. I decided to comply and, therefore, the thread is now locked.

The most active thread since my last blog post on Friday continues to be the Hamas-Israel war thread which added over 2,000 new posts. But, if there is one topic that can rival the Middle East in divisiveness, it is the British Royal Family. So, much to my chagrin, the second most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Do you think Kate Middleton is genuine" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The complete text of the original post was simply "Or performative?", but those two words were sufficient to inspire what is already a 22 page thread. Obviously I am not going to read 22 pages about Kate Middleton or any other member of the British Royal Family. Moreover, whereas with Meghan Markle I might be able to conjure up an opinion or two, with the Princess of Wales I am drawing a complete blank. About the only thing I can say about this thread is that I don't belive a single post in it has been reported. That either means that posters are being exceptionally well-behaved or posters have given up reporting posts. Well, the previous sentence was true when I wrote it, but before I finished the other entries in today's post there was a report which included a request that I lock the thread. I don't know if I will do that at this point, but maybe things weren't as pleasant as I thought.

The Hamas-Israel thread continued to be the most active yesterday, but with only 600 some new posts. This is almost half of what we saw for the first few days, but still several times more than the next most active thread. I also wrote a Special Edition blog post based on my observations from moderating that thread. The next most active thread was titled, "MIL buying items on my baby registry for herself" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster says, as the title states, that her mother-in-law has been buying items that are on the original poster's baby registry but keeping them for herself. The original poster says that she has no plans to leave her baby with her mother-in-law for any length of time so she doesn't know the reason for these purchases. Posters assume that the mother-in-law is simply preparing for visits after the baby is born. The original poster clarified in a subsequent post that the mother-in-law is not marking the items as "complete" on the registry, so most of those responding don't think there is a problem. I didn't read very many of the posts in this thread because, frankly, the topic bored me. But, as best I can tell, this is a battle between those who think the original poster is being overly-sensitive and those convinced that this is a sign of a domineering mother-in-law. In the first group's view, the original poster is being ridiculous. According to them, it is not the original poster's business what her mother-in-law buys and, in any case, she can't predict what will happen after the baby is born and she might end up being happy that her in-laws' home is well-equipped for the baby. The second group thinks the mother-in-law is being controlling and will use the baby items as an excuse to demand more visits than the original poster prefers. The original poster was fairly diligent about identifying herself as the original poster in her replies through much of the thread. But, eventually she began to sock puppet a bit. It appears that the real issue here is that the original poster already has issues with her mother-in-law not respecting boundaries and, therefore, her buying baby items feeds that preexisting frustration. Personally, I can think of a hundred more important issues that commonly face new parents so I can't imagine giving this one a second's thought.

The most active thread yesterday continued to be the Israel-Palestine thread that I discussed on Sunday. That thread added another 1,200 new posts. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Invited neighbor friends over" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that her family invited neighborhood friends who they hadn't seen in a while over for dinner and the couple showed up both wearing sweats. The original poster is not really upset but was a little annoyed that they didn't dress nicer. She asks what others think. This is obviously not the most important issue with which the world is dealing at the moment, but that doesn't stop posters from having fairly strong feelings about it. In fact, many of those responding seem to care a lot more about this than the original poster. A significant number of posters wouldn't be bothered by the neighbor's choice of clothing. A smaller number would be put off, though by how much varied from poster to poster. Some of these posters thought that coming to dinner in sweats reflected poorly on the neighbors and suggested a lack of class. On the other hand, a few posters opined that the original poster looked bad for being concerned. A lot of the discussion revolved around exactly what type of sweats the couple was wearing. I learned a new word, "athleisure" which apparently refers to sweats that cost a lot. At some price point it seems that sweats cease to be clothes for working out and become fashionable status symbols. However, the original poster clarified that the the neighbor's were not adorned in athleisurewear. This topic highlighted a host of supposed divisions. Whether these divisions were real or imagined is another story because a lot of them appeared to be based on inaccurate stereotypes. There seemed to be different opinions between young and old, or at least anyone expecting guests to dress up was assumed to be old. Similarly, some posters generalized about relationships between socio-economic status or political leanings and clothing choices. Few of these suggestions seemed to hold up. The thread also had the occasional hardliner such as a poster who would not accept a dinner invitation if she were required to "dress up", where by "dress up" meant wearing jeans.

