2023

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Millennials feel 'abandoned' by parents not available to help raise grandkids: 'Too busy'" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. Let me be clear and say that I find everything about this thread to be disappointing. As longtime readers of this blog will know, I hate generational labels. So, of course I am going to dislike a thread that is premised almost entirely on two such labels (Millennials and Boomers). But, beyond that, this is a fake controversy entirely generated as clickbait. Frankly, I don't feel like reading this thread so I am not going to bother. What I will do is discuss the background of this thread and what led to random clickbait ending up as the most active thread on our website. The original poster wrote that "Boomers are too busy and galavanting around on vacations to help their kids and grand kids" and that this is "[a]nother example of boomer selfishness". To support this contention, the original poster provided a link to a Fox News article that basically made the same argument. However, Fox's article was not based on research or surveys or any sort of data that would support this claim. Rather, Fox based its article on an article published by Business Insider. Business Insider, in turn, offers no real data to support this contention, simply writing this "appears to be typical". Everything in the Business Insider article is based on a couple of anecdotes. A Boomer father who retired to Mexico is presented as a common example of Boomer parents. Moreover, that father actually complained that his children have programmed his grandchildren's lifes to such an extent that they have no time for him anyway. With minimal editing, this article could have been written with the entirely opposite premise, saying that children of Millennials are too busy and have no time for their Boomer grandparents. That would not have made this a better article, but it wouldn't have made it worse. It is simply not a very good article. The "trend" that it describes is entirely limited to a small subset of a small subset of a generation of grandparents. That's not a trend, it's an anomaly.

For one of the few times since October 7, the Gaza war thread was not the most active, falling to 4th. But, since the ceasefire has apparently ended and fighting has resumed, it may be back on top tomorrow. The most active thread yesterday was another one that I've previously discussed. That was the thread about "The Golden Bachelor" which, if I understand correctly, had its finale. After that was a thread titled, "What did you do as a child that would be called dangerous today?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says she played with lawn darts and rode her bicycle without a helmet. In addition to riding bikes without helmets, another common activity many posters listed was riding in a car without using seatbelts, often not even in a seat but in the back of a station wagon. Several posters also described wondering around outside without supervision, frequently being gone for long periods without adults knowing their whereabouts. A number of posters expressed skepticism of the safety measures and concerns that we observe today. Some questioned whether children were actually hurt frequently enough to justify requirements such as wearing bike helmets. Others contended that the measures are justified and that while others might not remember children being harmed, statistics show that they were. The dispute extended beyond safety concerns and eventually encompassed various parenting styles. As one poster wrote, the type of childhoods posters are describing are "viscerally HATED by all the helicopter, lawnmower, anxious, nervous mommies on this board". One poster essentially challenged our entire way of life, accusing everyone of being "drones" and comparing helmets to masks used to prevent the spread of covid. He complained that, "It’s sad how clamped down life is today and the psychosis of the population." By the end of the thread it had mostly morphed into the thread I discussed yesterday about raising children free from structured activities and allowing them freedom. I think it is worth trying to make some distinctions. Seatbelts and carseats are undoubtedly a good thing. The recent accident in Fairfax in which five teenagers who were not using seatbelts were jettisoned from an SUV when it hit a tree should be evidence of that. Bike helmets are probably also good. But, maybe kids do need a bit more freedom to explore the world on their own without constantly being under someone's watchful eye. A lot of posters in this thread express nostalgia for their own unsupervised adventures, but I wonder if they are allowing their own kids the same?

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Boomers can’t downsize" and posted in the "Real Estate" forum. As I have written many times, I hate generational labels which I consider to have little validity and generally to be unhelpful. In this case, the original poster is a self-described boomer who is upset that he cannot find an affordable house in which to retire in one of his preferred locations. I really don't understand why, in a forum that is full of boomer-haters, one of them would put a big huge target on their butt with a giant "kick me" sign above it. But that's essentially what this poster did. His post leaves him open to many obvious criticisms and few posters miss such inviting opportunties. Younger posters have long complained that "boomers" refuse to retire and, therefore, prevent younger employees from taking their jobs. In addition, some have complained that boomers refusing to move out of their houses have constrained the housing supply and driven up prices. Generally, younger posters have complained that boomers should get off the lawns that the younger posters would like to acquire (and then build auxiliary housing units on). The original poster's point is that suitable retirement houses in Rehoboth Beach, the Hamptons, the beaches of the Carolinas, or the "good" parts of Florida are too expensive. As such, he can't afford to sell his current house and move to one of those places. One might think that this is due to other boomers who have also wanted to move to those places and, therefore, driven up demand while supply remains limited. But, no, the original poster doesn't blame other boomers. Instead, he blames younger people who are working remotely while living in those coveted locations. The original poster's solution, therefore, is to require employees to return to the office so that these younger work-from-home types will be forced to move out and he can buy one of their places cheaply. Most of this thread consists of posters of various ages calling each other "entitled" and selfish. Even though practically every member of every generation wants access to affordable housing in desirable locations, each sees their own aspirations as reasonable while the other generations' as entitled. Eventually this discussion expanded from its focus on housing and, instead just became an argument about boomers. There are debates about the college tuition boomers paid, whether or not they have pensions, and other generalizations often made about boomers. This supports my dislike of these labels. They are broad generalizations that have so many exceptions as to have little utility. In this thread there is even an argument about in which years boomers were born.

