2023

Again the Gaza war thread was the most active thread of the day yesterday. The most active thread after that one was somewhat related. Titled, "Capitol currently in lockdown" and posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum, the thread is about a lockdown of the US Capitol building that resulted from a demonstration at the Democratic National Committee headquarters. Both this thread and much of the media reporting of the story show how a distorted understanding of events can become widespread. Semafor reporter David Weigel was at the DNC when events occurred. He posted a considerable amount of video of what took place on X (formerly Twitter). In addition, other witnesses also made video available. Based on first-hand reports which are supported by video, what occurred was that a group of peaceful demonstrators consisting of members of mostly Jewish peace groups who support a ceasefire in Gaza blocked all or almost all doors of the DNC headquarters. This building is located about 3 blocks from the Capitol grounds and is not part of the Capitol complex. The protesters stood with their backs to the doors and locked arms in a human chain. They made no attempt to enter the building. Police tried to pull the protesters away, but this was made difficult due to their interlocked arms. Police appeared to get frustrated and angry and became more violent as time went on. In addition, at least one of the doors was at the top of a set of stairs. As police pulled protesters away from the door and shoved them down the steps, some protesters fell. The scene grew very chaotic as police struggling with protesters who were resisting being removed intermixed with one another with police doing a lot of pushing and shoving. Video and photographic evidence shows one police officer unleashing pepper spray at the protesters. None of the protesters were shown to be using pepper spray and none of the witnesses reported such a thing. Other than Weigel, I don't think any reporters from major media outlets were on the scene. They, therefore, had to rely on second-hand information and many led with an account by Congressman Brad Sherman that was extremely misleading. Sherman accused the protesters of being "pro-terrorist" and "pepper spraying police officers and attempting to break into the building." None of this is supported by either first-hand accounts or photographic evidence. In fact, as I have said, the opposite appears to be true. This sort of misleading report was circulated widely and became the basis of many people's understanding of the event. Right-leaning posters in this thread seized on the misleading account to compare the protest to the January 6 insurrection led by former President Donald Trump. Pro-Israel posters challenged the authenticity of the Jewish organizations behind the protest. But, soon enough the thread went completely off-topic in several different directions. At that point, I locked the thread.

As is usual now, the Gaza war thread continued to be the most active yesterday. But, with fewer tha 500 posts, activity was lower than it has been since the initial attack. The most active thread after that was titled, "Millennial women are saying no thanks to parenthood" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a Washington Post article that analyzed data showing that while the number of families with one child has stayed stable since the 1980s, the number of childless women has increased markedly. Moreover, the increase has coincided almost completely with the progress of millennial women through childbearing years. Let me start with my obligatory disclaimer that I dislike generational labels. Even the Post article describes such categorizations as "squishy, man-made distinctions". Others, of course, embrace such labels. The original poster says that the Post's conclusions follow what she is seeing in her personal life and, with millennials hitting 40, she says the trend is unlikely to turn around. While I didn't read much of this 16 page thread, what I did read did not reveal many, if any, posters disagreeing that being child-free is a trend. Many of those responding cited personal examples of either themselves, relatives, or friends choosing not to have children. The reasons for millennials choosing not to have children varied. Several posters blamed the cost of childcare and the need to upscale housing. Others claimed that choosing not to have children was a rational reaction to the examples of older women who were expected to work full time and still be perfect moms. As one poster said, "Until men step up women are smart not to fall into the trap." Another reason that came up and which was also mentioned by the Post is that millennial women seem less likely to marry. Many threads in DCUM's relationship forum have revealed that as women have become better educated, received more challenging and fulfilling job opportunities, and earned higher incomes, they have become less dependent on a spouse and, therefore, more picky about marriage. Both in the experience of many of those responding and as described by the Post, unmarried women are less likely to have children. We have operated DCUM through most of the millennials' childbearing years. As such, I've probably read thousands of posts that touch on this topic. In my view, the explanation was captured best by a sentence attributed to "just about every source we consulted" that said, "Hammered by the Great Recession, soaring student debt, precarious gig employment, skyrocketing home prices and the covid-19 crisis, millennials probably faced more economic headwinds in their childbearing years than any other generation". Prior generations had a sort of pattern: graduate from college, get a job, get married, buy a house, adopt a pet (okay, some leave this out), have children. Lots of millennials have been stymied after the first step.

