2023

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "I got an email telling me my daughter is a mean girl." and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster explains that she received an anonymous email saying that her teen daughter is a "mean girl" who gossips and excludes others. The original poster says that she knows that her daughter is popular and is sometimes frustrated by expectations that she be everyone's friend, but does not have a feeling that she is a mean girl. The original poster asks for advice about what to do. This is a 14 page thread and I've only read a few pages of it. Based on that limited exposure, I am inclined to say that the original poster is one of the most level-headed participants in the thread. She is neither ruling out nor completely accepting the accusations in the email. While she recognizes that her daughter has faults and is therefore willing to consider the possibility that she is a mean girl, the original poster doesn't feel like the email is sufficient evidence of this being true. Some posters were prepared to accept the email as fact and declare the child a certified mean girl and, by implication, her mother a bad parent. Others were more skeptical, suggesting nefarious explanations for the email in which the original poster's daughter was more a victim than a victimizer. Much of the discussion in this thread is less about how to react to the email and more about the appropriateness of anonymous emails. Quite a few posters view this as a completely valid means of communication while others are critical of both the practice and those who condone it. Personally, as a recipient of many generous, but unlikely to be true, proposals from random Nigerian governmental officials, I don't trust anything that comes in email these days.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Is this a legitimate reason for a divorce?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Given the tendency of posters in the relationship forum to recommend divorce for almost any reason, I would expect that the answer to the question posed in the thread's title would be "yes". The original poster's complaint in this instance is that her husband does not defend her from criticism (she calls it "attacks") by others. She describes two examples, which were apparently the only cases of this happening. Everything else in their marriage is good, but she considers her husband to be "wimpy" and doesn't want to stay married to him. For once, most posters seem to be opposed to divorce, especially because the couple has four kids. The original poster doesn't provide a lot of details about the "attacks", but what she does provide are not convincing to many posters. Quite a few believe she is greatly overreacting. Several posters advise the original poster that everyone has flaws and that she has to take the good with the bad. Even posters who sympathize with the original poster and think that her husband should have defended her don't believe this is divorce-worthy. Some posters are even able to find a bright side to a conflict-avoidant husband. To be sure, there are a few proponents of divorce — it wouldn't be the DCUM relationship forum if there weren't — but they are relatively sparse.

Because I took the weekend off from the blog, today I'll review the most active threads since Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "I dropped the hosting rope and now ILs think I’m ‘mad’ at them" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster recounts that she has hosted her in-laws for years for holidays and vacations. Each time, she is forced to be responsible for all cooking, cleaning, childcare, and logistics. Meanwhile, her husband neglects everything while simply hanging out with his family. When her husband suggested hosting for Easter, the original poster told him that he would have to take responsibility this time. There were a few issues with meals, and a few logistical problems, but it generally worked out. After the holiday, however, the original poster's mother-in-law contacted her asking if she was mad. The original poster explained that she hadn't felt like hosting this holiday. This caused the original poster's husband to ask why she had been rude and why she was mad at them. The family relationship forum has become a frequent venue for lengthy and contentious threads. As is often the case on DCUM, I am astonished at the topics that gain attention. While I understand that this is likely an important topic to the original poster, I am amazed that complete strangers have any interest in the thread at all. Nevertheless, it has already reached 25 pages. But, further investigation reveals that the interest was not all from complete strangers. By my count, the original poster has posted 53 times in this thread, many times referring to herself in the third person or offering anonymous support for herself. Even on page 24 she is continuing to defend the "original poster" while speaking in the third person and calling critics of the original poster "old biddies". Since all signs point to a likelihood that the poster will extend this thread ad infinitum, I've locked it.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "The Tucker Carlson videos are dropping" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As you can guess from the subject line, this thread was about video footage of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol by supporters of former President Donald J. Trump. Speaker of the House Keven McCarthy gave Fox News host Tucker Carlson exclusive access to the footage and Carlson has been presenting select portions of it to his audience. The discussion in this thread is divided between those who believe that it completely exonerates the January 6 insurrectionists and those who argue that it is deceptively edited and that the facts of January 6 are well-known and indisputable. The thread is 21 pages long so I can't summarize much of it, but it looks like many of the posts consist simply of embedded tweets that support the poster's viewpoint. Many of the pro-Trump posters argue that the videos show that the public has been mislead by Democrats and believe that those convicted of January 6 offenses deserve new trials. Posters with opposing viewpoints insist that the lawyers of those convicted had access to the video and could have used it as part of the defense had they so chosen. The January 6 Congressional Committee was also the target of considerable criticism, particularly from posters who seemed to confuse its role with that of the Justice Department and the Courts. It is notable that Carlson's presentation has not only been criticized by Democrats, but also by leading Republicans including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. As is so often the case these days, discussions like this one do little to inform or educate, but instead are simply venues for amplifying previously held viewpoints.