The most active thread yesterday continued to be the Israel-Palestine thread that I discussed on Sunday. That thread added over 1,200 new posts yesterday and shows no sign of slowing down. When a topic is generating so much activity, posters are often motivated to create spin-off threads. They may want to address a specific aspect of the topic in depth or simply don't want their post to get lost in the deluge. Posters will also often find fairly creative ways to shoehorn the topic into other forums. I would not be surprised to see a thread in the Pets forum titled, "Has the Hamas-Israel war caused you to forget to walk your dog?" The second most active thread yesterday was a spin-off, though not nearly as egregious as that and was also kept in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Getting Palestinian civilians to safety", the original poster says that she believes getting Palestinian civilians who are trapped in Gaza moved to someplace safe is an imperative. This topic highlights what is a moral issue to many of us, but also an important political and strategic concern. I don't think anyone denies that Israel has the right to seek the harshest retribution imaginable against Hamas. But, Hamas is currently embedded in the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated places on earth. Over 2 million people, half of them children, live cheek by jowl with no place to hide. Israel has announced a full seige and cut off electricity and water to the territory. This raises the specter Gaza's inhabitants slowing starving to death, if they are not killed by Israeli bombs first. Is a country whose identity is so tightly bound to genocide really willing to starve 2 million people? Is the world willing to stand by and watch it happen? The current Israeli government may well be perfectly happy with such an outcome and several world powers may find themselves constrained from doing anything about it. But, such an outcome is simply not going to be acceptable to much of the world. Israel will eventually find itself under considerable pressure regarding the fate of Gazan civilians. One solution that seems obvious at first glance would be for Egypt to open its border with Gaza and allow civilians to seek refuge there. Historically, once Palestinians flee from areas of Israeli control, they are not allowed to return. As a result, Palestinians have spent decades living in refugee camps in the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Indeed there are even refugee camps in Gaza. Egypt is likely uninterested in assuming what would likely be permanent responsibility for 2 million refugees. Moreover, Hamas has no interest in seeing the civilians flee. If Gaza is empty of all but Hamas fighters, Israel would be free to flatten every square inch. The civilians are effectively human shields for Hamas. The result, as things stand now, is that civilians remained trapped. Egypt doesn't want them, Hamas has an imperative to keep them, and Israel appears prepared to kill them all. This is intractable problem that will only get worse. As for the thread, it fairly quickly went off topic to a number of unrelated issues such as whether or not Jews and Palestinians are White. As a result, I locked it.

The most active thread since my post on Friday was, as expected, the thread about the attack by Hamas on Israel. That thread has already reached 142 pages. But, since I covered that in a post yesterday, I'll move to the next thread today. That thread was titled, "Mean girls mean moms" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster says that the "not so nice" girls in her daughter's class have "not so nice" moms. She says this is probably an obvious observation, but she wonders how to break the cycle. Most posters suggest that it is futile to worry about breaking the cycle and that the best approach is to avoid the mean girls and moms and teach your own daughters to be better. Other posters know of mean girls who have nice moms. This provokes responses saying that nice moms are too nice to properly discipline their kids, resulting in them being mean. Some posters report that their daughters have not encountered mean girls. This is a 17 page thread and I don't have time to read all of it, but it looks like much of the thread is devoted to posters describing their own problems with mean girls, mean moms, or simply unfriendly school environments. Some posters tell tales of mean girls that they encountered when they were in grade school. There is disagreement about what constitutes a "mean girl". To some, mean girls are those who take affirmative actions to hurt someone on an emotional or physical level. To others, simply not making friends with another girl is a form of "bullying" and being a mean girl. Several posts really have nothing to do with mean girls or mean moms, but rather simply describe normal social behavior. For instance, parents and kids who have lived in the same neighborhood and attended the same schools for years and made close friendships may not be very welcoming to a newcomer. For some, this is mean behavior. For others, it is something to be expected and simply takes time to overcome.