The Gaza war thread continued as the most active thread again yesterday with just over 500 new posts. That's fewer than we've been seeing so maybe interest is starting to slow. The next most active thread after that one was titled, "In your circle how old are the oldest parents" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster, who became a parent at 40, says that she feels like an outlier among her circle of friends, Most of them started families 7 years or so earlier than her. The first poster to respond assured the original poster that she would not be an outlier in DC-proper and that she knew several parents in the original poster's age-group. This highlights a phenomenon that I've witnessed on DCUM over the years. Within DCUM's original demographic which was heavily biased toward relatively affluent White women, becoming parents at what many might consider an older age was not uncommon. But, outside that demographic, and especially outside the DC area, new parents tended to be younger. For years it was common for young moms on DCUM to complain that they were outliers. But, as the demographics of DCUM users have changed over the years, the opposite situation, as in this thread, has become more common. It is unfortunate that these threads often turn acrimonious. In the case of this thread, responses were mostly straight-forward and simply answering the original poster's question. But, fairly quickly, one poster warned about "ageism" and "jealousy" that might be demonstrated on DCUM. This was soon followed by a poster alleging that this thread was "designed to pump up over-the-hill moms", more or less fullfiling the earlier poster's prediction. But, despite this early contention, the thread more or less went back to posters simply providing the ages of parents in their social groups or their own ages. I didn't run a tally of the ages being reported, but based on my perception, DCUM still slants in the favor of older moms. Though some posters are fairly quick to point out that DCUM is not necessarily representative even of all of DC, let alone areas beyond.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed. The Gaza war thread and the thread about frustration with President Biden. The third most active thread was titled, "Safe schools for a Jewish kid." and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster simply asked which schools in Virginia are safe for a Jewish girl. DCUM has seen a host of topics related to anti-Semitism and hostility towards Jews. Such threads have been included in my blog posts (one just yesterday). Still, it remains a difficult topic to discuss. The analytical side of me wants to evaluate threats against Jews and conduct a sort of risk analysis. But, the more emphatic side of me understands that there is an emotional component to questions such as the original poster's to which a non-Jew such as myself is unlikely to be able to relate. Therefore, I am simply not capable of judging threats in the same way a Jewish poster might. Many of those responding appear to lack such awareness. One of the first posters to respond argued that Jews are overrepresented on college campuses, as if numbers alone were enough to address threats. Another poster suggested that Jewish students face no more risk than a number of other minority students. That may well be true in normal times, but these are not normal times. As one poster points out, anti-Semitic as well as anti-Muslim (or anti-Arab) events are both increasing, but campuses remain relatively safe for both groups. A difference, however, is frequent large protests in support of Palestinians. Many of the Jewish students likely are concerned about the safety of Palestinian civilians and they may even oppose the large scale bombing of Gaza. But a noisy and angry demonstration by their classmates can be disconcerting, even if they sympathize with many of the goals of the protest. This can create a feeling of being unsafe regardless of the actual threat they may face (a threat that, frankly, is hard to judge). At any rate, I am fairly certain that few, if any, posters bothered to address the original poster's actual question about Virginia schools. Rather, the thread took off in a million different directions. There was considerable discussion about Cornell, both a professor who made a controversial statement and the wave of vile threats that culminated yesterday in the arrest of a student. Cornell, of course, is not located in Virginia. But that didn't slow down the discussion. Some parents said they would still consider Cornell to be safe for Jewish students because of the large percentage of Jews at the school and the attention to safety being paid by authorities. Despite the threats, this was preferable to being one of a handful of Jews at a school where their might not be much sympathy for their safety. Others argued that there really wasn't safety in numbers. One poster that I want to acknowledge described himself as a Pakistani Muslim. He agrees that it is currently not safe for either Muslims or Jews. But, he recognized that Muslims do not have a "millennia long history of pograms and fear" and don't have the same "historical trauma". At a time when many are eager to compete in the "oppression Olympics", it was refreshing to see the poster make this distinction. Update: After publishing this I returned to the thread and saw that a poster had followed up the post that I praised with an Islamophobic comment (which I removed). Even those who manage to look across the divide are far too often met with hostility.

