Thursday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Trump found Guilty on all charges!". Posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread was started just after 5 pm yesterday but has already grown to over 60 pages. Obviously, the thread is about the verdict in the trial of former President, current cult leader, and now convicted felon Donald Trump. The jury found Trump guilty of all 34 charges. Sentencing is scheduled for July 11. I have written a number of times recently about the different realities in which many DCUM posters currently dwell. That phenomenon was on full display in this thread. Trump opponents were overjoyed, seeing the verdict as long overdue justice for someone who has a long history of behaving cavalierly toward the law. They viewed this as the legal system demonstrating that nobody is above the law. In contrast, Trump supporters see the trial and verdict as a politically-motivated witch hunt that is completely illegitimate. These posters repeatedly pointed out that the judge was allegedly a Democrat, that the jurors were allegedly liberal, and that New York is a Democratic state. Never mind that just days ago Republicans were claiming that Trump had attracted a crowd of tens of thousands to a rally in the Bronx and this was supposed to be evidence that the Democratic hold on New York is in danger. That story, which was not true in the first place, is as they say, no longer applicable. Today's story is that it is impossible to find a New Yorker who is not a card-carrying liberal. But, more to the point, the posters arguing this are making clear that they can't envision themselves acting in an objective manner and, therefore, don't believe anyone else is capable of doing so either. The possibility that the jurors considered the evidence and decided that it showed Trump's guilt is simply not comprehendible to these posters. Trump supporters also engaged in a number of arguments are simply not factually based. For instance, many argued that Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan prosecutor, had campaigned on a promise to prosecute Trump and that this demonstrated that the charges were politically-motivated. In fact, there is no evidence that Bragg campaigned on such a promise. Moreover, Bragg — who had inherited the case against Trump from his predecessor — initially dropped it. Another argument is that former President Bill Clinton made the same type of payment to Paula Jones. Clinton personally made a payment to Jones to settle a lawsuit. Had Trump made a similar personal payment to Daniels, that would also have been legal. Trump's transgression was falsely reporting the payments as businesses expenses. Some posters also doubted the testimony of Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer who was previously convicted and served jail time for his role in the payment scheme. However, Cohen's testimony was far from the only evidence of Trump's role in misclassifying the payments. Prosecutors also had 11 invoices, 12 vouchers, and 11 checks that created a paper trail linking Trump to the payments. But Trump supporters were not interested in evidence. Support for Trump has often been driven by resentment and his supporters thrive on seeing themselves as victims of powerful forces outside their control. Trump has fed this narrative as well as portraying himself as a victim of the same forces. As a result, many Trump supporters are even more determined to support him as a result of the verdict.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum and titled, "Support the Montgomery Virtual Academy (MVA) from Budget Cuts!". Back in February, I discussed a thread on almost exactly the same topic. Back then, the Montgomery County Public Schools Board of Education had considered eliminating the Montgomery Virtual Academy — an online school for MCPS students — but agreed to continue funding the school while phasing it out over time. Subsequently, it appears that the Board decided to eliminate the program immediately. The same folks who were upset in February are upset again, but even more so. Frankly, I don't have time to read much of this thread but I have skimmed it. To a great extent, the arguments appear to be the same as in the previous thread. Supporters of the MVA have been extremely happy with the program. They argue that it serves a diverse set of students whose particular needs cannot be met in a classroom. This includes students suffering from medical conditions and those with special learning needs. They further argue that cutting the program will not result in significant savings. Other posters support eliminating the program. Some of this opposition is lodged in latent resentment left over from school closures during the COVID pandemic. I have noted several times that the school closures had a traumatic effect on some posters and, as in this case, anything remotely connected to those closures is met with hostility. These posters reflexively oppose anything linked to distant learning such as the MVA. I suspect that some of these individuals fear that the existence of the MVA could enable future closures and eliminating the academy would make closing schools more difficult. Other posters try to look at the issue strictly in terms of costs and benefits. There are many questions about the program's cost, the number of students attending, and so on. MVA supporters argue that any savings gained from closing the academy would likely be lost due to the extra resources required by many of its students if they are forced to return to classrooms. Some of the students will require specialized placements or one on one paraprofessionals. MCPS has another distance learning program aimed at students who are medically unable to attend in-person classes. Some posters argue that this program could meet the needs of some of those currently enrolled in the MVA. But it is not clear how many MVA students that program could accommodate. Some posters argue that Maryland should have a state-wide virtual learning program which MVA students could attend. However, no such program exists and, as such, is currently not an option. The MVA also has critics who simply don't believe it does a satisfactory job of educating students. They trot out statistics to make this point. Regardless of what the stats say, the current families participating in the academy seem very pleased with it and willing to fight for its survival.

