April

The first thread that I will discuss today was actually the third most active yesterday since the first two were threads that I've already discussed. The thread that I will start with was titled, "DH says his success is my success" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she and her husband met in grad school and when they got married they both had demanding careers. However, the original poster later "mommy tracked", eventually becoming a stay-at-home-mom. Meanwhile her husband has been very successful in his career, earning a very high salary that has allowed the family to have a very wealthy lifestyle. However, when the original poster recently had a college reunion, she decided to skip it, partially because she is embarrassed that she no longer works. Her husband says that she has the right to be proud because his success is her success. The original poster is not sure how to think about that and asks if others view the success of their children and spouse as their success. Many posters agree that the original poster's spouse's success is her success because she supported his career and contributed to an overall successful life. Others don't really comment on whether his success is her success, but argue that the original poster has a life that is considerably better than most people's and has a spouse who recognizes her contributions. That is enough in which to take pride and she should simply be happy about it. Similarly, some posters think the original poster is being ridiculous and does not appreciate all that she has. A small number of posters contend that, like the original poster, they would be embarrassed to attend their college reunions because they don't see marrying a rich husband as being an achievement. Many posters argue variations of the idea that there is no perfect life. Instead, everything involves trade-offs. Had the original poster not made sacrifies in her own career, her husband likely would not have achieved the same level of success that he has or something else in their lives would have suffered. These posters suggest that the original poster just needs to accept the trade-offs for what they were. In some ways this thread may reflect changing ideas of feminism. In the 1960s, the expression, "Behind every great man is a great woman" was adopted by the feminist movement as a way to recognize the contributions of often ignored women who frequently enabled the success of their husbands. But these days, many woman don't want to be recognized for standing behind a man, but rather want to be up front or, at least, on equal footing. Also at issue is what is meant by "success". While many can agree that the original poster may not have succeeded professionally, she has contributed to a successful family life. Many see that as "success".

Fully half of yesterday's top ten most active threads were ones that I have previously discussed. That includes the most active thread overall which was the thread about Usman Shahid, the young Virginian whose speeding resulted in a collision and the death of two high school girls. He was convicted of two charges of involuntary manslaughter yesterday. The first thread that I will discuss today was titled, "Nate Silver: ‘Go to a state school’" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Most readers are probably familiar with Nate Silver, a stats-whiz who founded FiveThirtyEight and has been a leader in data-driven journalism. The original poster of this thread linked to an article by Silver in which Silver argues that most students should choose state schools over Ivy League or other selective private schools. Those who have paid attention to Silver over the past few years will know that he transitioned from a purely data-driven, "let the stats tell the story", analyst to a leader in the "take industry". These days, Silver seems to pay a lot more attention to "vibes" than to data. This article is no exception. Silver claims that the Ivy League has lost its luster. His evidence for that? A poll showing declining perceptions of higher education. Not Ivy League education, but higher education in general. The Nate Silver of a decade ago would have been embarrassed to offer such flimsy, and misleading, support for an argument. To be sure, for many students state schools are compelling options. It would be interesting to see an analytical study comparing various outcomes such as salary level, employment opportunities, and other factors between top state schools and top private schools. At one time, that would be the sort of thing to expect from Silver. But not anymore. Instead, we get things like suggestions that Ivy students are "coddled". Exactly how do you quantify that? Silver's article is more a collection of right-wing memes than serious analysis. In the thread, there are those who agree with Silver, including posters who agree that Ivy students are coddled. But plenty of posters disagree as well. Like Silver's article, most of the posts in the thread are based on perception. Perception is affected by many things, not all of them accurate. The value of Silver's past brand of data journalism was that it distinguished what is believed from what is real. We don't get that from him any longer. There has been thread after thread lamenting various aspects of today's Ivy League, yet I doubt that a single poster would turn down the opportunity (for either them or their child) to attend if it were reasonably available (i.e. not financially out-of-reach). As for those claiming that they would not apply, as I have written before, that's like me deciding not to try out to be the starting quarterback of the Kansas City Chiefs.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Taylor Swift album Tortured Poets Department leaked early?" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. You may not have heard of Taylor Swift or her new album titled "The Tortured Poets Department", but Swift is a budding young artist who, despite being somewhat media shy, has been getting increasing attention. This thread was started Thursday evening by a poster concerned that Swift's latest album, which was due for release on Friday, may have been leaked in advance. She questioned whether a true Swift fan would listen to the album before it was officially released or flood the Internet with fake links to mislead others. But it soon became clear that most of those posting in the thread have indeed listened to the album. As a result, posters begin analyzing the lyrics as if they were the latest issuances of the Oracle of Delphi. Many posters view the lyrics as strictly biographical and draw sweeping conclusions from the simplest of lines. For instance, the line "you sacrifice us to the gods of your bluest days" is suggested as proof that a former boyfriend suffers from "major depression". Several posters were preoccupied with guessing which songs were about which boyfriend. Then the thread turned to posters offering opinions about their favorite songs from the album and other aspects of the music. As you would expect at this point, there is some pushback from those who believe Swift is overrated. Some complain that the songs all sound the same. There