As expected, the new thread about the Gaza war continued to lead as the most active thread yesterday with over 750 new posts. The next most active thread was somewhat related. Titled, "If things get worse for Jewish people" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster describes himself as not Jewish, but living in an area where lots of people have safe rooms. He doesn't have a safe room, but wonders if people are constructing them due to recent events. The course of this thread may have been predicted by the first two responses. The first response simply said, "Move to Israel". Ignoring, as that poster obviously did, that the original poster is not Jewish, the state of things today is such that it is impossible to tell whether this is meant in the "go back to where you came from" sense or the "Aliyah would be wonderful" sense. Either way, it wasn't particularly helpful. The second response, posted by a poster describing herself as Jewish, was simply, "What on Earth...". Again, it is sort of hard to know the cause of this poster's astonishment. The thread is 35 pages long and I haven't read much of it, but from what I did read things didn't really improve all that much from these two posts. It is clear that many Jews do feel threatened right now. Nobody can, nor should, deny those feelings. There are many posters in the thread who describe their current fears and actions they are taking to deemphasize their Jewishness (for instance, removing mezuzahs from doors). Still, there are posters who don't hesitate to "goysplain" that things are not really that bad. "You are being overly dramatic", claims one poster. Other posters point to events that have impacted non-Jews in order to show, well, frankly I don't know what they were trying to show. There are any number of posters — both Jewish and non-Jewish — in this thread who want to speak for Jews. This doesn't go over well. If there were one piece of knowledge that I would want to leave to the world, it is that groups are collections of individuals. There are obviously characteristics that bind members of the group, but ultimately the members are all different in many ways. A considerable amount of effort is wasted in this thread on debates caused by generalities that may be broadly true, while having a lot of exceptions. Just about the only outcome of these debates is lots of hurt feelings. There is also a dispute that I've found very frustrating about which end of the political spectrum presents the greatest threat to Jews. Is is the White nationalists on the right who chant that "Jews will not replace us" or the progressive leftists waving "Free Palestine from the River to the Sea" banners? I have little faith that any posts of this sort are based on any real concern for the safety of Jews.

Again, I'll start with a reminder of our new "Contribute" page for those of you who may want to help keep video ads off of the website.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Our garbage gym Lifetime Centreville is ripping out the indoor basketball courts and replacing it with all pickleball" and posted in the "Sports General Discussion" forum. As the title says, the gym at which the original poster's family has a membership has converted its two basketball courts to pickleball courts. In addition, the gym removed a rock climbing wall and cancelled birthday parties and summer camps. Clearly, the gym is moving away from family-oriented programs to appeal to the older pickleball crowd. The original poster asks for suggestions for gyms convenient to her that still have basketball courts. Some time ago there were threads similar to this in which posters complained that pickleball was taking over outdoor courts. Now that process has moved indoors. Pickleball proponents make no apologies. They see the gym as simply making decisions that make financial sense and meeting the needs of a fast-growing sport (though some posters dispute whether pickleball can be legitimately called a "sport"). Their only quibble is about being described as "old". Pickleball supporters are adamant that young people also play the sport and, regardless of their own age, they are not "old" and anyone calling them old is ageist. But, at the same time, they are eager to emphasize that older folks buying individual memberships are a more lucrative market than families paying for discounted family memberships. The pickleball fans ask why the basketball players can't play outside and the basketball fans ask the same of the pickleball players. Basketball supporters ask why the courts can't be shared while pickleball supporters argue that basketball players should assimilate and accept that pickleball is the future. The bottom line is that, at least in the original poster's neck of the woods, basketball players are out of luck. There don't seem to be any viable options for them.