Because I didn't post over the weekend, today I'll look at the most active threads over the past three days. In the Relationship forum, regardless of the question, the answer is always "divorce". Increasingly in the College forum, no matter the question, the answer is "test optional". That was the case with the most active thread over the past three days which was titled, "Why is it so much harder to get into a top school now?" and, of course, posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster believes that selective colleges are harder to get into these days and that there is a larger pool of qualified candidates and wants to know why. While some of the first to respond mention the availability of student loans which enable more students to pursue such colleges and the presence of international students who are full pay and, as such, financially attractive to schools, much of the discussion focuses on test optional admissions. The argument goes that due to grade inflation everyone has a high grade point average and standardized tests scores are no longer available to distinguish the top students. These means that there is a large pool of applicants with similar qualifications. Some posters go further and suggest that colleges and universities also focus on minority applicants who are less qualified, making things even more difficult for non-minority candidates. However other posters throw cold water on this suggestion by providing statistics showing that the minority acceptance rate has been stabile for some time. I just skimmed the 22 page thread and it looks like arguments about the validity of various tests dominates discussion and leads to several off-topic tangents. This thread again illustrates what I am officially dubbing "The DCUM Paradox". Families move to highly-educated, affluent areas where they target the best schools in hope that this creates a direct line to the top universities. However, come college application time, they find that they are competing with students from the same school in the same highly-educated, affluent area who all want to attend the same group of top universities. Because the top universities are not going to accept the entire senior class of the best high school in this highly-educated, affluent area, what was supposed to be a direct line is is anything but that. The family would have been better off choosing an economically depressed area with rundown schools and having the student become the high school valedictorian. Or, at least this is the impression one gets from reading threads like this. Frankly, I have no idea if the DCUM Paradox is grounded in reality or not. But repeated anecdotes in threads of this sort certainly support the idea.

Fixed again and I'm going to bed.

Broken Again. I tried to fix a problem with the Nanny Forums and something went wrong. Working on it now.

This evening I was doing some maintenance on the database cluster when suddenly an error message appeared and the forums stopped working. The cluster consists of four nodes and two of them had crashed completely and two were in a not-working state. I tried several times to bring the cluster back up, but what appears to be a corrupt file prevented that. I am now restoring yesterday's backup. Unfortunately, since backups are done at night, any post or thread from about 4 am Friday morning will be lost.

UPDATE: The DCUM Forums are back up but are working very slowly. Posting is very slow. The page times out but the posts actually go through. Please don't resubmit because that will cause duplicate posts. Recent Topics also doesn't seem to be working. 

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Who are these families with household incomes of $45k or $60k? $70k?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster cites the salary levels mentioned in the thread's title as being necessary to received college financial aid. He is surprised that anyone with a child of college age would have such incomes and wonders who they are. Before this thread even had three replies it was reported to me by someone suggesting that it be removed. I believe that person's concern was that thread would result in bashing poor people. If so, such fears were misplaced. Instead, the thread is mostly posters criticizing the original poster for lacking intelligence and providing examples of those who earn salaries at such levels. The most frequent example was probably single parents. Many posters provided stats showing average incomes which demonstrated that the original poster was very out of touch with salary levels. Quite a few posters described their own personal experiences of either growing up in such a household or living in one now. This is an interesting corrective to the prevailing perception that DCUM posters are all well off. One poster, who said he owned a business, described using loopholes to keep his reported income low and qualify for aid. Needless to say, this did not go over well with many posters.

