Wednesday's Most Active Threads

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 next most active thread which was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum returns to a common theme of that forum. Titled, "Just accepting unequal division of labor", the original poster complains that since her husband has ADHD he is unable to do many of the household and childrearing chores. Even though the original poster makes 4 times his salary and works harder, she has to bear the bulk of these responsibilities. She has tried to address the inequity, but thinks this is the best that it will get. She wants to know if there is a solution. The first thing I noticed about this thread is that a tremendous number of those responding either have ADHD themselves or are married to someone who does. This results in a lot of posts in which poster describe their similar situations. Misery may well love company, but I'm not sure those posts really provided much help, or even hope, for the original poster. In some case, they basically hijacked the discussion. A few other posters suggested possible strategies such as making lists of chores for her husband or having him do the same few things every day. But, much of this thread is simply a rehash of standard DCUM relationship forum talking points. There are posters who wonder how much of the original poster's husband's behavior is due to ADHD and how much is simply him being a jerk. Posters ask why she didn't notice this behavior before marriage. There is a dispute about whether women are essentially genetically better suited for housework and, therefore, husbands shouldn't be expected to do it. This, in turn, leads to an argument about whether women should simply be stay at home moms and the economic realities that prevent that from happening. Of course there are posters whose husbands contribute equally to housework and childrearing and consider women who are married to men who don't to be "enabling these helpless man babies". Similarly, many posters blame the original poster and the others like her for their situations, saying that they have made choices that have led to these situations. One poster argued that the original poster should have throttled back on her career if she didn't want to be stuck with the inequity she now faces. I can't imagine how this might be a helpful response to the original poster and I am surprised that someone might think that it would be. As such, that poster might want to give some consideration to their own life and wonder about the circumstances that have led them to the point of posting mean posts on DCUM. Given that poster's belief that we should be accountable for our choices, I'd think that poster has a certain amount of accountability in order.

Third for today was a thread titled, "Bomb caller identified." and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. Over the past two weeks, Montgomery County Public Schools including Montgomery Blair High School, Oak View Elementary School, and Silver Spring International School received a total of seven bomb threats. Each of these caused disruption to the schools as the buildings were emptied while police with K9 units checked the schools. Yesterday, Montgomery County Police Chief Marcus Jones announced that a 12-year-old individual had been identified as being responsible for the threats. Jones' frustration is clear in the statement he released saying that not only does the law prevent him from charging the child, but that the child was fully aware of the law and the fact that he would not be held criminally responsible. This, combined with laws protecting the privacy of juveniles, means that the public will likely have no idea what kind of punishment, if any, the individual might receive. Many posters are eager for the student to receive punishment and, in lieu of the student, propose that the parents be punished. Whether or not the parents should be held responsible ends up taking up much of the thread. Along those lines, some posters suggest that the parents should be charged for the cost of the repeated emergency responses. Quite a bit of the discussion revolves around the belief that the parents of the child are negligent and did a poor job of raising the kid. There are disputes about what, if anything, can be done about that. Other posters point out that the 12-year-old is more than likely in need of help. The argue against overly-punitive measures and advise intensive support instead. That sentiment is met with considerable distain from posters who demand punishment, and the harsher the better. This is an 11-page thread but much of it is repetitive so, boiled down, there is not really a lot to it.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Suicide at UMD college park today", the thread deals with a tragic death that occurred at the University of Maryland College Park. Our oldest son attends UMD and texted us yesterday just after this incident occurred. Like the original poster of this thread, he understood that it was a suicide, though I believe the investigation remains open and, as such, this hasn't been officially determined. My son said that the death took place at the stadium which is located in view of a popular food court and multiple dormitories, and as such, was very public. The original poster says much the same thing and that her daughter, who suffers from anxiety and depression, lives in one of the dorms with a view of the stadium. There were a number of parents posting in the thread in similar boats and most, while expressing sympathy for the student's friends and family, were also concerned about the impact the event might have on their own kids. They exchanged ideas about how to offer their children support and offered each other words of encouragement. Several posters urged parents with kids who had been affected by the event to give them special attention and try visiting them or having them come home for the weekend. About halfway through, the thread turned to a search for who to blame. Some posters said social media increased stress on students, others argued that it was pressure to attend and then succeed at a flagship university. One poster was adamant that the University is somehow complicit in causing undue stress for students and not providing adequate mental health support. Others said that many of the issues identified by such posters were not the responsibility of universities, but rather parents. Parents were blamed for having too high of expectations for their kids and pushing them too hard to do well. Some pointed out that the high cost of college significantly raised the stakes. But, at least one poster argued that setting high expectations was necessary and that most kids thrive in such circumstances. This created a dispute that went around in circles. Combined with a series of posts in which quotes were wrongly formatted, the thread basically became unreadable and I decided to lock it.