The most active thread yesterday was the thread about the lastest indictment of former President Donald Trump. But, since I've already discussed that thread, I'll start with the next most active which was titled, "Is there any way to convince a young man to step it up because he will never do better?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. There is an argument to be made that this thread would be more appropriate for the "Adult Children" forum, but I'll leave it where it is for now. The original poster says that her 25-year-old son has been dating his 25-year-old girlfriend for 5 years. The original poster likes everything about the woman and believes that her son would — in her words — "never do better". However, she describes her son as immature and failing to grow up. His girlfriend has confided in the original poster that she is losing patience with the situation and the original poster is concerned that the girlfriend will break up with her son and he will regret it for the rest of his life. To be sure, there are posters who sympathize with the original poster and urge her to have an open and honest talk with her son to make him understand what he risks losing. But, for the most part, those responding are not very supportive of the original poster. For some, this is just a matter of the son simply not being ready and, as such, he should not be pressured. Many of these posters argue that men can wait longer for marriage than women and 25 is too young. Others, are downright antagonistic towards the original poster, thinking she is way too involved in her son's affairs. Moreover, these posters suggest that the original parent has probably "over-parented" her son all along, leading to his current immaturity. These posters urge the original poster to butt out. Along these lines, several posters suggest that the original poster's son must be allowed to make his own mistakes and, hopefully, learn from them. In a follow-up post, the original poster emphasizes that marriage is not the only milestone for which her son is failing to prepare. She lists things like exploring career opportunities, regions to which to move, or buying a house in which he could take his girlfriend into consideration. She repeatedly comes back to her fear that her son will always regret losing this girlfriend. While some posters do think it is appropriate to have this fear, most of those responding aren't as sure that her son couldn't do better or don't think that really matters if he is not ready.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Rich Men North of Richmond" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. I can't believe that anyone has escaped knowledge of this song by Oliver Anthony that is being discussed nearly everywhere. Indeed prior to this thread there was already a 3 page thread in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum that I locked because it had turned into a political discussion. This song is widely seen as a rallying cry for the lower and middle classes and has been adopted by conservatives as almost an anthem. It turns out that the song's popularity has not grown completely organically, but rather as a result of a well-funded conservative campaign to promote the song. Because of the song's association with the right-wing and the tribal nature of today's society, liberals immediately attacked the song, which does touch on a number right-wing clichés. But Anthony himself says that politically he is in the middle of the road. Read carefully, the song's lyrics do have some lines that appear critical of the right-wing. For instance a line about protecting miners instead of "minors on an island" is seen as criticizing those more interested in Jeffrey Epstein than US mine workers. It is very clearly those to the right, as well as QAnon, who are most obsessed with Epstein whereas Democrats are generally more concerned with workplace safety, including in mines. In fact, the current Republican Governor of West Virginia who is also a US Senate candidate, Jim Justice, is the head of a coal mine empire that has hundreds of safety violations. Whether in the Governor's mansion in Charleston or his home in Lewisburg, Justice is a very rich man who is, if just barely, north of Richmond. Anthony also rails against fat people on welfare eating junk food. One of the ironies of both our food and wellfare systems is that unhealthy foods that lead to obesity are cheaper and more widely available than healthy foods. Our government would have to spend more to enable poor people to eat healthy. Moreover, Anthony — who describes himself as a farmer with a 90 acre farm — is likely eligible for, if not the beneficiary of, many government support programs himself. Regardless of the details, the song has resonated with a large audience. The song's lyrics are such that there is a bit for everyone included. As such, the right-wing has clearly embraced the song and others, including posters in this thread, find messages that would appeal to Bernie Sanders followers.