The two most active threads yesterday were topics that I discussed yesterday. So, skipping those, the next most active topic was titled, "Test optional is total BS" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The subject of college admissions examinations is a well-trod topic in the college forum. Such tests have been frequently criticized as not being reliable indicators of a student's intelligence. Rather, critics say, they are gamed by students who take test preparation classes or have the financial means to repeatedly take the tests. When schools began to make tests scores an optional component of applications, criticism arose that this was simply a means to admit less qualified underrepresented minorities. Two stereotypes — one of robot-like Asian kids who underwent years of text prep and the other of minority students unable to perform well on tests — became part and parcel of the forum's conventional wisdom. In the case of this thread, the original poster argues that test scores should be used as a means of weeding out weak students. According to the original poster, grade point averages are inflated and, therefore, not trustworthy indicators of performance. The poster accepts completely and without reservation the belief that test scores are effective indicators of college success. Moreover, the poster argues that, because of test optional policies, only applicants with high scores submit them and, therefore, the average scores for the schools goes up. The original poster is bothered by students with high GPAs but mediocre test scores discussing to which colleges to apply. This is a 15 page thread and, as I said, the arguments are well-worn and I simply don't have the patience to read 15 pages of the same thing being repeated. Or, even one page for that matter. Frankly, I don't understand why the original poster is so worked up about other kids' test scores. If her child has a high score, that will help him. If not, it's good for him that tests are optional. I think that using test scores as simply an optional data point for fleshing out an application is a good thing. Colleges are frequently interested in athletic achievement. A student who places first in a state-wide athletic competition will probably include that on her application. On the other hand, nobody will, for instance, list that they placed near the bottom or last in that sport at their school. Test scores should be treated similarly. College applications are an opportunity to present your strengths. If a test score is one of those, take advantage of it. If not, hopefully you have other strengths to demonstrate.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Congressman carjacked at gunpoint in Washington DC" and posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. The Congressman in question, Democrat Henry Cuellar of Texas, was approached by at least three men, of whom two were obviously armed with guns, as he existed his car near the building in which he and several other Members of Congress live. Cuellar handed over his keys and his car was stolen with his phone, iPad, and the sushi he planned to eat for dinner still inside. The car, phone, iPad, and sushi were recovered a couple of hours later. Cuellar was not harmed during the altercation. The District has been undergoing a torrent of armed carjackings in recent months, which along with other crime has left residents frustrated and angry. Historically, concerns about security have been one of the best ways to encourage people to embrace undemocratic methods of governance. Many posters immediately jumped into this thread to advocate for exactly such measures. The fourth poster to respond called for deploying the National Guard and before the first page was complete, another poster demanded a new control board similar to the Financial Control Board created in 1995 to oversee the District's finances. I have a number of issues with these calls for federal control of the District. First, one of the most important functions of public safety — prosecution of adult crime — is already in federal hands in the form of the US Attorney's office. Last year, that office declined to prosecute 67% of the cases of those arrested. This track record does not present a good argument for the performance of unelected federal officials. Second, a control board similar to the previous one would require a act of Congress. I am really not interested in having the likes of James Comer — Chairman of the House committee that oversees DC affairs — increasing their involvement in our local affairs. For those who are unaware, Comer is currently leading the impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden and investigating Biden's son Hunter. He is a MAGA Republican with a proclivity toward conspiracy theories. Moreover, House Republicans, who some posters apparently want to make responsible for governing DC, just removed their own Speaker — a historical first. These folks can't even govern themselves responsibly. This thread contains repeated claims about Council actions that have "handcuffed" the police. Council reforms have included things like prohibiting chokeholds, requiring body-worn cameras, prohibiting vehicular pursuits, and changes to the collective bargaining process. It is hard to believe that any of these changes are resulting in increased carjacking. The additional argument that the officers' feelings have been hurt and, therefore, they aren't doing their job suggests an issue with the officers rather than the Council. The Council may have its faults, but the Mayor, police force, and USAO are also at fault, if not more so, for crime in DC. Statistics clearly show that crime is increasing in DC, something about which none of us can be happy. But, the solution is not to reject our limited Democratic freedoms in favor of unelected authorities with no accountability to the District's residents. Rather, our own elected leaders need to stop passing blame and work together to do their jobs.