Tuesday's Most Active Threads

Once again the Gaza war thread was the most active thread of the day yesterday. The continued interest in the war was further demonstrated by the fact that the next most active thread was directly related to the war. Titled, "Pro Israel demonstration in DC?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread was originally started back on November 5th by a poster asking if a pro-Israel demonstration was being planned. Discussion meandered along as the demonstration was planned, discussing logistics and specific focuses of the event. Yesterday was the day that the demonstration was finally held and, as such, the thread added 24 pages of discussion, resulting in a thread that is currently 42 pages long. I won't have time to read the entire thread, or even all of the new pages, but since several posts in the thread were reported to me yesterday, I did get some exposure to the discusion. As the day started, most of those posting were concerned about possible violence provoked by pro-Palestinian counter-demonstrators. This emphasis reflects the mindset of the pro-Israel posters. They tend to see Palestinians and their supporters as inherently violent. Similarly, any support for Palestinians is portrayed as support for Hamas. As a result, much of the early discusion involved debate over whether there is significant support for Hamas, with many posters contending that there is not, and that those demonstrating against Israel's attacks on Gaza don't present a violent threat. Many of the pro-Israel posters argued that the demonstration would be aimed at opposing antisemitism, supporting Israel's right to exist and to self-defence, and to call for releasing the hostages. But, as the event proceeded, these messages were somewhat undermined. As noted in the thread, the Israeli Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, suggested that Gaza could not survive as an independent entity and that it would be a welcome development if the Palestinians were displaced to another country. One of the more prominent speakers at the event was Pastor John Hagee, a notorious antisemite. But, as the Forward magazine says, "support for Israel has long overridden or excused antisemitism within many Jewish circles" and, hence, Hagee was welcomed at the event. Those attending the demonstration routinely broke out into chants of "No Ceasefire" which distinguished them from pro-Palestinian protesters who generally call for a "Ceasefire Now", but did little to alleviate the claims by critics in the thread that the demonstration was in support of genocide. The anti-ceasefire chants may prove awkward as rumors circulated all day yesterday that a ceasefire will soon be announced as part of a hostage exchange. Less controversially, the event was attended by many leading politicians including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. However, the attendance of the top Congressional Democrats did little to quell claims in the thread that Democrats are anti-Israel.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Titled, "Anyone inviting an unhoused person to Thanksgiving?", the poster simply wrote, "If not, why not?" in the body of the post. Yesterday one of the threads I discussed was a thread about returning land to native Americans due to November being Native American Heritage Month. When discussing that thread, I suggested the poster was likely a troll. This thread, which I believe is authored by the same poster, furthers that suspicion. Having made the "most active" list on two consecutive days, the poster clearly has a penchant for generating discussion, but he doesn't show a capacity for substantive discourse. If you take an unserious approach to discussing a serious topic, you should not be surprised that most of the response is similarly unserious. I don't know if the original poster is surprised, but most of the response was, indeed, unserious. The first poster to respond declared that it would be cruel to subject the unhoused to dinner with her parents. When another said she didn't "need someone screaming obscenities at the turkey then passing out face-first in their mashed potatoes", another poster explained that was because the role was exclusively reserved for her uncle. Debate soon focused on the original poster's use of the term "unhoused", the in vogue term for those forced to live on the street or temporary shelters. The original poster was accused of "virtue signalling" by posters who demonstrated their anti-virtue-signalling by emphasizing their use of the term "homeless" instead. This discussion became particularly absurd when a poster who was apparently bothered by "unhoused" and was compelled to support using "homeless", mistyped the first term as "unhorsed". This provoked a huge number of posts about being "unhorsed". Many of those responding suggested that the unhoused are mostly either mentally-ill or drug addicts, if not both. That explained their reluctance to invite them to dinner. Many posters went to lengths to describe activities they undertake to support the unhoused such as volunteering at food kitchens are participating in food collections. At any rate, the original poster seems to have established a successful modus operandi. Just post a content-free thread from a woke perspective that suggests liberals are hypocrites. It's a two-for-one because such threads generate defensive responses from liberals and piling on by conservatives. I look forward to his next thread asking us why we are not allowing weary travellers to sleep in our mangers.

Next was a thread titled, "Virginia parents do not have many good in-state options" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster notes that Maryland residents often complain about the lack of more than one good in-state university. But, the original poster contends, the situation in Virginia is not much better. According to the original poster, only the University of Virginia, the College of William and Mary, and Virginia Tech are solid options and, since Virginia has a larger population, this results in an equally dismal situation. While a few posters agree with the original poster, far more defend the university situation in Virginia. Posters immediately started listing additional universities in Virginia that they believe are better than Maryland schools other than the University of Maryland College Park. Some point to specific programs at schools that are outstanding even if the university as a whole is not considered particularly strong. The discussion then extended to private universities of which Virginia has several, but so does Maryland. For that matter, even Washington, DC has Georgetown, George Washington, and American University. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with DCUM's college forum would have predicted that this thread would eventually became focused on UVA, which, of course, the thread did. One poster wrote, "the only people who are unhappy about Virginia's in-state options are the few percent who are on the margins of getting into UVA". Another added, "VA parents with subpar kids REALLY need to stop complaining about UVA admissions." However, at some point, the thread turned solidly in support of Virginia's universities. Several posters pointed out that many states are limited to one state flagship. Others may have two, but Virginia has three, if not as many as six, high-quality universities. While some posters didn't dispute the quality of Virginia's universities, they complained about the difficulty of being accepted. A large number of highly-qualified high school students and a fairly large number of out-of-state students combined with the schools being generally small in size results in a very competitive admissions situation. As a result, some posters claimed, many highly-qualified Virginia students opt for out-of-state colleges where merit aid might bring the cost in line with in-state options.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Titled, "I’ve been rejected by a group of women and it’s hurts!", the original poster says that she has no friends but was invited by an acquaintance to join activities with a group of that woman's friends. However, a woman who the original poster describes as the "leader" of the group seems to have rejected the original poster and made her feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. The original poster is hurt and lonely. Before even reading a single response in this thread, I have a couple of comments. I am fairly certain that the original poster has few, if any, people in her life to whom she would confide about this situation. Moreover, she would probably be reluctant to post it in any Internet forum in which she is likely to be identified. This is a real strength of DCUM and its anonymous posting that provide a safe space for such topics. Based on my experience with DCUM, I know that our posters can be extremely supportive of posters who are perceived to have an authentic need of support. On the other hand, those viewed as being self-pitying when their situation does not justify it can expect little more than scorn. As such, I predict the response to this thread will be entirely dependent on whether those responding understand the poster's situation as truly difficult. I expect that they will. After reading several posts, I found the responses to not be entirely what I expected, but still almost universally supportive. Most posters said that the situation described was not uncommon but they disliked the dynamic considerably. They tended to attribute it to jealously on the part of the "queen bee" and suggested that the original poster is probably prettier or wealthier than the leader. Quite a few posters recommended trying to establish one-on-one relationships outside of the group with the women the original poster likes. A number of posters described having been in similar situations. One poster said that there have been so many threads of this type that the posters should get together in their own group. When the original poster responded five pages into the thread, she was very thankful for the responses and wrote that "You guys are giving me the strength I need to move forward". So, good job DCUM! If there is a blemish on this thread, it is a strange sideshow concerning the term "doxxing". The word was repeatedly used in a context that didn't make sense, provoking a question about it from one poster. When a poster attempted to explain what she meant when using the word, it only furthered the impression that she either didn't understand what "doxxing" means or had invented her own definition. At any rate, the original poster was not, and did not claim to have been, doxxed.