were also complaints about Swift's tendency to release multiple versions of an album and whether that is a simple cash grab. This proclivity was especially egregious in this case because Swift released the album and two hours later released an "anthology" version of the same album including more songs. A number of posters complained that anyone who had pre-ordered the album would have to now purchase the second version. But, as anyone who has had even the slightest contact with Swifties will know, criticism is not warmly received and most of it was roundly rebutted. To be fair, some of the critics do appear a bit foolish. The anthology version of the album has 31 songs and some posters, as well as the New York Times, complain that a shorter, better album could have been created instead. I am not sure how deep in the sand one's head needs to be to have missed the entire controversy about the shorter version of the album, but that's just lazy criticism. After reading a considerable number of the 40 pages that currently make up this thread, my conclusion is that many posters a decade or so ago were bitter over breakups and found solace in Swift's music which tends to focus on being bitter over breakups. Now, those same posters are married, have kids, and are well over any past breakups. Yet, Swift is still singing about them. So a gulf has developed between Swift and many of the posters in this thread. On the other hand, there are plenty of young women who are currently bitter about breakups so Swift's albums still sell in droves.

Yesterday's most active thread was the thread about masking that I've already discussed and will skip today. But, I can't believe people are still arguing about masking generally and in that thread particularly. The next most active thread was titled, "Rockville Teen Charged with Threats of Mass Violence", and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)". The outline of this story is that on Wednesday, the Montgomery County Police Department arrested 18-year-old "Andrea Ye, of Rockville, whose preferred name is Alex Ye". Ye was charged with one count of threatening mass violence. The threat was said to have been targeted at Wootton High School. The basis of the charge appears to be 129-page document that MCPD described as a "manifesto" but the Washington Post described as a "memoir". The document, which carries a disclaimer saying, "This is a work of fiction", described an attack on a school by a character named "James Wang". Apparently someone who had encountered Ye in a psychiatric facility in which Ye spent quite a bit of time alerted Baltimore area police that the "James Wang" had many similarities to Ye. At the time the thread was started, there were very few details of the case available and and posters in the thread immediately latched on to indications that Ye is transgender. The very first poster to reply asked, "So is this person a biological male or female?" This fixation on gender dominated the thread, eventually provoking me to lock it. But let's just get this out of the way. Officials were silent on Ye's gender beyond using male pronouns and there is no indication that Ye has undergone any gender affirming care either socially or medically. Nevertheless, posters quickly speculated about the effect of testosterone and links between transgender people and mental illness. There seems to be no question that Ye suffers from mental illness. According to the Washington Post, he has been out of school for most of the past two years while being repeatedly hospitalized for mental health reasons. According to court documents referenced by the Post, Ye "claimed to be Jesus Christ and was going to crucify himself." Some posters viewed Ye as "a young person in crisis" primarily in need of treatment. Others perceived him as a dangerous threat and applauded police for their action. It seems that this case will hinge on whether a document clearly labeled as fiction, written by someone who does not appear to have made any overt act such as obtaining a weapon, can constitute a "threat". Another question is whether the potential 10 years imprisonment that Ye faces is the best course of action in this case. But there was very little discussion of such topics in the thread which was, instead, dominated by repeated questions about Ye's gender.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "BOE - who are people voting for?" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. There have been a number of threads about the upcoming Montgomery County Board of Education election. An earlier thread discussed which candidates were entering and what posters thought of them. Another thread focused on one of those candidates, Bethany Mandel. This thread takes off where the first one leaves off. Now that the slate of candidates has been settled, the original poster wants to know for whom others are voting and why they are making those choices. This is a rather long thread, as have been the previous ones. As a result, I haven't been able to read the complete threads. That has left me a bit confused about a couple of points which may or may not have been explained in the threads. For instance, on May 14 a primary election will be held and voters will be able to choose one At-Large candidate, one candidate for District 2, and one candidate for District 4. All voters will be able to vote in all three races. To me, this seems like three At-Large races because despite being a representative of a specific district, those board members will be accountable to the entire county, not just voters in their district. Similarly, while this is a "primary" election, it is non-partisan. As far as I know, only one winner in each race will be selected. Therefore, the November general election will not be a run-off, but simply a race between the primary winner and any candidates that enter the general election. Since this is a non-partisan election and there is not a run-off, I really don't see the reason for having a primary. Perhaps someone can enlighten me in the comments? As for the candidates, there is a fairly large number. The At-Large contest has six candidates and District 2 has five. District 4 has a relatively paltry three candidates. One thing this thread has done well is help group the candidates according to various factors. For instance, each race has an incumbent who basically represents the status quo. Each race also has an "Apple Ballot" candidate who is endorsed by the the Montgomery County Education Association. Finally, each race has one or more "outsider" candidates who is essentially a bomb-thrower that wants to shake things up. One of the biggest disputes in the thread is over whether, despite a seemingly widespread desire for change, the outsider candidates would be actually be effective at bringing about reform or would instead simply be disruptive and interfere with any actual work being done. Two of the candidates homeschool their children, raising questions about why they would strive for leadership of a school system they have rejected. I assume that we can look forward to approximately another month of this thread being active and then on to the general election.