The most active thread yesterday was a thread in the "Political Discussion" forum about the latest indictment of former President Donald Trump. Since I've already discussed that thread, I'll go on to the next most active thread which was titled, "Etiquette re landscapers taking their lunch break on my front lawn" and posted in the "Lawn and Garden" forum. I believe that this is the first appearance of a thread from this forum in the most active list. The original poster explains that she has landscapers come weekly to mow her lawn. She is very happy with both the cost and performance of the service. However, often the crew members take lunch just before or after working on her lawn. They lounge around on the ground under a cherry tree in her front yard. They don't leave any trash or cause problems of any kind. Nevertheless, this bothers the original poster. However, she is concerned that complaining will cause problems of some sort and wants to know what others think about the situation. DCUM posters rarely are unanimous in their responses, but in this thread they are very close. Overwhelmingly, posters are appalled that the original poster is upset by this behavior. I don't think more than 2 posters sided with the original poster. The rest considered the original poster to be, at best, unfamiliar with American customs (the original poster described being an immigrant) or, at worst, being a horrible monster. Just about everyone said they would have no problem with the landscapers eating lunch in their yards in this manner. Several said that they routinely offer drinks in similar situations and some even invite workers to sit on their porches or other more comfortable seating. Given the near universal reaction, one would have thought that the original poster would quickly accept that she was wrong. But, no. Instead, the original poster rejected any post that wasn't supportive of her — at one point clearly saying that only the supportive posts were "decent". This attitude further enraged those responding who doubled down on their opinion that the original poster is a terrible person. Any attempt by the original poster to defend herself or offer additional clarification only seemed to make things worse. At the rate things are going, there is a fairly good chance that the original poster will enter the pantheon of DCUM folklore legends  beside Pinecone Mom and Lightly Fried Tuna Lady.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Dates and paying bill" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she is 29-years-old is dating a man who is 41. While he is not wealthy, he does make about three times as much as the original poster. The original poster explains that she has picked up some of the expenses on dates, but she is bothered by a recent incident involving paying for dinner. On that occasion, her date had invited her out and chosen the restaurant. They ordered the same things. At the end, the guy grabbed the check and the original poster assumed that he would pay it. She offered to pay the tip, but he responded, "only the tip?". He then suggested that she pay for the drinks, which she did, but felt uneasy about the entire situation. The original poster added that the guy has only had a single relationship that lasted any length of time, that being 8 months. So, she wonders if he is unaware of social norms. But, to some extent, what this thread highlights is the lack of true social norms in this regard. Those responding explain a range of practices. Several think that whoever initiates the date should cover the expenses. Since that is most frequently the man, they end up paying more often. But, women can contribute by arranging dates in response. Others suggest that it is okay for the woman to contribute to a date, but think that using Venmo to transfer a portion of the bill is not the way to go about it. Rather, these posters suggest that the original poster should not have offered to pay anything at dinner, but then suggested to treat for  dessert or another round of drinks elsewhere. Some posters have made paying for dates almost a science. For instance, arguing that the man pay entirely for the early dates, but then contributions are made relative to income. A few male posters weighed in to complain that women want equality except when it comes to paying for dates. This provoked a few posters to respond that such posts reflected poorly on the manhood of those writing them. Other women posters claimed that this is simply a dating preference. If a man wants to split costs with a woman, he should date women who also like to split costs. Maybe this should be included on dating profiles? Many of the responses didn't address the meal paying issue at all. Rather, posters deduced that given the man's lack of long term dating experience, other women must have quickly realized that he was a loser. The original poster was repeatedly advised to move on and not waste time with this guy. Towards the end of the thread, it appeared that the original poster was ready to do this.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "If you are wealthy would you send your kids to a W school over private?" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. For those not familiar with the nomenclature, "W" schools are Walt Whitman, Winston Churchill, Thomas Wootten, and Walter Johnson Montgomery County Public Schools high schools. All the schools have "W" somewhere in their name and all have student bodies that are generally wealthy and heavily White and Asian. Academically they are very good schools and, hence, highly sought-after. The original poster of this thread can afford private school but wonders if it is worth the cost and wonders, if cost were not an issue, if others would choose a private school over a "W" school. The background of this post is that private schools are often advertised as being notably better in a range of metrics than public schools. Whatever basis in reality this contention may have normally, it is a more difficult argument when applied to schools of the caliber of the "W" schools. Therefore, the original poster is asking about the value proposition of private schools in this scenario. Very broadly speaking, replies can be divided into two categories. On the one hand are those that favor one option or the other based on specific factors and how those will impact the student in question. For instance, one poster chose a "W" school because she believed her child with special needs would receive stronger support at that school. Other posters preferred private based on smaller class sizes that they believe better suited their children. The second category of responses might be described as focusing on the "soft" or "social" benefits of private schools. For example, in response to a post describing the academic