The Most Active Threads Since Friday

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "I'm a DC resident, applied for my CCW, and I'm now carrying concealed". Posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics", the original poster says that he is a Democrat who believes in sensible gun control but because of increased crime in Washington, DC he has now obtained a firearm with which to defend himself. Crime and guns are two topics that can always be guaranteed to generate a lot of traffic and this thread combines both So, there is no surprise that it was the most active thread. While rates of violent crime in DC are up and far too high, they are considerably lower than at other times during my nearly 40 years of living in DC. I've been wondering why feelings such as the original poster expresses seem much more common now than in the past. The original poster says that he has "never before experienced so much random, reckless, and violent crime". I wonder if this is a literal statement in that the original poster himself has been a victim of such crimes or that by "experience" the original poster means that he knows about such crimes. As far as I can tell, that point was never clarified in the thread. I think that the most obvious instigator of fear of crime is being a victim of crime or having acquaintances, relatives, or neighbors who are victims. But, almost as important, I suspect, is simply knowing about crime in relatively close vicinity to you, even if you don't have any personal connections to it. I've written before how violent crime in DC today seems a lot more geographically distributed than in the past. So, while murder rates were higher when I first arrived in DC, they were concentrated in a few areas and most DC residents simply ignored the violence. Now, murders occur throughout the city which naturally spreads concern and fear much wider. But, another element I think adds to heightened fear of crime is social media and the rise of social media crime reporters. The DC area has a number of individuals who follow police scanners and other information sources and immediately post about violent crime on social media. Those posts get reposted elsewhere and spread by others, often being the basis of DCUM threads. This spreads knowledge of crime beyond what it was in the past. There is the old expression that "ignorance is bliss" and this is one case in which I think that increased knowledge — in addition to having positive effects — can also have negative outcomes. In this case, it might have the impact of creating fear that is not necessarily supported by reality. Others can obviously argue that increased knowledge of local crime actually leads to a more rational risk analysis. I can see both arguments. The bottom line is whether people "feel" unsafe is more important for their individual actions than whether they actually "are" unsafe. I frequently feel that social media crime reports contribute to making us feel less safe while, in actuality, whether we really do face more of a threat may not have changed. It would be interesting to know whether this poster was drive to purchase a gun by an actual or perceived threat of violent crime.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "how likely is a shutdown?", the original poster started this thread back on September 7 when the September 30 fiscal deadline was just coming on the horizon. The original poster stated that he was asking because he needs to plan a trip. I am not sure how serious the original poster was, but hopefully he has refundable tickets. The original poster's attitude reflected the actual or at least contrived attitude of many federal employees that a shutdown would amount to little more than a paid vacation. I don't think this reflected the feelings of the vast majority of federal workers, most of whom were probably dreading a period of time without paychecks and the disruption to their work. But, such posts were somewhat effective trolling of non-federal employees. As it happened, a shutdown was avoided by a last minute deal in which the Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy relied on support of Democrats to pass a 30 day continuing resolution that ignored all Republican wishes for the bill other than eliminating financial assistance for Ukraine. McCarthy has promised to address that aid in a separate bill. I haven't read this thread but skimming over it I see that it followed the various ebbs and flows of progress towards a spending deal. It also seems to have been diverted to a number of other subjects that are off-topic for the thread. As the deadline approached, posters were following minute-by-minute developments and the fingernail biting is practically audible is some cases. The thread concludes with discussion of the deal McCarthy made. Someone posted an image of the world's tiniest violin in response to a poster who was upset about the deal because he already bought tickets to Paris. Again, it's hard to say if the allegedly Paris-bound poster was trolling or sincere, but as one poster pointed out, he could just reschedule for November 18 when we will likely have to go through this entire exercise again.

Third was a thread titled, "Think twice before hiring an advocate…" and posted in the "Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities" forum. Traditionally, threads most often gain traction when there is strong disagreement or controversy about something. The special needs forum is normally one in which posters are respectful and supportive of each other, and as a result, the type of heated fights that typify much of DCUM are rare. That has changed somewhat in recent times as some posters have shown a proclivity towards strongly arguing their points and not backing down under any circumstances. As a result, I am more frequently asked to intervene in threads in this forum than in the past. Nevertheless, it is unusal for threads from this forum to be among the most active. The original poster of this thread describes herself as a special education teacher and also the parent of a child who has an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). She says that her school just lost two special education teachers after "a prolonged battle with a family and their advocate." Apparently the confrontational, frequent, and time-consuming meetings demoralized the teachers to the extend that they left their jobs. Now the original poster is expected to pick up part of their workload in addition to her previous work. She asks parents to assume goodwill on the part of schools and to understand that they are trying to do the best for all students. This post greatly upset a large number of posters. The first poster to respond also described herself as a teacher and parent of kids with special needs. She disagreed with the original poster's position which she considered to be shaming parents for advocating for their children. Other posters reacted negatively to the original poster's suggestion that the student in question was very close to grade-level and that the school had prepared a supportive plan to get the child there. These parents considered this to be the bare minimum and apparently would not be satisfied with grade-level performance, instead expecting their kids to perform beyond that goal. Many parents reject the original poster's argument that schools want the best for kids. Instead, these parents believe the schools want to do the least possible and that is not sufficient for their kids. They consider it their duty to demand more. Other posters argue that it is the role of public schools to get kids to grade level and anything more than that is for the parents to address outside of school. Such posters also agree that a constructive and collaborative atmosphere between parents and teachers is best. But, the two sides in this argument are so far apart that any sort of compromise position seems impossible. The result is this endless and increasingly bitter thread.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. Titled, "I need about $20k to get us through a layoff-home equity loan?", the original poster says that she has just been laid off and her family has no savings. She expects to be working again by the end of the year, but they don't have enough money to cover their expenses until then. She thinks that a home equity loan is their best source of funds, but the the bank with which they have their mortgage doesn't offer them. She asks what she should do. The original poster doesn't get a lot of sympathy with many posters preferring to focus on what they consider to be past mistakes rather than offering solutions. A number of posters advise against a home equity loan and even suggest that she might not be eligible. Posters suggest pulling her kids out of daycare, selling or renting their house, withdrawing from retirement plans (something the original poster says they can't do), working for Uber or Postmates, taking any available job even if it is at McDonald's, and a number of other ideas. The original poster has excuses, some more convincing than others, for not accepting any of the ideas. This causes responders to become even more snarky and less sympathetic. However, one poster made the effort to compose an entirely helpful response that abstained from being judgemental or critical. Instead, the poster laid out three options and listed the pros and cons of each. Multiple posters praised this response and the original poster who had appeared to have abandoned the thread weighed in to express her appreciation. Some posters insist that the "honest truth" is often hurtful and that there is no need to worry about posters' feelings. But this response demonstrated how factual information can be presented in a supportive manner that is much more effective — and welcome — than the more common judgemental approach.