Once again I have to start with yesterday's third most active thread because the first two have already been discussed. That thread was titled, "Conservative DCUM'ers: how far back do you want LGBTQ rights rolled back?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster notes that this is the first Pride month in decades in which corporations or local governments were afraid to wave the rainbow flag and asks conservatives what aspects of LGBTQ rights they want to roll back. There is probably no way that I could read this entire thread and not end up wanting to blow DCUM up entirely. I don't know how any supporter of LGBTQ rights could feel otherwise. From what I've read of the thread, it consists of posters who are either deep in denial or determined to scapegoat the transgender community. There are Republicans who claim that they have no interest in rolling back LGBTQ rights, ignoring their party's agenda completely. There are Democrats who think the LGBTQ community is too vocal, especially those who are transgender. There is at least one gay man whose knowledge of history is so lacking that I assume he must have spent his entire existence trapped in a cave. Based on the posts I've read, nobody believes there is an effort to roll back LGBTQ rights. None of the posters appear to have heard of Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law. Or, if they did, they blame it on trans people. Hello, it's not called the "Don't Say Trans" law. These posters seem oblivious to LGBTQ-themed books being banned from schools and libraries or the protests provoked by them. In this thread, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' attacks on Disney simply don't exist. According to posters in this thread, the problems involving the LGBTQ community are not caused by Republicans, but by the LGBTQ community itself, particularly those who are trans. Apparently, Pride month should not be celebrated with flags and parades, but by LGBTQ individuals politely returning to the closet so as not to offend all of these self-described supporters of the LGBTQ community who simply don't want to encounter that community's actual existence. A poster complains about "hearing people yap about it all the time", repeating an oft-made criticism. I would agree with this poster if "the people" in question were those constantly attacking the LGBTQ community. Who would have even heard of Dylan Mulvaney had it not been for those who yapped incessantly about her while attacking Bud Light?

The top two most active threads were the threads about the Asian student who was rejected from top colleges and the thread about Trump's indictment. Since I've already discussed those two, I'll move to the third most active thread which was titled, "Rose Montoya in the White House" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. For those of you lucky enough to have avoided hearing about this story, Rose Montoya is a transgender woman who is a professional model, social media star, and transgender activist. During the Pride event recently held at the White House, she briefly bared and fondled her breasts while being filmed. The original poster of this thread, who describes herself as a strong supporter of the gay and trans communities, is appalled by this behavior and asks if others are as well. Almost all of those weighing in find the behavior inappropriate. But, for critics of President Joe Biden, the episode provided an opportunity. Some posters argued that since Montoya was not kicked out of the event, it means that Biden condoned the display of nudity. The White House quickly issued a statement disapproving of the behavior and promising never to invite Montoya and others who similarly engaged in nudity back to the White House. But, that did nothing to quell the flood of criticism directed at Biden. Moreover, several posters seized this as a chance for criticisms of the entire trans community. Posters claimed that this incident was emblematic of trans activism and separated trans activist from gay rights proponents, ignoring all of the provocative acts that gay rights activists have undertaken over the years. Other posters pushed back on this saying that Montoya didn't represent the entire trans community and the issue was the inappropriate behavior, not group to which the perpetrator belonged. It is always interesting which individuals are designated as representatives of their entire communities. Montoya, of whom I would bet most DCUM posters had previously not heard, is suddenly the poster child for the trans community. If a Black person had misbehaved, that would similarly be said to reflect poorly on the Black community. But, former President Donald Trump was recently found liable for sexual assault. Nobody argues that reflects negatively on all White men. Indeed, a number of posters don't even think it reflects poorly on Trump. In reality, this is a meaningless incident not worthy of discussion, let alone being among the most active threads. Unfortunately, in today's political environment, it is nearly the perfect storm. The almost wholesale adoption of QAnon ideology by the Republican Party has convinced millions that the Democrats are a party of child groomers trying to turn your children gay and trans. Having a transwoman expose her breasts on the White House lawn at an event that included children does little to disabuse them of that idea and, to the contrary, has given Republicans an opportunity to further amplify the perception.