The Most Active Threads Since Friday

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.

Second was a thread posted in the "Off-Topic" forum titled, "How do you tell a DC native from a transplant?". The original poster asks how you can tell the difference between a native Washingtonian and a transplant. What follows are 15 pages, so far, of people mostly posting clichés or memories from their youth. Personally, I reject the premise of the question because individuals, whether native or transplant, are, of course, individuals. A Washington native growing up in Barry Farm will not likely have all that much in common with a native growing up in Wesley Heights. Neither of them will have a label across their forehead declaring their native status. Moreover, while some natives like to deride transplants as not knowing anything about traditional Washington, many transplants actually go overboard in trying to adopt artifacts of local DC. It is not unusual for recent arrivals to suddenly become avid go-go and mumbo sauce fans. Meanwhile, DC Mayor and native Washingtonian Muriel Bowser famously claimed not to like mumbo sauce. For most of the posters, a sign of a native is simply being able to remember something that happened a couple of decades ago or more. Since I was here then, I remember most of what gets listed. But, I'm a transplant. My kids, both natives of college age, probably have no clue about most of what is suggested. For example, I remember the Bayou and the Biograph in Georgetown while a lot of natives probably don't. I was almost persuaded by a poster who claimed that anyone who said that Washingtonians are unfriendly could be identified as a transplant. But really I think this is more a function of not having met many native Washingtonians which, obviously, is something more common among transplants. Once they do meet more locals, they will find that natives are friendly and they will stop saying that. There is a stupid disagreement about whether native Washingtonians identify the area as "Washington" or "DC". Self-described natives argue with each other in favor of both designations. But, I will agree that using "DMV" is a sure sign of being new to the area.

The third thread I'll discuss was titled, "Deprograming MAGA" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster embedded a video clip of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying that MAGA Republicans are cult members who may need to be deprogrammed. The original poster claims not to know what this means. Hillary Clinton has an almost unique ability to upset conservatives. Some seem to take particular joy in being mad about something she has said. Frequently, being angry requires them to misrepresent what she actually said. For instance, many MAGA Republicans have not gotten over Clinton's famous expression about "deplorables". They will happily tell you that she called half of Americans "deplorable". What she actually said is that half of the MAGAs were in a basket of deplorables. So, at best she described a quarter of Americans that way. She even implies that the other half of the MAGAs are not deplorable but I strongly believe that the average MAGA, given a choice, would much prefer to be in the deplorable basket. Their outrage is actually a strange expression of pride. Clinton's "deprogramming" statement is much along the same lines. She outlined a number of falsehoods that former President Donald Trump has promoted and which many MAGA Republicans appear to believe wholeheartedly. Clinton suggests those folks are cult members who may need to be deprogrammed. MAGA Republicans don't spend anytime reflecting on the litany of false beliefs that they may hold, but instead immediately accuse Clinton of advocating for communist-style reeducation camps. This is all wrapped up in the strange view that many MAGAs hold that liberals are supposed to tolerate their beliefs and a failure to do so is not only a sign of liberal hypocrisy, but a clear indication that liberals are intent on imposing their ideology on MAGAs. For example, many MAGAs believe that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, despite no evidence supporting this allegation. In fact, Trump's claims about the election have been subject to something like 20 court cases, all but one of which failed. Multiple cases made it to the Supreme Court which is dominated by conservatives only to be found without merit. But, despite this being a completely false charge, liberals are supposed to tolerate the MAGA belief that the election was stolen. Any attempt to convince them otherwise is essentially no different than forcing them to memorize Mao's Little Red Book. I used to hope that Clinton would simply stay quiet given the predictable reactions to anything she says. But, now, I enjoy the outrage that she generates.

The final thread at which I'll look today was, like the second thread above, posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Titled, "Personal theories that may or may not be based on facts", the original poster lists two such beliefs that she holds. The first is that her frequent use of eye drops has prevented her from developing crows feet. Second, she wonders if Jesus was conceived by an alien. Several posters didn't seem to understand the spirit of the thread and rather than listing their own theories, simply dispute the original poster's. Hence, we were treated to many opinions about Jesus' paternity. Many posters, however, do list such beliefs of their own. These mainly seem to be various medical issues, their causes, and possible cures. In other words, what we once called "old wives' tails". There are also a number of theories that appear to be simply grumpy old people's opinions. They don't like how the youth today are raised or have other issues with them. Essentially variations of "kids today are not resilient because they don't have to walk 8 miles to school in the snow up hill both ways like I did." Several posters cite theories that are the complete opposite of theories held by other posters. In some cases, this led to long-running debates. Some ideas were fairly esoteric, but nonetheless very strongly held. One poster, for instance, is quite convinced that squeeze bottles for condiments are a scam designed to benefit corporations. This is because it is impossible to get the last few drops out. The thread is a good illustration of the dictum that correlation does not imply causation. Some posters suggest a relationship between eating peanut butter and children having peanut allergies or lack thereof. Other posters report personal experience that supports both arguments. My personal favorite was the poster who is convinced that her dog is her reincarnated mother.