2023

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Trump warns that immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a NBC News article reporting remarks by former President Donald Trump which included a statement that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country". The original poster noted that this is very similar to sentiments written by Adolph Hitler in "Mein Kampf". As the first poster to respond noted, Trump and his MAGA followers are selective about which type of immigrants they think might be "poisoning" American blood. Trump, after all, has been married to two immigrants, both mothers of his children, whose blood he presumably does not consider to be "poisoned". Another poster pointed out that Trump referred to "illegal" immigrants. This highlights an inconsistency that frequently comes up in discussions about immigration. Those who cross US borders and immediately request asylum are following the law. If they are then paroled into the country while they wait for an immigration hearing, they are still within legal bounds. It is inaccurate to refer to such individuals as "illegal". Unrelated to that, Trump's speech has come at a time when he and others close to him have been suffering a number of legal setbacks. Trump has routinely used inflammatory rhetoric to distract from other issues. In the case of this thread, posters are busy arguing about distinctions between various types of immigrants, the countries from which undocumented immigrants come, and the precise wording of Trump's statement. This is an 11 page discussion in which posters are not talking about the $148 million judgement against Rudy Giuliani for defaming Georgian election workers, the ruling by an appeals court that Trump does not have presidential immunity, or another immunity-related case that the Supreme Court has agreed to review. As the legal screws tighten on Trump, he is ramping up his incendiary remarks knowing full well that this will distract the media, his followers, and even — as this thread shows — many of his opponents. Trump launched his initial presidential campaign by describing migrants as drug dealers and rapists. He now appears to be planning a repeat performance. Trump does, unfortunately, appear to have found one surprising ally for his immigration position. That is Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman who recently stated that he "is not a progressive" — despite explicitly running as a progressive — and announced support for stronger immigration controls. Fetterman's wife, Gisele, lived for much of her life as an undocumented immigrant and has often used her life story to garner sympathy for migrants. For her part, Melania Trump, who has her own checkered immigration history, recently spoke at a naturalization ceremony and welcomed new immigrants. Both Trump and Fetterman could do well to listen more to their wives.

Over the weekend the Gaza war thread was back as the most active thread. However, with less than 400 posts, the thread is seeing half the posts in 3 days that it used to see in a single day. Interest is definitely waning. The next most active thread was titled, "Ben Cardin Staffer Films Gay Porn Video in Senate Hearing Room" and posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics". This thread was provoked by an explicit video circulating on social media showing a staffer for Maryland Senator Ben Cardin engaged in sexual activity inside a hearing room of the Hart Senate Office Building. The immediate reaction of those responding was to speculate about possible political fallout from the incident. That appeared to be limited, however, as no elected officials were involved and Cardin has previously announced his retirement. The staffer was quickly fired. Posters have a range of takes regarding this incident. At one end of the spectrum are posters who think the whole thing is no big deal. Next are posters who agree with that notion as far as the sex is concerned, but argue that it was a horrendous breach of decorum that showed disrespect for the job and the staffer's boss. For these posters, it was the location and the poor judgement to film it that are the issues. Several posters went further and suggested that the staffer is liable for criminal charges and should be prosecuted. Beyond that were posters who displayed obvious homophobia and fixated on the fact that two men were involved. At least one of these posters showed a frame-by-frame knowledge of the video that might be worthy of the Zapruder film. He apparently repeatedly watched the video with rapt intention so that he could adequately explain his disgust. One of the strangest themes in this thread was that gay people are such a protected group that nothing would happen to the staffer. Posters insisted that he would not be fired with one poster continuing to insist even after he had been fired. Earlier, the same staffer had been accused of yelling "Free Palestine" at Congressman Max Miller and many posters speculated that the video may have been leaked as revenge for that incident. This thread is also remarkable for the number of posters compelled to display their own personal obsessions. One poster imagined that the staffer would be an attractive hire for blue state school districts. Another somehow tied him to Harvard President Claudine Gay who, just to be clear, has nothing to do with the staffer or the incident. But, perhaps the most bizarre, was a poster who brought up DC Council Member Charles Allen. Again, Allen had nothing whatsover to do with any of this. But, there seems to be something about graphic gay sex that triggers some poster's own particular fixations.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed. The first continued to be thread about the Gaza war. The number of posts in that one dropped to less than 600 which is about half of what the thread had been seeing daily. The second thread was also in the political forum and is about the new Speaker of the House of Representatives. That was revived because there will be a vote today that could result in Jim Jordan becoming Speaker. Skipping those threads brings us to a thread titled, "Homecoming dresses are so short!" