2023

The thread about the Gaza war continued as the most active thread yesterday with over 600 new posts. The thread about billionaires withholding funds to colleges that I've also previously discussed was the second most active. So, I'll start with the third most active thread which was titled, "People tell me being weird is a great thing, but I find it isolating" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that she hates being weird in the way that she thinks and the activities that she enjoys. Being weird has caused her lots of loneliness and she wonders if others can relate. I guess I just have to come out and say it. This thread is weird. The original poster absolutely, unconditionally, under no circumstances will explain what is weird about her. She does let on that she is "heavily obese", but that is hardly weird. As a result, it is very difficult for others to offer advice and it looks like the original poster eventually abandoned the thread altogether. Several posters also described themselves as weird, but in their cases they claimed to be normal or better than normal in their appearances. As such, they tended to attract normal people which was problematic for them because normal people can't relate to their weirdness. Some posters who are not outwardly weird even reported being rejected by groups of weirdos. This left them stranded in a world in which they are too weird for normal people but not weird enough for weird people. Eventually the thread was almost completely hijacked by a poster who is a woman, but much prefers to hang out with men. This is something she thinks is weird. This led to all kinds of debate about gender stereotypes and expectations for women. Then a weird thing happened when a poster announced that she was a "female farmer" which I don't actually find weird in the abstract, but I was surprised to find on a forum for "urban moms". But, I welcome the poster who provided one of the more elucidating responses. To further disabuse me of my notions of who frequents our website, a second poster immediately identified themself as also being a farmer. So, maybe I am the weird one. One poster attempted to politicize the discussion with a claim that the "Democratic left" celebrates "eccentricity" and being "offbeat". I have no objection to that assertion, but his claim that this is a bad thing was, frankly, weird. Conformity prevents change and, without change there cannot be progress. So, of course I celebrate those who are weird.

The most active thread yesterday continued to be the thread about the Hamas attack on Israel. But, for the first time the number of new posts was below 1,000, though still nearly 900. As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, topics such as this tend to find their way into other forums. Such was the case with yesterday's second most active thread. That thread was titled, "Discussing the recent Israeli-Palestinian Conflict In Schools" and posted in the "DC Public and Public Charter Schools" forum. The original poster says that the topic of the Israel-Palestine conflict came up in her 6th grade child's class and, based on "talking points" with which her child came home, she wishes the topic had been skipped. She wants to know if teachers have free rein in discussing this topic or if there are guidelines. The dispute highlighted by this thread is basically how an event as horrific as the Hamas attack should be viewed. Speaking broadly and not just in the confines of this thread, some individuals argue that the attacks were so terrible that there can be no excusing them. Any attempt to add context or explain possible causes is seen as doing exactly that, even if that is not the intention. Again, broadly speaking, others, some of whom may acknowledge the atrocity of the attacks and some who won't, argue that context such as the conditions in Gaza are an important part of the conversation. In today's emotionally-charged environment, there is a real lack of listening and thoughtful discussion. Instead, there is a tendency for black and white thinking. A person who condemns the Hamas attack but doesn't express concern about Palestinian civilians in Gaza may be called a supporter of the genocide of Palestinians. Similarly, someone who suggests that Israeli policies toward Gaza might have created an environment conducive to violence will likely be condemned as a supporter of terrorism. Even those who try to be objective can not escape this trap. Objectivity itself, ironically, may be perceived as taking a side. For instance, discussing the history of Israeli violence against Palestinians will likely be viewed by many as false equivalency in a discussion of the Hamas attacks and pro-Palestinian. I dare anyone to attempt an "objective" explanation of how the Palestinians came to live in Gaza in the first place. Some will say they fled at the behest of Arab armies attacking Israel. Others will say they were forced into exile by Israeli forces. Another argument might be that they are forced to stay there by Arab countries to be used for political leverage. A few extreme voices might argue that there is really no such thing as a Palestinian in the first place. A teacher would have to spend nearly the entire class simply trying to be "objective" with regard to this one historic question and there would still be those who are critical of what was presented. Due to all of this, there are those who argue the topic shouldn't be addressed at all. But, leaving children ignorant is the exact opposite of what schools should do. Regardless of all of this, the thread itself turned into a political discussion and, therefore, I locked it.

Since the first news of the Hamas attack on Israel Saturday morning, I have had to devote myself almost around the clock to moderating discussions of the conflict. I have seen supporters of Israel, especially those who are Jewish, suffer shock, horror, and then anger. This anger was first directed toward Hamas specifically and, occasionally, Palestinians more generally. But later the anger turned toward fellow Americans who, instead of joining in solidarity with Israelis and American Jews, demonstrated support for Palestinians. In some cases these groups simply opposed the expected Israeli retaliation that would most certainly result in the wide-scale killing of civilians in Gaza. In other cases, they went further and actually blamed Israel for the violence. Many could not even bring themselves to condemn the senseless attacks on Israeli civilians. I then saw another emotion come to the surface in many of the Jewish posters. That emotion was fear. Fear because Hamas had undertaken what was probably the single biggest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and people who might have been seen as allies were not only not there to provide support, but in some cases actively engaged in opposition. Not only were Jews not safe in Israel, but in America demonstrators took to the streets not to support the victims, but rather in favor of the perpetrators. Fear and anger were amplified by a sense of abandonment.

