2023

The Gaza war thread continued as the most active thread yesterday with over 500 new posts. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Rob Reiner: a vote for No Labels, Bobby Kennedy, Cornel West or Jill Stein is a vote for Trump". The thread was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a tweet by actor and filmmaker Rob Reiner in which he made the claim in the thread's title, essentially that a vote for anyone other than President Joe Biden is a vote for former President Donald Trump. This, of course, is only true if you would have otherwise voted for Biden. As one poster pointed out, if you choose to vote for a third party rather than voting for Trump, your vote helps Biden. This is the dilemma of a two-party system. Third parties act as little more than spoilers. It is no surprise that right-wing billionaire Harlan Crow, who has famously lavished extravagant gifts on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has given a maximum donation to the presidential campaign of Cornel West. Crow obviously has no interest in West becoming president and probably doesn't agree with him on a single policy issue. However, Crow does have an interest in seeing West draw votes away from Biden. Many of those who agree with Reiner portrayed those who might vote for a third party as naive or childish. One pro-Biden poster referred such voters as "idiots" and "morons". I am not sure that such language is going to be helpful in attracting others to your viewpoint. It is true that some of the posters who rejected Reiner's stance appear to be motivated primarily by emotion, but that is probably true of voters across the political spectrum. One, non-emotional argument that I see in response to Reiner is that third-party voters are disaffected and that they wouldn't vote for Biden in any circumstances. As one poster put it, "If Cornel West dropped out, his voters would either vote for another hopeless 3rd party candidate, sit out the election, or vote for Trump—in that order." While I didn't notice it in this thread, one of the biggest groups of disaffected voters that I've noticed are those who sympathize with the Palestinians in Gaza. They tend to strongly oppose Biden due to his complete support for Israel in the Gaza conflict. Their criticism of Biden has often been countered with a reminder that Trump will likely impose a Muslim ban and also be pro-Israel. Nevertheless, many of those concerned about Gaza have signalled that it is the line in the sand for them. They are essentially single-issue voters and should be viewed no differently than single-issue voters on any other topic. Moreover, with increasing frequency, I've heard the argument that Trump may ban Muslims, but Biden is participating in killing them. They don't necessarily see Trump as the lesser evil. Ultimately, attempting to guilt, shame, or bully voters to your viewpoint is probably self-defeating. If such voters are important to you, then they should be treated as such.

The Gaza war thread continued as the most active thread over the weekend, with just over 1,000 posts. The thread is not as active as it once was, but continued to produce over twice as many posts as the next most active thread. That thread, titled, "Saturday - Thousands expected to attend pro-Palestine march in DC for ceasefire in Israel-Hamas war" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, was obviously related to the war. The thread was started by a poster who had just heard about what was then an upcoming protest and was concerned that it might be violent. Other posters also had pessimistic expectations for the protest with a number of those responding concerned that there would be displays of antisemitism or hatred of Jews. Proponents of the protest argued that the protest was aimed at promoting a ceasefire and bringing an end to Israeli's massive bombing that has killed thousands of Palestinians. A major issue in this discusion was distinguishing Hamas from the Palestinian people. This is a distinction that even President Joe Biden has made. Nevertheless, some posters argued that a ceasefire would benefit Hamas and, therefore, supporting a ceasefire was effectively pro-Hamas. Similarly, some posters sought to distinguish between Jews and Israelis. One poster wrote that it is understandable that pro-Palestinian posters separate Hamas from Palestinians, but that the same people are often "totally ok with Israel being equated with all Jews rather than saying ‘Israeli government actions.’" The poster said this was upsetting. I happened to agree with that poster. But, when a pro-Israel poster stated that Israel's Iron Dome anti-rocket system was "protecting Jews" and I interjected that it was actually protecting Israelis, reminding that Jews and Israel are not synonymous, the poster called me an antisemite. This is an example of the overly-cavalier labeling in which some posters have engaged. I was advocating a position that many Jews hold and is actually a distinction that helps combat antisemitism resulting from blame being wrongly placed on all Jews for Israel's actions. Once the protest began and in its aftermath, critics of the event quickly began looking for any aspects that could be used to portray the protest in a negative light. None of their expectations for waving of Nazi symbols or chants to kill Jews seem to have been fulfilled. But, one poster did fixate on a single protester who, along with the flag of Trinidad and Tobago, had a small Hezbollah flag. This was said to show that the protesters supported terrorism. More attention was paid to red paint — used to demonstrate blood on the US administration's hands — that defaced a wall near the White House entrance. Some posters insisted that this would be the defining image of the protest and would impact upcoming elections.