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. Exactly a week ago I discussed a thread that I predicted was the kickoff of DCUM's annual "criticize how teen girls dress" season. The original poster (who, by the way is definitely not "judgy") continues that honored tradition by finding current homecoming dresses to be too short and "slutty looking". The thread immediately entered the predictable pattern of some posters agreeing with the original poster that girls are dressing like "street walkers" while other posters argue that teens always push the limits and that their parents didn't like the way they dressed either. But, then the thread turned to the suggestion that this all was a demonstration of internalized misogyny. As a poster pointed out, regardless of style changes, boys stay fully dressed while girls' attire becomes increasingly revealing. There was quite a bit of agreement with this notion, but then that discussion sort of got lost in a debate about whether criticizing how girls dress is "slut shaming" with the implication being that this was also misogynistic. Some parents described how they managed their daughter's fashion choices, in some cases requiring that biker shorts be worn underneath short dresses and in other cases helping to choose looser and longer outfits. There was also quite a bit of comment on a trend of which I was not aware in which girls wear sneakers with their dresses. One more big debate had on one side posters who argued that girls should either be taught or develop a sense of style. Rather than wearing what everyone else does, they should choose clothing that fits their style and body type and flatters them. The other side contended that girls don't need to do anything to please the first group, could wear whatever they wanted, and that the first group should leave them alone. Just as I was about to publish this post I received a fairly angry report demanding that I lock this thread because it was degrading high school girls. I decided to comply and, therefore, the thread is now locked.

The most active thread yesterday continued to be the Israel-Palestine thread that I discussed on Sunday. That thread added another 1,200 new posts. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Invited neighbor friends over" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that her family invited neighborhood friends who they hadn't seen in a while over for dinner and the couple showed up both wearing sweats. The original poster is not really upset but was a little annoyed that they didn't dress nicer. She asks what others think. This is obviously not the most important issue with which the world is dealing at the moment, but that doesn't stop posters from having fairly strong feelings about it. In fact, many of those responding seem to care a lot more about this than the original poster. A significant number of posters wouldn't be bothered by the neighbor's choice of clothing. A smaller number would be put off, though by how much varied from poster to poster. Some of these posters thought that coming to dinner in sweats reflected poorly on the neighbors and suggested a lack of class. On the other hand, a few posters opined that the original poster looked bad for being concerned. A lot of the discussion revolved around exactly what type of sweats the couple was wearing. I learned a new word, "athleisure" which apparently refers to sweats that cost a lot. At some price point it seems that sweats cease to be clothes for working out and become fashionable status symbols. However, the original poster clarified that the the neighbor's were not adorned in athleisurewear. This topic highlighted a host of supposed divisions. Whether these divisions were real or imagined is another story because a lot of them appeared to be based on inaccurate stereotypes. There seemed to be different opinions between young and old, or at least anyone expecting guests to dress up was assumed to be old. Similarly, some posters generalized about relationships between socio-economic status or political leanings and clothing choices. Few of these suggestions seemed to hold up. The thread also had the occasional hardliner such as a poster who would not accept a dinner invitation if she were required to "dress up", where by "dress up" meant wearing jeans.

The most active thread since my post on Friday was, as expected, the thread about the attack by Hamas on Israel. That thread has already reached 142 pages. But, since I covered that in a post yesterday, I'll move to the next thread today. That thread was titled, "Mean girls mean moms" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster says that the "not so nice" girls in her daughter's class have "not so nice" moms. She says this is probably an obvious observation, but she wonders how to break the cycle. Most posters suggest that it is futile to worry about breaking the cycle and that the best approach is to avoid the mean girls and moms and teach your own daughters to be better. Other posters know of mean girls who have nice moms. This provokes responses saying that nice moms are too nice to properly discipline their kids, resulting in them being mean. Some posters report that their daughters have not encountered mean girls. This is a 17 page thread and I don't have time to read all of it, but it looks like much of the thread is devoted to posters describing their own problems with mean girls, mean moms, or simply unfriendly school environments. Some posters tell tales of mean girls that they encountered when they were in grade school. There is disagreement about what constitutes a "mean girl". To some, mean girls are those who take affirmative actions to hurt someone on an emotional or physical level. To others, simply not making friends with another girl is a form of "bullying" and being a mean girl. Several posts really have nothing to do with mean girls or mean moms, but rather simply describe normal social behavior. For instance, parents and kids who have lived in the same neighborhood and attended the same schools for years and made close friendships may not be very welcoming to a newcomer. For some, this is mean behavior. For others, it is something to be expected and simply takes time to overcome.