Next was a thread titled, "School for a smart boy who is preppy/basic/bro" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster goes into great detail describing a student who I presume to be her son. The boy seems quite intelligent, taking several advanced placement classes and having great test scores. Outside of that, however, he is pretty vanilla. The original poster is trying to compile a list of 8-10 colleges running from safety picks to reaches and would like the forum's help. This is the type of post for which our College Admissions Fantasy League participants live. Somewhat surprising to me, several posters seem to arrive independently at the same conclusions. For instance, the first two posters to respond both suggested Wake Forest. The University of Richmond was another popular recommendation. Otherwise, there is not much to say about this thread. There is some disagreement about the meaning of "bro" and whether or not being a "bro" is good or bad. There is even more controversy about a paper the original poster says the student wrote and for which she says he received the highest grade in his class. Because the original poster had earlier said that she has never seen the kid read a book, many posters thought that this combination was unlikely. But, apparently, while the student doesn't read for pleasure, he is capable of reading when necessary for school. One more controversy appeared among the most recent posts when a poster launched an epic rant complaining that the original poster post too frequently, provides too many details, and should not be relying on DCUM. The poster claimed to be able to identify the student involved. I have no idea whether any of the rant has a basis in fact and, as far as I could tell, the original poster hasn't responded. Prior to that post, however, this thread was about as mundane as could be.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum and titled, "Is this super rude?". The original poster says that she was initially invited to a wedding in her former hometown that is about a six hour drive away. Apparently, the original poster was planning on driving to the wedding and then driving home. But the wedding is to be held on a Saturday morning in another town and the reception won't be until Saturday night in her hometown. This had already angered her because she would not be able to go and return in the same day. But then she was invited to a combined high school and college graduation party on Sunday. That upset the original poster because it meant a longer stay and additional checks for gifts. Compounding all of this, she then got invited to a cocktail party Friday and a BBQ on Sunday. The original poster's family has 5 members and a dog. Three days away would be expensive and too much of a commitment so the original poster feels that she is forced to say "no" to the wedding. It is not clear whether the original poster's subject line is asking if she is being rude by not attending the wedding or if those inviting her to so many events are being rude. At any rate, most posters think the original poster is being rude. The reaction of those responding is mostly critical of the original poster who seems to see the events as all or nothing. As those responding point out, she can simply send regrets for the events she doesn't want to attend. The perspective of most posters is that those extending invitations to the original poster are doing so to be polite since they know she will be in the area. But they probably don't care if she attends or not. Many posters would welcome the chance to kill multiple birds on one trip. But, given the original poster's circumstances, they see nothing wrong with skipping some events and attending others. The original poster didn't do herself any favors with her follow-up post either. In that post she revealed considerable resentment for those providing the invitations and seems to to view the invites primarily as gift grabs. Rather than seeing the invitations as a polite formality, she views them as passive aggressive actions. In an even later update the original posters provided further details that did make this whole thing seem like a giant hassle. But she still ignored the fact that she could pick and choose what to attend, or even to whom she would provide gifts. The bottom line, even by the original poster's own admission, is that she is angry about the wedding alone because of the long drive. Everything else just made her even more mad. Her main issue with the wedding is that it is not convenient for travel and separating the wedding from the reception compounds things even further. She probably should decline everything rather than go and be angry. The original poster did gain some support when she revealed that the wedding would be in Hoboken, New Jersey. Apparently nobody wants to go there under any circumstances.