achievement of a "W" school student, a poster asked, "Is you [sic] kids polished? Can he dress properly?" and "Does he have a Rolodex of very wealthy friends that can get him a job with the snap of a finger?" This school of thought essentially concedes that academically there is little difference between these public schools and privates (indeed, many parents argue the publics are better academically in some instances), but instead focuses on other presumed advantages. However, not all posters agree that those supposed advantages end up amounting to much and don't believe they are good reasons for choosing private schools. As is true with almost all school-related discussions these days, this one also gets sidetracked into arguments about COVID and how schools responded. One argument made is that public schools were closed longer than private schools which set students back further and therefore public schools are now at a disadvantage. Another debate is over whether private school students are ensconced in a bubble and, therefore, not prepared for the real world. This is countered by the proposition that "W" school students are in very similar bubbles. If true, that would seem to be a point in favor of the "W" schools which apparently provide the same bubble as private schools, but with no tuition fees.

If you can believe it, the thread I discussed yesterday about the University of Mary Washington was tied as the most active thread again. Since I've already discussed that one, I'll start with the thread with which it was tied. Titled, "Why does every tourist have a backpack" and posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum, the original poster is interested in the question posed on the thread's title. She doesn't understand the need for a backpack or a sling and explains how she and her husband equip themselves while touring. While no slings or backpacks are involved, she lists more than a half-dozen items that her husband carries in his pants pockets. To say that this thread did not go well for the original poster is probably an understatement. DCUM apparently has a very pro-backpack userbase. The first mistake made by the original poster, which was pointed out repeatedly, was not understanding that different people have different needs and different preferences. This is a surprising shortcoming for someone who professes to be a seasoned traveller given that one of the goals of travel is to see things that are different than in your own life. Being open to new ideas and not being judgemental are two qualities that help travel to be more enjoyable. Several posters took issue with the number of items the original poster's husband carries in his pockets, with several ridiculing him for possibly wearing cargo pants. The original poster's only subsequent post disabused the others of that idea and explained that the items, while plentiful, were all quite small. Still, the fact that she and her husband seem to never leave home without Pepto Bismol raised a few eyebrows. Posters have a host of reasons for carrying backpacks while touring, including carrying many of the items the original poster's husband stuffs in his pockets. In addition, quite a few carry water bottles and, especially if they have kids, snacks. Several of the female posters pointed out that their clothing often doesn't have pockets, so duplicating the original poster's strategy of carrying things in her pockets won't work. One irony of the thread is that as posters explained what they carry in their backpacks, they sometimes mentioned items that other posters hadn't considered, but could see being useful. Therefore, if this thread has any lasting impact at all, it might be to increase backpack usage, or at least the number of things carried in them. Also, given all the discussion of Pepto Bismol, I should probably charge Procter & Gamble a fee for product placement.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Will no longer shop at Giant- annoying checkout machine" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster is upset because the checkout lines at Giant that have cashiers are long and slow and the self-checkout machines are annoying and don't always work properly. While the original poster is specifically referring to the Giant in McLean, other posters report similar frustrations with Giants all over the DC region, at other grocery stores such as Harris Teeter and Wegmans, and at stores outside the area. Some posters report having better luck using a hand-scanner, but apparently those are not available at all stores. The positive stories about hand-scanners led to several requests for instructions about how to use them. However, other posters said that the hand-scanners are beginning to disappear because of increased theft. One poster said that the hand-scanners themselves were being stolen. A dispute broke out about whether Giant's increased use of self-scanners is due to theft or a desire to reduce staff and rid the company of a union contract. In contrast to the complaints about self-checkout, a number of posters were fans of the system with some even saying they go to Giant specifically because of the self-scanners which they find easy and quick to use. But far more posters report avoiding Giant due to the scanners. One strange thing I noticed was a poster who showed up posting several posts supporting Giant and its self-scanners. The poster would ultimately post 9 mostly consecutive posts defending Giant, mocking the complaints of others, and accusing them of whining. I normally don't take accusations of posters being corporate shills very seriously, but this poster certainly raises suspicions. Other posters find the in-store shopping experience so frustrating that they have resorted to ordering online and using curbside pickup. It is amazing how so many current issues impacting society are all represented in this thread. There is automation versus human staff, accusations of political tolerance of theft, inflationary prices during a time of rising corporate profits, differing comfort levels with technology, and a general dislike of change all impacting the common experience of grocery shopping. On a more basic level, I think this also reflects the impact of corporate MBAs in windowless offices fixated on spreadsheets and profit margins. The idea of increasing automation and reducing a unionized workforce probably sends those bar charts rocketing upwards. When the actual result is increased theft, they simply make the process more onerous for their customers. Their solutions always seem to result in transferring more responsibility to the customer. But, at what point will the customers no longer tolerate their grocery shopping experience turning into a miserable ordeal? For several posters in this thread, that point has already been reached.