Normally I would not post to this blog over the weekend. But, it is clear that the most active thread this weekend is going to be the thread titled, "Looks like a new Gaza war has started" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. So, I may as well address that thread now. As some readers of this blog are aware, I originally came to Washington, DC in order to study at Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. I devoted a number of years of my life to studying the Middle East and have lived and traveled in the region. That part of the world remains one in which I have a particular interest.

As I often do, I am not really going to discuss the thread itself, but rather use it as a jumping off point for my own thoughts. Writing about Israel and the Palestinians is like walking through a minefield. One wrong step and you blow yourself up, or at least upset a lot of people who are unlikely to be shy about expressing their displeasure. So, if I in anyway offend anyone, I apologize in advance.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Son blind sided by GF" and posted in the "Adult Children" forum. Someone reported this thread yesterday asking if the original poster is a troll. I don't think she is, but I knew the minute I saw the thread that I would be writing about it today. The original poster's adult son has had a girlfriend for three years who has suddenly decided that she wants to move back to her hometown about 6 hours away. She wants the original poster's son to move with her. The son is not interested in moving because his friends and business network are located here. The original poster doesn't seem to like the girlfriend much and says that if her son and the woman would have a family, she knows she would never see her grandchildren. Knowing DCUM posters, I assumed that there would be a massive wave of responses telling the original poster to stay out of it. Indeed, one of the first responses was exactly that. But, there were a number of responses supportive of the original poster because her son had contacted her about the situation. In a follow-up post, the original poster described her son's girlfriend as having "misrepresented herself". That didn't go over well with many posters and provoked a considerable amount of criticism of the original poster. She basically bowed out of the discussion at that point, telling everyone to "Keep on hating". By that time, many of the responders were too invested in the thread to let it go and heated exchanges continued so that the thread reached 12 pages before the end of the day. Some posters sided with the girlfriend, saying that she had the right to change her mind about where to live while still dating and several suggested the original poster was herself a good reason to move away from Washington. Others argued that her son should take this opportunity to break up with the woman due to several negative characteristics they attributed to her. Critics of the original poster accused her of painting the girlfriend in a negative light and not being objective. Defenders of the original poster said that of course a mom wouldn't be objective, that is not her role. There is a huge debate about to whom a man can turn to for advice. For reasons not entirely clear to me, posters rule out moms. Others rule out friends. Dads get a vote of confidence, but that's about it. In addition, an incredible number of posters read only a couple of posts and immediately replied only to repeat the same thing that had already been posted numerous times on previous pages. When you boil the thread down, there are probably less than a half-dozen unique replies and one of those is some guy suggesting the original poster's son date "latinas and Asian babes".

I'm going to be a bit briefer today because I am running behind and, frankly, none of the most active threads are particularly interesting to me and I am not very enthusiastic about writing about them. The most active thread, by a significant measure, was titled, "Charlotte Sena - Missing NY 9YO" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. This thread is, as the title says, about nine-year-old Charlotte Sena who went missing while riding her bicycle in a state park in upstate New York. When I first noticed this thread, my immediate reaction — even before seeing a picture of the victim — was that this would be another case of "missing white girl syndrome", which is what it turned out to be. I don't begrudge posters from being interested in the fate of young white girls, but I wouldn't expect a case in upstate New York to be the leading topic on our DC-focused forum. From what I understand, the girl was kidnapped and was safely rescued after police were able to trace fingerprints on a ransom note. I think it is worth considering why and how cases such as this attract so much attention while so many other cases are virtually ignored.

The most active topic yesterday was sort of a return engagement. While the thread is new, the topic is not. Diligent readers of this blog may remember that last month I discussed a thread about school calendars for the Fairfax County Public Schools. That thread was about 4 proposed calendars that had been offered for public input. A thread titled, "School Calendar 2023-2024" and posted in the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum revisited that topic because the school board was holding a meeting in order to approve one of the proposals. Posters provided live coverage of the board meeting, posting continual updates to what was taking place. Interspersed among the updates was plenty of commentary from posters kibitzing the board activity. Based on what was posted, it appears that the Board approved a modified version of what had been designated the "blue" calendar. This calendar provides for the first day of school two weeks before Labor Day, includes a two-week Winter Break, and a one-week Spring Break. These were all things that DCUM posters seem to have wanted (though, of course, there was not complete agreement on anything). In addition, the calendar provides for a host of Religious and Cultural Observance days. These days mark significant religious and cultural days in a variety of traditions and may be missed by students without earning an absence. Teachers are not supposed to introduce new material on those days so that absent students doen't fall behind. These days were selected based on public input and recorded absences from previous years. In the end, DCUM posters seem relatively pleased with the outcome, though everyone had their own personal nit to pick. The calendar was approved for three years, though the second and third years might be tweaked somewhat.