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.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Big 15??" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. The original poster provided a list of 15 private and independent schools and suggested that posters rank them using various criteria that the original poster provided. The original poster also said that others could not add or subtract from the list. Almost from the beginning of this forum's creation there has been an obsession among some posters with the rank of schools. There have been bitter battles waged over which schools should be considered the "Big 3". The "Big 3" or "Big 5" or even the "Big 10" has been so contentious that the forum even has a "sticky" post on the topic. Expanding the list to the "Big 15" may be taking things a bit too far and the stipulation that schools cannot be added or removed seems a kind of controlling if I am honest. But, as you would expect from DCUM in general, and this forum in particular, posters are not too concerned about following rules. Before the first page was complete posters had already started adding and removing schools. The position of various schools in the original poster's list is disputed with boosters of particular schools arguing that they should be higher on the list and detractors arguing they should be lower. These disputes are sometimes accompanied by derogatory comments such as those accusing both Holton and Georgetown Day School supporters of being "delusional". The thing about a thread like this is that the original poster knows it will turn into a train wreck and everyone replying knows that it will be a train wreck. Yet, they can't help themselves. I probably received a half dozen reports about this thread from posters complaining that it is a train wreck. Of course it is, why would anyone expect anything else? I finally locked the thread this morning mostly so I could write this post without being interpreted by additional reports about it. The original poster had warned against adding BASIS Independent McLean, a member of the BASIS independent school network that has become quite controversial. The school, normally referred to as "BIM" on DCUM, has a group of extreme boosters who I've repeatedly caught sock puppetting supportive posts. The boosters tend to stake their claim for the school's superiority on ratings by Niche, a website that collects data and reviews about schools. I really know nothing about Niche and can't comment on the accuracy or validity of it ratings. BIM supporters and detractors obviously hold contrary opinions of the website. Despite the original poster's prohibition on adding BIM to the list, a BIM booster was not to be stopped and promptly put BIM at number 1 in her list. Then, true to form, the poster immediately sock puppetted a response quoting her own post and describing the list as "Very accurate". Other posters attempted to add public schools to the list, creating their own controversy. Just to be clear, I think any thread of this nature is pretty stupid and a waste of time. If your ego is so fragile that it hinges on whether your kids' school is number 1 or number 5 on a list, you would probably be better off spending money on therapy than private school. The only redeeming value of such threads is that the vast majority of posters don't take them seriously.