The most active thread yesterday was the thread about Carlee Russell who is no longer missing but about whose disappearance very little has been revealed. Since I discussed that thread yesterday, I'll move to the next most active thread which was titled, "Am I the jerk?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of this thread or the original poster. I've received several reports suggesting that the original poster is a troll, but I have not observed any sock puppeting and prior threads from the poster (of which I can find very few) don't raise any red flags. Yet, the original poster is very hard to accept at face value. The thread begins with the original poster complaining that her kids have non-stop activities this summer. I assumed that she would go on to complain about the hassle of chauffeuring them around town, but it turns out that her husband does all of that. The original poster would like the kids to do fewer activities, but this has upset her husband because they enjoy the activities and the original poster is not the one karting them around in any case. The original poster believes that her opinion should matter despite the fact that her husband is doing all the work. Virtually everybody agrees that the original poster is indeed the jerk in this situation. To the extent that the original poster gets any sympathy, it is from posters who think she is suffering from stress caused by her job and taking it out on her family. Then, in what was apparently a surreal attempt to demonstrate her humanity, the original poster revealed that her husband is in recovery from alcoholism. Rather than supporting her husband's attendance of AA meetings, she complains that they are another activity to be juggled. With every response, the original poster loses more of the little sympathy others had for her and convinces even more posters that she is a troll. At some point, there is really no difference between a completely unreasonable poster and a troll and this poster has clearly reached that line. The impression that I get is that the original poster's husband may be less than perfect, but is doing everything within his ability to address his drinking problem and to parent their children. The original poster, on the other hand, is contributing very little other than criticism and complaints that her husband doesn't sufficiently consider her opinions. She appears to have considerable contempt for the man. The most sympathetic reading of this thread suggests that the original poster and her husband have a communications problem that could stand to be addressed. But frankly, I think the original poster is likely dealing with deeper issues. This is a case in which it might be better for all involved if the original poster is a troll.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Homeless Man Killed by Fellow Passenger on NYC Subway" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The thread is about the killing of Jordan Neely, an unhoused individual who suffered severe distress while on a New York City subway train. According to witness reports, Neely was shouting that he had no food or water and that he was willing to go to jail to obtain them. A passenger on the train, identified in some press reports as former marine Daniel Penny, placed Neely in a chokehold and held him until Neely died. The New York City medical examiner has ruled the death a homicide. Penny was taken into custody by the police and then released without charges. The original poster of the thread is understandably appalled by this killing of a man who does not appear to have been presenting a danger to anyone. But, if there is one thing that I have learned from DCUM, it is that there is virtually no killing of a black man that some posters will not rush to justify. As such, posters were quick to defend Neely's killing. Indeed the very first response claimed, with no evidence, that "he was dangerous and needed to be subdued" and "Why wouldn't someone understand that?" To be clear, there are both posters like the original poster who do not think that the killing was justified and posters who are fully behind it, like the first poster to respond. From reading the posts, I see the merging of two separate trends in our society. On one hand, the theory of "stand your ground" has morphed from what I believe was its original intent of being the right to defend yourself from a clear and present danger to a justification to kill basically anyone who you perceive as a threat. So, essentially, "I felt threatened" has become a justification for murder even if a realistic threat did not exist. On the other hand, unhoused individuals have become increasingly visible, especially in cities, since the COVID pandemic. Many of these individuals suffer from mental health problems and, occasionally, some of them are violent. The result seems to be in the public's mind that unhoused people are ipso facto a threat. The convergence of these ideas is that many DCUM posters — and indeed many members of the public at large — seem to believe that it is perfectly okay to kill an unhoused individual who is simply being a nuisance.