The three most active threads yesterday were all threads that I have previously discussed. So, the first thread I'll address today was actually the fourth most active yesterday. Titled, "Satanic Temple to offer abortion services in New Mexico", the thread was posted in the "Religion" forum. The Satanic Temple is a "nontheistic religious organization" that "uses Satanic imagery to promote egalitarianism, social justice, and the separation of church and state". The group has "utilized satire, theatrical ploys, humor, and legal action" in order to "highlight religious hypocrisy" (all quotes from Wikipedia). Finally, it should be noted that The Satanic Temple does not believe in a supernatural Satan. The original poster linked to an article about The Satanic Temple's announcement of the "The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic" which will offer abortion services in New Mexico. Clearly taking this all very seriously, the original poster is bothered that in order to receive abortion services, individuals must agree to conduct the Religious Abortion Ritual. The original poster apparently believes that agreeing to this ritual means joining a Satanist organization. In reality, the ritual amounts to little more than reciting two fairly mundane statements ("One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone" and "Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs" ) and membership does not appear to be a requirement. Many posters respond trying to convince the original poster that The Satanic Temple is not actually a group that worships Satan and pointing out that she is falling victim to their strategy of using satire to draw attention to their agenda. The original poster is not dissuaded and simply transitions into an opposing abortion generally. So, as a result, the thread basically turns into a debate about abortion rights. Ultimately, this thread shows the effectiveness of the The Satanic Temple's strategy. No other abortion clinic in New Mexico, nor indeed anywhere in the US, has been subject of one of DCUM's most active threads.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "SOTU Thread" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Created to discuss last night's State of the Union address delivered by President Joe Biden, the thread managed to produce 15 pages of discussion in less than 18 hours. With posts being created at that pace and needing to sleep for many of those hours, there was really no way for me to keep up with this thread. Most of my exposure was in response to reports of inappropriate posts. I was interested in how widespread participation in this thread was and, based on a quick analysis it appears that there were nearly fifty posters who contributed to the thread. Of those, five posted more than ten times including three who posted more than twenty times each. Based on what I've read, the thread is a combination of play-by-play discussion of the speech as it takes place, analysis and commentary on various points, discussion of audience behavior, and lots of talk about fashion. The thread also included discussion of Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders' response. DCUM has a liberal-leaning audience so it is no surprise that Biden generally received good marks while Sanders left a lot to be desired. However, conservative posters on DCUM are generally very vocal and frequently dominate threads due to repeated posting. But, it appears that last night even they struggled to find ways to spin things in their favor. Pickings were so slim for them that at one point the best they could do was fixate on Jill Biden kissing Douglas Emhoff as they greeted each other. Sadly for them, even KissGate was fairly short-lived. The highlight of the evening for many was a bit of political rope-a-dope by Biden who accused Republicans of wanting to sunset Social Security and Medicare, only be met by an avalanche of boos and jeers from Republicans. Biden adroitly welcomed the unanimity around protecting those programs declared them off the table. It was an amazing hoisting of Republicans on their own petard.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "The 'White People Are Mosquitoes' Video in FCPS" and posted in the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum. The right-wing has perfected the art of manufactured outrage. This is particularly true around school issues, this thread being one example. The original poster launches things with the falsehood that, in the video, "white people are mosquitos". This is not only falsely stated in her subject line, but repeated in the body of her post. The video neither says nor implies that the mosquitos represent white people. The video twice says that microaggressions are mosquito bites, but the mosquitos themselves are not identified beyond merely being mosquitos. Since anyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or gender, is capable of committing a microagression, there is no basis for the original poster's allegation. Second, the original poster says that the video suggests that minorities "reasonably could engage in violence against white people". This is also misleading. To repeat, the mosquitos don't represent "white people". Moreover, to interpret the part of the video in which the narrator says that microaggressions can be so annoying that it makes "you want to go ballistic" as condoning violence requires a certain amount of willful ignorance. In reality, the video is a creative attempt to communicate the harm potentially caused by microaggressions. Whether the reaction to the video by the original poster is an authentic fear that white people are the real victims of efforts to combat racism or just a manufactured reaction based on political partisanship is not clear. But one thing that is clear is that the performative outrage around school issues mostly gets oxygen due to social media platforms including, in its limited role, DCUM. I am not at all comfortable with our forums being used in such a manner. As this thread ultimately demonstrates, the original poster's attempt to portray white people as victims is immediately exploited as a justification for racism by white people. Which, if not the actual goal of the thread, was an easily foreseeable outcome.