The Most Active Threads Since Friday

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Now That Iran Has Retaliated Against Israel?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread was started Saturday afternoon when the media began reporting that Iran had launched an attack on Israel. When the thread was created, details were sparse and the Iranian weapons — which subsequently turned out to be a combination of drones, cruise missiles, and rockets — were still in the air. Therefore, much of the early discussion in the thread occurred before anyone knew the results of the attack. The original poster argued that Iran's attack was to be expected because Israel had bombed an Iranian diplomatic building in Syria, killing several Iranian military figures. The original poster further expressed his opposition to the US getting involved in the conflict because he is sick of "my tax dollars being used to clean up Israel’s disastrous missteps." Threads of this sort have become absurd farces. Never mind that posters were making policy suggestions before the outcome of the attack was even known, these threads now attract a consistent collection of weirdos. There is a poster who blames everything on "globalists" who he sees as having a full agenda of items he opposes. Another poster constantly blames "dual citizen" politicians, by which I assume he means "Jews". The anti-Israel posters on DCUM represent a motley crew of right-wing conspiracy theorists, dithering liberals, and left-wing zealots who seem to oppose just about everything. There is considerable consternation about President Joe Biden's close embrace of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who almost everyone opposes. Biden has created a predicament for himself. Conservatives who view him as a bumbling senile fool naturally oppose him. Many Democrats, alienated by the President's Middle East policies, are frustrated with him. Only a tiny group of supporters who appear willing to ignore anything other than Biden's support for abortion rights continues to defend him. Most of those posting in the thread expected that Israel would retaliate against Iran and a cycle of tits for tat would commence and naturally suck in the United States. This was primarily blamed on Biden. On the other side of the debate were the pro-Israel posters who themselves have devolved to ludicrous caricatures. Their single argument appears to be that anyone who criticizes Israel is, at best, a Hamas supporter — or in this case an Iran supporter — or, at worst, an anti-Semite. Many of them also oppose Biden who they, incredibly, view as anti-Israel. As it turned out, a coalition of Israeli, US, United Kingdom, Jordanian, and Saudi air defenses shot down most of the Iranian weapons. I think the exposure of the Jordanians and Saudis as Israel's body guards is probably the most stunning aspect of this entire event, but the ramifications of that may take a while to appear. Then, according to reports, Biden told Netanyahu to take the win and not to retaliate. We will see how long this lasts, but for the moment World War III has been avoided, much to the surprise of most of the posters in this thread. Even more incredibly, it appears that despite the concerns of most detractors, including me, Biden may have pulled off a foreign policy success.

The next most active thread was posted in the "LGBTQIA+ Issues and Relationship Discussion" forum and titled, "The Cass Review Final Report". The Cass Review is a report authored by Dr Hilary Cass, a British pediatrician. Cass was commissioned by England's National Health Service to make recommendations regarding gender identity services for children and young people. Cass was asked to review existing studies of the topic and report her conclusions. Cass determined that the evidence in support of puberty blockers for young people is weak. The original poster asks what others think of the report and whether it will change anyone's opinion. The answer to that question is likely an unequivocal "no". For those who oppose gender affirming care for young people, the report strongly reaffirms their preexisting beliefs. For supporters of trans rights, the report is biased and was aimed at supporting previously-held desires to limit gender affirming care, not only for children but for adults as well. One critique of the report by trans rights supporters that seems meaningful to me is that a large number of studies that showed the effectiveness of puberty blockers was excluded from the report. The studies were found not to meet certain standards, but this explanation is not convincing given some of the other information upon which the report relied. The problem with almost every thread dealing with transgender issues is that they turn into debates about transgender people themselves. Moreover, many of the anti-trans people see themselves as the persecuted underdog in the debate, especially on DCUM. Before the first page was complete a poster had already railed about how DCUM wouldn't allow factual evidence to be posted. The same poster went on to launch a vicious attack on the parents of trans children. It is this contradiction that I find especially frustrating. Anti-trans posters constantly deny that trans people are who they say they are, claiming that there are two sexes and ignoring the concept of gender. One poster was quite explicit about this, writing, "there is no such thing as ‘gender.’" But then the same anti-trans folks turn around and argue that they are the victim. Similarly, the Cass report ignored the evidence presented in many studies (as many as 101 by some accounts) and then, when trans supporters complain, the anti-trans crowd accuse them of trying to suppress information. One other irony is that posters on both sides of the debate constantly accuse each other of ignoring science. In this regard, it is similar to the COVID debate. There is enough scientific evidence to support almost any position, it just requires ignoring the contrary evidence. It appears that this may well be exactly what the Cass report did as well.