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Prince Harry to attend coronation without Meghan" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. I locked this thread less than 6 hours after it was posted because it was basically nothing more than 18 pages of Meghan bashing, much of it quite bizarre. I am no longer surprised that threads involving Meghan turn out like this, but I still find the fanaticism regarding her to be very strange. Both her haters and her supporters are way too obsessed. The numbers speak for themselves. In the few hours this thread was open, it reached 18 pages of posts, becoming the most active thread of the day. At least 11 posters managed to post in the double digits before I locked it. All of this because it was announced that Harry would attend the coronation of King Charles without his family. The irony is if the announcement had been that Meghan would be joining him, the thread would have been equally long and equality acrimonious. All that is required is a mention of Meghan. It doesn't matter what she does or doesn't do. All of this on DCUM where most of those involved know that I am hostile to these threads and will likely lock or delete them. Can you imagine the sort of traffic that sites that welcome such discussion must be observing? Their servers were probably melting down. If due to some incredible and extremely unlikely series of events Meghan ever manages to become Queen, I will convert DCUM to the DC Urban Meghan Forum. I would never read the forum, but no descendent of mine would ever have to work a day in their life thanks to the ad revenue that would produce.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Are privates that don’t offer merit aid still enrolling the best students?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that her child is turning down an Ivy League acceptance due to the cost of the university and, instead, will attend a state flagship school. The original poster wonders if this is an indication that many of the best students may be avoiding top private schools that don't provide merit aid. Many of the threads I've discussed in these blog posts have touched on similar topics. The rising cost of college has resulted in many students/ families earning too much to be eligible for need-based financial assistance but not enough to afford $85k a year colleges. One result is that students turn toward less prestigious, but still very good, schools that offer merit aid. Several of those who responded agreed that this is a trend with many of those saying that they noticed it themselves. On other other hand, others argue that this is not a new development and that students have always turned down Ivy League schools due to cost. The discussion in this thread goes in a couple of different directions. Many of the posts question whether Ivy League schools still have the prestige that they once had. Some posters suggest that in addition to the cost, other factors such as holistic admissions policies, have led to demographic changes that no longer make these universities as elite as they once were. Similarly, many posters argue that state universities that were traditionally not considered academic powerhouses now attract top students. The other direction the discusion takes is continued focuse on the cost issue. Many posters stress the existence of "donut hole" families such as those described above who make too much for need-based aid but not enough to pay for expensive schools. While just about everyone acknowledges that many families are in this situation, there are differences about what to do about it. At least one poster expresses hope that families will begin to save for education at an earlier age. Others argue that many families can't save the amount required for today's college costs. In response to that, a poster suggests that those families have not made paying for college their number 1 priority and that they should take out loans. That, of course, leads to a discusion about loan forgiveness.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "If you are still masking children indoors for Covid" and posted in the "Health and Medicine" forum. It has been a while since I've discussed a thread about masks so I guess it is time. The original poster says that she lives abroad but sees in pictures of her child's friends that many still wear masks indoors. In the country in which she is in now, almost nobody other than the elderly masks and she is curious why some children are still masking. Masks are one of those topics is which both the pro and anti-maskers have complete confidence in their position and each side thinks the other is completely off their rockers. As such, any thread like this is guaranteed to be a dumpster fire. The pro-mask side's attitude is reflected in the very first response which states, "Because we have common sense". Similarly, a couple of posts later an anti-masker writes, "A very sad thing that parents are making their children still do this." Neither evinces the slightest doubt or leaves any room for nuance. Happily, the same cannot be said about all of those who respond, many of whom make an effort offer detailed explanations. Some point out that the children may have or suspect that they have COVID and don't want to expose others. Other posters point out the many other communicable diseases that children many pass to each other and suggest that masks many help prevent the spread of those as well. An interesting point that was raised is that, in Europe, parents have significantly more paid sick leave and doctors and medicine are free. So, having a sick child or family member is much less of a burden. The pro-masking side is not without its prejudices against anti-maskers, but anti-maskers seem less cautious with their disparagements. As is common, many posts in this thread accuse those who favor masks of being anxious, being insane, or requiring therapy. I can understand those who believe that masks protect them feeling negatively about those they think are threatening their health, but I really struggle to understand why anti-maskers are so concerned about maskers. What harm are they presenting? While teachers in the thread seem to be generally supportive of masking, one teacher comes under fire for telling children, "It's nice to see your face" if a child comes in without a mask. This is portrayed by a pro-masker as evidence of an evil political agenda that should require the teacher to seek a different line of work. Another normal feature of such threads is posters arguing about the benefits or detriments of masks. Again, this seems to be an all or nothing issue where each side is firmly planted in thinking that their belief is right. Ultimately, this thread, like most others on the topic, devolves to nothing more than angry posters being angry. If that is your thing, you are in luck.