The most active thread yesterday was a bit of a surprise. Titled, "Is Saoirse cruel?" and posted in the "Expectant and Postpartum Moms" forum, I honestly had no clue what this thread was about based on its title. My first thought was that it was referring to a new fangled birthing method or the latest fad child-rearing philosophy. But, it turns out that "Saoirse" in an Irish name that the original poster is considering using for her daughter. The original poster is Irish-American and has loved this name for many years. She would like to give her daughter an Irish name as way of connecting the child to herself and her family. But she wonders if a lifetime of mispronunciations and poor guessing is a cruel burden to put on the child. To make things even more confusing for readers, the original poster added that they would also use the nickname "Sari (said like hair, just like how we'd say sair-shuh)". The immediate reaction from those responding was that not only did they not have any idea how to pronounce "Saoirse", they could not comprehend how "Sari" could be said like "hair". Therefore, as you might expect, there was a wave of responses advising the original poster not to choose this name. The orignal poster has also mentioned that there might be more awareness of the name because of Saoirse Ronan. I had to Google "Saoirse Ronan" in order to learn that she is an actress, but one whose performances I've never seen. So, she was, in fact, no help in my case. I seemed to not be alone in this regard. Amidst the warnings that nobody would be able to either pronounce or spell the name, a few posters were supportive of using it. They think the name is beautiful and argue that the original poster should not worry about the concerns expressed by others. Some posters suggest that "Saoirse" might, in fact, be getting more well known in the US and that many children have unusual names these days. There was an entire side debate about the appropriateness of Irish-Americans using Irish names, especially ones that are not even that common in Ireland and, as in this case, have political significance. Multiple posters, including one who herself has an Irish name that is difficult for Americans to pronounce, believe that parents who choose such names are being pretentious and "try-hard". They think such parents enjoy correcting others and either showing that they are worldly or stressing their Irishness. However, every objection to the name was met with a response brushing off the criticism. There were also suggestions for alternatives such as using "Saoirse" as a middle name or spelling it phonetically. For her part, when the original poster finally returned to the thread, her reaction was "Woah I didn't expect people to have this much to say!" Welcome to DCUM. Or should I say, fáilte.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Would you tell DH’s AP’s husband?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she has just confirmed that her husband has been having an affair. Her husband says that he has now ended the affair but the original poster has considerable anger towards her husband's affair partner. Feeling that the affair partner deserves to have her marriage blown up in the same manner that the original poster has been, the original poster is considering informing the affair partner's husband about the affair. This is a topic that comes up with some regularity in the relationship forum. Generally, as in this thread, posters tend to lean toward disclosure. Not only are several of those who respond interested in vengeance, but they argue that an unsuspecting spouse has the right to know about the affair in order to make informed decisions. The risk of a cheating spouse spreading a venereal disease is repeatedly cited as a justification. On the other hand, some posters argue that this could simply be making a bad situation worse. It could make recovering from the affair more difficult and create an enemy who might complicate things. These posters urge the original poster to focus on saving her marriage if that is what she wants or preparing for divorce if that is her desire. They argue that informing the affair partner's spouse would only be a distraction that would do no good. A number of posters who have been in this situation described their experiences. Those that informed the affair partner's spouse generally seem pleased with their decision. Some found it satisfying for the revenge factor and others encountered cheated-upon spouses eager to learn details that their spouse had hidden from them. There were some bad experiences, however. One poster said that the women with whom her husband had an affair convinced her spouse that the poster was crazy and the affair partner's husband even contacted the poster's husband to discuss her mental health. In another case a poster informed the husband of her husband's affair partner and he showed up at their house with a gun. He threatened the poster's husband, scared their children, and made a huge scene in front of all the neighbors. One of the most common justifications for not telling was the impact it might have on the other couple's children. However, many posters felt that any negative impact on the children was the fault of the cheaters. Eventually this thread transitioned to simple back and forth between the "tells" and the "don't tells" with nobody really adding anything new.

The most active thread over the weekend was the Fairfax murder thread which is contining to see lots of interest including posts from first-hand observers of court proceedings. The most active thread after that one was titled, "EVERY Six Months Jolie reiterates accusations against Pitt" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The original poster appears to be upset that in court documents Angelina Jolie accused Brad Pitt of abusing her and their children. Claiming that Jolie purposely brings up these allegations "every six months" in order to hurt Pitt, the original poster suggests that the effort is failing and wonders when Jolie will realize this. As dumbfounded as I am about the interest in the British Royal Family among DCUM posters, I am even more astonished how obsessed some posters are with actors and actresses. This thread managed to rack up 25 pages since Friday. I don't have time to read the entire thing, but based on what I did read, most poster, like the original poster, see Jolie as the victimizer in this relationship. Posters criticize her from all angles, claiming the abuse allegations were not relevant to the legal case in which they were brought up, saying that she has a bizarre behavior, and in one case calling her a "psychopath". One poster went so far as to develop a lengthy imagined history of Jolie and Pitt's relationship to demonstrate how Jolie is to blame for their problems. Pitt does have his critics as well. One poster described him as a "druggie womanizing adulterous wife and child abuser" and lamented that he is still popular. But, generally posters were either willing to overlook Pitt's faults or blame them on Jolie. What amazes me about threads like this is the amount of detail posters know — or at least claim to know — about the celebrities involved. Those responding seem to have instant recall of minute facts, not only about Jolie and Pitt, but their children as well. The original poster, in a follow-up post, even recounted gossip involving a conversation between Jennifer Aniston and Aniston's decorator. Much of the thread seems to be devoted to the former couple's kids and their relationship with Pitt. Post after post accused Jolie of either turning the kids against Pitt or at least being the type of person who would do that. Most posters didn't seem to be prepared to consider that Jolie's accusations of abuse, not only towards her but the children as well, might be true and the cause of some of the friction between Pitt and the children. Only Jolie was held responsible. The anti-Jolie sentiment was so strong that it provoked a few posters to take a closer look at things themselves and they generally became Jolie-defenders as a result.