Earlier this month one of the most active threads that I discussed was focused on articles in the Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School's student newspaper describing drug use in the school's bathrooms. In that thread, parents demanded that something be done about the problem. It turns out that Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), did do something. The school system restricted access to the bathrooms. The most active thread yesterday, titled, "Bathroom security announcement" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum, was about that policy change. Generally, posters were in agreement that these restrictions are a bad idea. Some posters described the policy change as "collective punishment" which was unfair and would be ineffective. Many parents said that it would be harmful to students who had medical needs for unfettered bathroom access and menstruating girls. However, there was strong disagreement about what should be done instead of restricting bathroom access. As I have written before, the MCPS forum has a contigent that strongly supports the return of School Resource Officers (SROs), police officers stationed in schools. Other posters are not convinced that armed police officers raiding school bathrooms is the solution. Whenever someone mentions SROs, a poster or posters immediately bring up the failure of police at Parkland and Uvalde. Those schools were mentioned so frequently in this thread that one could be forgiven for thinking they were MCPS schools. Several posters complained that the school security guards don't do anything to stop kids vaping or using drugs in the bathrooms and want these employees to enforce school rules. Others who responded see the bathroom issue in the context of greater societal issues which should be addressed, particularly gun control (there have been a number of gun-related incidents in MCPS schools including a shooting in a school bathroom). It is unlikely that this will be the end of the bathroom controversy so this is probably not going to be the last thread on the topic about which I write.

It continues to be college admission season which means that threads about college admissions continue to dominate the "most active threads" list. Yesterday's most active thread was one example. Titled, "UVA EA Stats" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum, the original post consists almost entirely of a link to a blog post by a University of Virginia Associate Dean which provides University of Virginia Early Action admission statistics. The one consistent characteristic of college application threads is the conviction by posters that the procedures are unfair and biased against them. In this case, posters are convinced that northern Virginia is not sufficiently represented in UVA admissions which, they believe, favor applicants from other parts of Virginia. This highlights one of the great contradictions I've come across from reading DCUM. Starting at an early age, many DCUM posters begin plotting their child's course to a prestigious college. If they plan on using public schools, they choose a neighborhood that feeds to top schools, follow school developments like a bloodhound on a raccoon's trail, make sure their kids check all the right boxes for extracurricular activities and take all the correct high school classes. But, then, come college application time they suddenly become convinced that this is all working against them. They come to believe that every other kid in their high-achieving high school, indeed every kid in every high school in the neighboring area, has the same qualifications as their kid. Moreover, just as in the case of Lake Wobegon, all of them are above average. Far above average to hear them tell it. The idea that some of these students, particularly if that student is the poster's child, might be turned down for admission while an applicant from rural southwestern Virginia is accepted simply cannot be countenanced. As such, this thread mostly consists of posters arguing that northern Virginia is being mistreated, other posters trying to convince those posters this is not the case, and a third group of posters who can't pop popcorn fast enough while they intentionally stir the pot or simply stand back and enjoy the show. This basically continues for 15 pages so far.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Chinese balloon flying" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Obviously this thread is about the Chinese surveillance balloon that has been flying over the US the past couple of days. The most revealing aspect of this thread is the large number of Chinese surveillance balloon experts that post on DCUM. The thread is literally full of them. Every single one of these "experts" blames the Biden administration for not immediately shooting down the balloon. The Biden administration's explanation that the military has disabled the balloon's ability to transmit any information of value and that shooting it down would present dangers to people and property on the ground is far from satisfactory to this group. China would not allow a US balloon to float unmolested over its territory they argue. Probably true. China does not share the US's concerns about the safety of its citizens and would likely be willing to sacrifice a few in order to make a political gesture. For many posters, this was simply further evidence that President Joe Biden is in the pocket of Chinese communists. For others it provided evidence for their latest conspiracy theory. For all the hyperventilating going on in this thread, the balloon didn't elicit much more than a shoulder shrug from actual experts — some of whom are quoted in the thread. Those experts were mostly  confused given that China could obtain equally good intelligence from its satellites. One salient topic that did come up in the thread was the amount of US farmland China has been purchasing. A number of posters found this to be much more concerning than the balloon.