The two most active threads yesterday were topics that I discussed yesterday. So, skipping those, the next most active topic was titled, "Test optional is total BS" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The subject of college admissions examinations is a well-trod topic in the college forum. Such tests have been frequently criticized as not being reliable indicators of a student's intelligence. Rather, critics say, they are gamed by students who take test preparation classes or have the financial means to repeatedly take the tests. When schools began to make tests scores an optional component of applications, criticism arose that this was simply a means to admit less qualified underrepresented minorities. Two stereotypes — one of robot-like Asian kids who underwent years of text prep and the other of minority students unable to perform well on tests — became part and parcel of the forum's conventional wisdom. In the case of this thread, the original poster argues that test scores should be used as a means of weeding out weak students. According to the original poster, grade point averages are inflated and, therefore, not trustworthy indicators of performance. The poster accepts completely and without reservation the belief that test scores are effective indicators of college success. Moreover, the poster argues that, because of test optional policies, only applicants with high scores submit them and, therefore, the average scores for the schools goes up. The original poster is bothered by students with high GPAs but mediocre test scores discussing to which colleges to apply. This is a 15 page thread and, as I said, the arguments are well-worn and I simply don't have the patience to read 15 pages of the same thing being repeated. Or, even one page for that matter. Frankly, I don't understand why the original poster is so worked up about other kids' test scores. If her child has a high score, that will help him. If not, it's good for him that tests are optional. I think that using test scores as simply an optional data point for fleshing out an application is a good thing. Colleges are frequently interested in athletic achievement. A student who places first in a state-wide athletic competition will probably include that on her application. On the other hand, nobody will, for instance, list that they placed near the bottom or last in that sport at their school. Test scores should be treated similarly. College applications are an opportunity to present your strengths. If a test score is one of those, take advantage of it. If not, hopefully you have other strengths to demonstrate.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Congressman carjacked at gunpoint in Washington DC" and posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. The Congressman in question, Democrat Henry Cuellar of Texas, was approached by at least three men, of whom two were obviously armed with guns, as he existed his car near the building in which he and several other Members of Congress live. Cuellar handed over his keys and his car was stolen with his phone, iPad, and the sushi he planned to eat for dinner still inside. The car, phone, iPad, and sushi were recovered a couple of hours later. Cuellar was not harmed during the altercation. The District has been undergoing a torrent of armed carjackings in recent months, which along with other crime has left residents frustrated and angry. Historically, concerns about security have been one of the best ways to encourage people to embrace undemocratic methods of governance. Many posters immediately jumped into this thread to advocate for exactly such measures. The fourth poster to respond called for deploying the National Guard and before the first page was complete, another poster demanded a new control board similar to the Financial Control Board created in 1995 to oversee the District's finances. I have a number of issues with these calls for federal control of the District. First, one of the most important functions of public safety — prosecution of adult crime — is already in federal hands in the form of the US Attorney's office. Last year, that office declined to prosecute 67% of the cases of those arrested. This track record does not present a good argument for the performance of unelected federal officials. Second, a control board similar to the previous one would require a act of Congress. I am really not interested in having the likes of James Comer — Chairman of the House committee that oversees DC affairs — increasing their involvement in our local affairs. For those who are unaware, Comer is currently leading the impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden and investigating Biden's son Hunter. He is a MAGA Republican with a proclivity toward conspiracy theories. Moreover, House Republicans, who some posters apparently want to make responsible for governing DC, just removed their own Speaker — a historical first. These folks can't even govern themselves responsibly. This thread contains repeated claims about Council actions that have "handcuffed" the police. Council reforms have included things like prohibiting chokeholds, requiring body-worn cameras, prohibiting vehicular pursuits, and changes to the collective bargaining process. It is hard to believe that any of these changes are resulting in increased carjacking. The additional argument that the officers' feelings have been hurt and, therefore, they aren't doing their job suggests an issue with the officers rather than the Council. The Council may have its faults, but the Mayor, police force, and USAO are also at fault, if not more so, for crime in DC. Statistics clearly show that crime is increasing in DC, something about which none of us can be happy. But, the solution is not to reject our limited Democratic freedoms in favor of unelected authorities with no accountability to the District's residents. Rather, our own elected leaders need to stop passing blame and work together to do their jobs.