Yesterday's most active threads had a notable political slant to them. The most active thread of the day was titled, "The Fascist Part of the US strikes again in Tennessee" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread focuses on a protest at the Tennessee state Capitol building in which students demanding that something be done about school shootings briefly took over the building. During the protest, three Democratic legislators took to the floor of the chamber to encourage and support the protesters. In response, Republican lawmakers who dominate the assembly proposed bills to expel the three Democrats. Subsequently, two of them — both young Black men — were expelled while the third — an older White woman — was not. This is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory at best for the Republicans because both the members will probably be back soon to fill the seats from which they were just expelled. Liberal posters in this thread see the expulsions as anti-democratic acts to squelch free speech and pointed out that the legislature rarely expelled anyone, not even admitted sex offenders. Conservative posters compared the protest to the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol and supported the expulsions as deserved for such behavior. A similar split occurred over the racial connotations of the expulsions with liberals pointing to the poor optics of expelling two Black legislator while excusing their White colleague. In response, conservatives contorted themselves to contrive differences in the behavior of the three who had acted in unison. A conservative poster insisted that Americans are tired of the race card being played and would be happy that the legislators were being punished for their "bad behavior". Without missing a beat, the same poster suggested that liberals would be gleeful if white men were being expelled. Given the implication that the real victims of racism are white men, I suspect this poster's complaint is not about "race" cards, but the wrong race card. The protests that led to the expulsions were in response to gun violence, specifically the recent school shooting in Nashville. Many posters compared the legislature's failure to take action in regard to school shootings to its determination to remove the legislators, saying that this clearly demonstrated Republican-dominated body's priorities. One poster pointed to a proposal by the Tennessee governor for armed guards in schools. I'm not sure this was as strong an argument as the poster believes as it simply highlights that the Republican response has been nothing more than a proposal that has not been acted upon. But, of course, the response now includes racially-charged expulsions.

The two most active threads yesterday were both threads that I discussed in yesterday's blog post. So, I'll start with the third most active thread yesterday which was titled, "United just randomly reassigned my seats" and posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. The original poster explains that she paid extra for tickets on a United Airlines flight in order to be seated together with her three children. However, just as they were boarding the aircraft, she found out that United had changed their seats without notice. As a result, all three kids were seated away from her. The original poster admits to being the type of person who is annoyed when others try to change seats after boarding, but in this case was happy that the flight attendant managed to get her two youngest children moved to seats next to her. The topic of seating for families on airlines has been recurrent in our forum and I have written about several such threads which were among the most active topics on various days. President Biden has even weighed in on the topic and airlines have been promising to do better. Nevertheless, several posters in this thread recount experiences similar to that of the original poster, several of them also on United. Another poster told of her husband's ticket being changed to an entirely different flight after he had already obtained a boarding pass. They were not aware of this until the poster boarded the plane and her husband was prevented from joining her. She had to leave the plane to even find out what was going on. Our travel forum is frequented by a number of posters who delight in telling others what they have done wrong. In this case, the original poster was criticized for not checking the family's seat assignments earlier. Other posters made excuses for the airline, for instance suggesting that the aircraft type had changed. Some posters argued that precisely because airlines act so cavalierly so often, the original poster was wrong not to be keeping tabs on things. Several posters suggested that at a minimum, the original poster should have the fees she paid to be seated together refunded. At least one poster expressed hope that the original poster might have gained a new-found sympathy for those who try to change seats in order to be together with family members.