Next was a thread titled, "Connecticut Avenue bike lane officially dead" and posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. If there is any topic that rivals the Middle East and transgender rights as an intractable debate, it is bike lines and especially a bike lane along Connecticut Avenue in Washington, DC. Years ago, the DC government proposed that as part of an overhaul of Connecticut Avenue in upper Northwest DC, a bicycle lane would be added. This caused considerable consternation and spurred hundreds of pages of debate on DCUM. Connecticut Avenue is a major thoroughfare that is heavily used by commuters, but cherished by local residents as well. For cyclists, a bike lane would provide a safe means of using the road, encouraging more people to abandon cars in favor of bikes. But for opponents of a bike lane, it meant either reduced parking or fewer traffic lanes. The dispute was so vociferous that the DC government postponed a final recommendation for the project. Now, DC's Department of Transportation head Sharon Kershbaum has announced that a bike lane will no longer be included. Other than the fact that anti-bike lane posters are celebrating while pro-bike lane posters are disparing, there is really no difference between this thread and the multiple earlier threads about a Connecticut Avenue bike lane. Everyone simply repeats the same arguments. Opponents say that very few bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue and providing a lane for them would be the "ultimate in entitlement", providing a service for a minority at the expense of the majority. But, pro-bike posters, contend, there are few cyclists because the road is dangerous for bikes and a bike lane would attract many riders who avoid the road today. There are the usual arguments about the impact of a bike lane on parking and local businesses. One new wrinkle in this thread involves other aspects of the current plan. Apparently it will allow parking on both sides of the street and contain additional traffic-calming measures. This is supposed to result in slower traffic. If the measures do indeed result in slowing cars somewhat, cyclists might be encouraged to use the road more, riding in one of the car lanes and slowing traffic even further. Another complaint aired throughout the thread deals with alleged lawlessness of bicycle riders. In the view of many posters, bicyclists routinely ignore all traffic laws which, some argue, has now led to those using other modes of transportation such as scooters and motorcycles to break the law as well. I am not sure why the constant law breaking by those in cars is ignored in this argument. Some posters have become so frustrated with cyclists that they even started making threats to run over them with their cars, fantasizing about bicyclists' violent deaths. Thankfully, such posts were reported to me and I removed them.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum and titled, "What are some things that others think are desirable that you actively do not want?". The original poster says that she doesn't like going to St. Barths. I cannot tell you how much I dislike threads of this type. They just give posters the opportunity to bash the choices of others. I know that posters frequently enjoy mindless entertainment, but why does it need to be done in a negative manner? To be frank, I don't know anything about St. Barths and can't immediately even say where it is located. I don't think I know anyone for whom going there is important. As such, not liking going to St. Barths seems like an incredibly minor thing to start a thread about. The same is true for most of the other responses. Some posters don't like iPhones. Fine, whatever. Some don't like fancy cars. Some don't like designer clothes. Good to know, I guess. The only poster I really appreciated was the one who dislikes:

Having my teeth filed down to sharp little points.
Using ‘Heavens to Betsy!’ as an interjection.
Building replicas of famous structures in my living room.

I agree on all counts, though I am not sure there is widespread desire for any of these things. Interest is probably right there with going to St. Barths. Some posters got confused and listed things they like, rather than dislike. One poster's appreciation of the Apple Watch Ultra due to its ability to be used as a dive watch convinced at least one other poster to look into it. So, take that haters. Some posters don't like walk-in closets and noted that people who have them have poor fashion sense. Similarly, one poster contended that people with fancy kitchens are poor cooks. I doubt that either of these generalizations is particularly true. While I am sure the posters find making such claims desirable, I don't enjoy them and do not want them. I dislike them so much that I might start a DCUM thread about it.