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Second 2024 Republican Primary Debate Thread" and was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. That this thread was the most active yesterday is a little surprising given that it was only created at 8:30 pm. It managed 11 pages of posts in just a few hours. I didn't watch the debate and don't have it in me to read all of the posts in this thread. If what I see on the first page is any indication, the thread is probably not worth my time, or anybody else's for that matter. The first thing I noticed was a Nikki Haley shill. The poster authored one of the first responses saying that Haley had done a great job. Two posts later, the same poster wrote to say that he was 69 years old and had never seen a candidate as strong as Haley. In the very next post, the poster responded to his own post to say that he is 49 years old and agrees. From this we can conclude that Haley is winning the vote of sock puppets between the ages of 49 and 69. I'll leave the question of whether that is a key demographic to others. It also looks like the moderators got more attention from posters than most of the candidates. The very first post of the thread pointed out that collectively the candidates participating in the debate represent only 36 percent of the polling average. If they were a single person, former President Donald Trump would be beating them in polling by 20 percentage points. As a result, it is not clear what these candidates are hoping to achieve. They may be running for second place or hoping to be chosen as Trump's running mate. But, in some cases, both of those goals seem pretty unobtainable. For instance, I don't think Chris Christie has much chance of either. One issue that seems to get a lot of attention in the thread is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' position regarding Mexico. Apparently he wants to send US armed forces into Mexico, a position about which posters were divided. Some posters were actually supportive of the idea of going to war with our southern neighbor. This highlights a big difference between the dynamics of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Among Democrats, pressure is always placed on candidates to show that they are moderate and willing to compromise with their opponents. In the Republican Party, candidates are incentivized to out extreme each other.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Does this Taylor Swift fling with the NFL football brute seem super fake?" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Like the countless British Royal Family threads, Taylor Swift threads could easily take over the entertainment forum. Unlike the BRF threads, however, Taylor Swift threads rarely result in waves of inappropriate posts that require constant intervention. Indeed, about the only complaint I ever get about Taylor Swift threads is that there are too many of them. The posters themselves seem to be extremely well-behaved. Plus, they can take a joke. This particular thread is about Swift's apparent relationship with Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce. Posters are convinced that the relationship is contrived and not authentic. The reasoning, as best I can tell, is that Kelce does not fit the image that fans have for a Swift boyfriend. Some posters argue that this is a means for Swift to bolster her popularity with "flyover country". I know very little about Taylor Swift, but even so I am fairly certain that popularity is the least of Swift's concerns. As posters point out, she is able to fill a stadium within in minutes of ticket sales opening. Some posters see Kelce as little more than a dumb jock who is far from suitable for Swift. Others rush to Kelce's defense and point out a number of factors that could make him appealing to Swift. I simply had to marvel at some of the motivations posters ascribed to Swift. My favorite was a poster who argued that by dating Kelce, Swift is hoping to appeal to the "Tens of millions of men" who have fantasy football teams and convince them that it is okay to listen to Taylor Swift records. But, the goal is not to simply to sell music, but to swing general elections. Unbeknownst to me, listening to Taylor Swift apparently makes you vote a certain way. I am a bit surprised about how even Swift's most loyal fans seem to view her as manipulative and conniving, with her every move being planned out for public relations purposes. The most charitable among them are convinced that she is simply gathering material for future songs.

The most active thread since my last post on Friday was titled, "Buyers can't have it both ways" and posted in the "Real Estate" forum. The original poster notes that in her neighborhood houses are "selling like hotcakes". The houses are all the same age and have been slightly updated or staged. However, one house that has had nothing done to it has been sitting on the market. The original poster blames the lack of interest on the fact that it would require updating after purchase. This leads the original poster to accuse buyers of trying to "have it both ways". On one hand they complain that no houses are on the market and on the other refuse to consider houses that have not been updated. Several posters provide an explanation for why houses in need of updating are avoided by new buyers. After having put nearly every cent of their savings into a down payment and closing costs, new buyers don't have cash for a renovation. If they buy an already updated house, the cost of the renovation is rolled into their mortgage. Several posters see the advantages of buying a house in need of updating. For instance, several would rather do a renovation themselves rather than accept a cheap job done only to enhance a sale and there are the obvious financial advantages. But, if they don't have the money, they can't take advantage of those benefits. A second reason cited for avoiding homes in need of updating is the disruption that comes with renovations. With months long waits for appliances or cabinets, many posters say they would just rather avoid the headaches. However, the length of this thread is a result of one of my most hated phenomenons: a fight between generations. In this case, the battle is between millennials and baby boomers. As I have repeatedly written, I don't like generational labels which I find to be of little value. I especially dislike when posters divide each other with these labels and get into arguments. In this case, millennials are accused of being lazy and too incompetent to paint their own houses while boomers are said to be overly attached to their outdated homes for which they are expecting to get far too much money. The lack of utility of generational divisions is quickly displayed by posts from millennials who not only can paint a room, but apparently have built their entire homes from the ground up with little more than a hammer and screwdriver. Similarly, plenty of boomers claim to be quite happy to spend $40k updating their home in order to charge $80k more for it.