The most active thread yesterday, by a good measure, was titled, "3 children dead in private Christian elementary school shooting in TN" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread is obviously about the shooting at The Covenant School in Nashville, TN that left three young students and three adults dead. In addition, the shooter was killed by police. In the few months that I've been writing these blog posts, I've summarized multiple threads about mass shootings. I've noticed increasing cynicism in how posters respond, with this thread going in that direction from the very first post in which the original poster, tongue-in-check, suggested the cause of the shooting was that the Christian school had "had too many doors and too little God". The original poster then went on to offer nothing beyond "Thoughts and prayers". Clearly, the original poster is satirizing pro-gun politicians such as US Senator Ted Cruz who responded to a school shooting in his state of Texas by suggesting that schools should only have one door. I understand the inclination but I also believe that the killing of innocent people, especially children, should be addressed with a more serious tone. When children are laying dead on a classroom floor, humor probably should be avoided. If there is another thing that I wish posters would learn, it is to wait for the details of such events. In this case, posters almost immediately started making jokes about a drag queen or a trans person committing the shooting, as if such a thing were unthinkable. When the shooter subsequently turned out to be a trans man, those jokes lost much of their luster. Mass shootings are always politicized now and this one had immediate political dimensions. Some posters wondered if it was a hate crime targeting Christians. Others, morbidly and inappropriately, were pleased that what they believed to be conservatives had been targeted. When information spread that the shooter was a woman, posters discussed that unusual development given that almost all mass shooters are male. When Nashville's police chief repeatedly used female pronouns to describe the shooter who he also said was transgender, several posters interpreted that to mean that shooter has been assigned male at birth and transitioned to female. That provoked some posters to declare that the shooter really was a man. It turned out that the police chief was actually misgendering the shooter who had been assigned female at birth but identified as male. The reaction among some posters to the news that the shooter was transgender can only be described as just short of orgasmic. What had looked to be another wave of calls for gun control could now be refocused on the current conservative pet issue of anti-trans activity. Very little is known about the shooter's gender identity such as how far down that path the individual had progressed, what, if any, type of care had been provided, or even how long the shooter had identified as trans. I would advise everyone to slow down a bit and try not to get ahead of the facts.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "School punishment" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster explains that her 2nd grade child got in trouble for talking during lunch and will have to eat lunch alone for a day as punishment. The original poster says that her child is well-behaved and this is a first offense. Therefore, the original poster thinks the punishment is inappropriate, she says that her child is very embarrassed by being forced to eat alone, and that prior for leaving for school the child was crying about being punished. The original poster asks what others think. Most posters agree that being forced to eat alone as a result of talking during lunch is an inappropriate punishment. However, most of those advise just accepting the situation and using it as a lesson about how life is not always fair. Many posters are in disbelief that children are supposed to be quiet during lunch and either think this is a ridiculous expectation or that there must be more to the story. The original poster clarified later that the children were told to be quiet for the entire lunch as punishment for being noisy previously. Many posters weighed in with posts that on the surface appeared to be reasonable, but were actually based on a false understanding of events. For instance, many posters accused the original poster of undermining the school's authority, even though the original poster stated several times that she had not contacted the school about the episode and had told her child to accept the punishment. Similarly, the original poster was repeatedly criticized for wanting her child to go unpunished, despite multiple posts by the original poster saying that she fully supported consequences for her child. It was just that she believed that this punishment which singles out her child for humiliation by being put on display eating alone was not appropriate. Quite a few posters focused on the child's reaction which they considered out of proportion to the punishment and wondered if the original poster was feeding the child's reaction with her own concerns.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Same college, same sorority, many of my prettiest sorority sisters did not marry well. Who did?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster has, for whatever reason, gone on a Facebook safari to check the current marriage and socio-economic status of her sorority sisters. Twenty years after graduating, the original poster finds that many of the prettiest women fared poorly in marriage. On the other hand, average looking women who attended "ritzy private day schools and boarding schools" all seem to have married well and been successful in their lives, both financially and personally. She asks, "Is there something to this?" To put it mildly, the original poster's observations were not received warmly. She was accused of being shallow, stuck in 1953, and being on drugs. Some posters pointed out that she really had no idea what was actually going on in someone else's marriage and finances. Others asserted that this was nothing more than wealthy people marrying other wealthy people and, hence, no big surprise. One poster who said she came from a wealthy background explained that social and peer pressure naturally led to what the original poster describes as "good marriages", though the poster was not convinced such arrangements were actually "best" for everyone and recognized that there are multiple paths to happiness. Other posters contributed stories of their own experiences and observations. But, frankly, this thread couldn't keep my interest past the second page. So, I can't comment on anything beyond that point.