September

The first thread that I will discuss today was actually the third most active over the weekend because the first and second most active were threads that I've previously covered. The thread was titled, "Can someone explain the mentality of never being proactive or organized to me?" and was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that her husband who has ADHD, which he has been treating with medicine, is never proactive and lacks basic administrative skills. As a result, the original poster is responsible for 95% of household administration and is also the main breadwinner. She essentially has to micromanager her husband, providing a recent example of her frustrations. While the original poster was out of town, her husband was supposed to help their son buy a birthday present and take him to an 8-year-old's birthday party. However, her husband overslept which meant their son was late to the party and they weren't able to buy a present. The husband put cash in a card instead. The original poster wonders whether her husband just expects her to do everything or is engaging in "weaponized incompetence". She doesn't understand what benefit there would be to her husband acting this way. This topic has repeatedly come up on DCUM over the years and I have read countless threads of a similar nature. This really has highlighted two things: 1) the significant number of husbands who suffer from ADHD, and; 2) the similarly large number of husbands who apparently expect their wives to treat them like their mothers probably did. It is the ADHD aspect that really catches other poster's attention in this thread and a lively debate breaks out on that topic. There are a number of posters who believe that ADHD not only explains the original poster's husband's behavior, but also provides an excuse. As such, the original poster is criticized for acting "superior" and not being sympathetic about her husband's condition. However, several posters who say that they have ADHD themselves, including the original poster, argue that ADHD, especially when medicated, is not an excuse. It may mean that individuals with such a condition need to work harder, but they should still be expected to be able to manage basic parenting tasks. Other posters argue that the husband is simply being lazy. He slept in and didn't get a present because he didn't think the party was important and didn't care about it. Had the event been something he prioritized, they content, his ADHD would not have gotten in the way. Some posters who have been in marriages like this have reconciled themselves to it and simply taken over most of the household management. One poster said that she has lowered the bar for her husband so low that it is on the floor and that she expects little more from him than basic childcare. But, of course, the DCUM relationship forum being the DCUM relationship forum, several posters recommended divorce. Some posters took an entirely different approach and argued that while oversleeping was not ideal, providing cash instead of a gift was perfectly fine and might even be preferred by some kids.

The most active thread yesterday was the same thread about the election being close that was the most active thread on Wednesday as well. Since I discussed that thread in yesterday's blog post, I'll skip it and go on to the next. That thread was also related to the election. Titled, "Harris interview with MSNBC Sept 25 - 24minute video" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster embedded an interview that Vice President Kamala Harris gave to Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC. There are really two ways to evaluate Harris in circumstances like this. She can be judged in a vacuum, solely on her performance and the quality of her responses. Alternatively, she can be compared to her opponent in the election, former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Those responding in the thread do both. Posters are divided about her performance, some believing that she did a good job, was relatable, and seemed competent. Others found her answers lacking substance and had stylistic objections. Generally, these responses fell along partisan political lines. Compared to Trump, however, there is really no contest. While Harris may not have been 100% accurate in her responses, she was generally truthful. Trump, on the other hand, routinely spews a fountain of lies that overwhelms both those questioning him and fact-checkers who simply don't have enough hours in the day to correct them all. This creates a structural disadvantage for Harris because coverage of her speaking will often concentrate on the one or two missteps and ignore the rest. Trump, on the other hand, will start talking about sharks and electric boats or Hannibal Lector and will be covered as if he delivered the Gettysburg Address. It is pretty clear to me that Harris and her campaign have chosen to stick to broad strokes and avoid delving into details. They are running a campaign based on themes and ideas. In other words, similar to Obama's campaigns. Harris is not pretending to be Hillary Clinton and enumerating the 15 steps of the four phases of her 40 page plan. This is a good thing. Even with the minimal details Harris provided in this interview, posters found fodder for criticism. More details would simply generate more criticism. This is a big picture election. Voters care about abortion rights, the economy, foreign policy, the environment, crime, and yes, immigration. Harris and Trump have vastly different ideas on all of these topics. Harris' job is to convince voters that her stances are in their interest and that she can be trusted as a leader. She will do that by making them believe in her, not by boring them to death with a mountain of data. Trump is certainly not going to provide details of his plans. Of course, those details are provided in Project 2025 from which Trump is doing his best to run away.

The biggest day of the year for participants in DCUM's college forum may be the day that U.S. News and World Report releases its college rankings list. That day was yesterday. Technically, it was the day before but so late in the day that most of the discussion didn't take place until yesterday. The result is that two threads on the topic are among the most active threads that I will discuss today. The most active thread overall yesterday was again the thread about Israel and Lebanon, which I've already discussed. Skipping that one, the next most active thread was titled, "US News best colleges 2025" and, of course, posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster wrote nothing more than, "The rankings are out now." which was enough to provoke what is currently a 21 page thread. The normal rule of threads such as this is that posters claim to hate rankings in general and this one in particular. However, if the ranking happens to place a poster's favorite university highly, or at least above a rival university, then the list is, of course, praised for its accuracy. The U.S. News rankings were subject to considerable criticism last year when the methodology was changed in ways that many posters considered to be "woke". This year U.S. News dropped the graduation rate of 1st generation students from its formula and continued its focus on outcomes such as student retention and post-graduate earnings. Many of the posts in this thread were complaints about the ranking or methodology. But those issues were the focus of a second thread that I will discuss today so I will save those points for later. A number of posters suggested that this ranking were reasonably accurate, though almost everyone had at least one nit to pick. For instance, the positioning of UCLA at 15th was the subject of considerable discussion. The University of Virginia was another college whose ranking — tied at 24 — inspired considerable criticism along with a significant amount of smugness. Much of the discussion in this thread is about the value of such rankings. Some posters want to be able to rank colleges based on their own criteria rather than a magazine's methodology. Others suggest that these lists are good screening tools and are reasonable starting points for further research. This thread, like so many threads before it, got bogged down in an unnecessary discussion about yield protection. The forum has one or more posters who are completely obsessed with yield protection to the exclusion of almost any other topic. The single-mindedness is remarkable and I have to think that it must be motivated by a very painful rejection that was rationalized as being due to yield protection. Then the thread turned to a big debate about Notre Dame with participants accusing each other of being insufferable. That actually is a good summary of this thread. Everyone claims the U.S. News rankings are meaningless and nobody cares about them, but they will also fight to the death about whether a school deserves to be in the top 20.

The most active thread yesterday was the one about Israel and Lebanon which I have already discussed and will skip today even though that conflict has heated up with Israel killing over 500 Lebanese, mostly civilians, yesterday. After that was a thread titled, "When do you have time to eat?" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster apparently has multiple children, a husband who works extremely long hours, and an eight hour a day job herself. She outlines her daily schedule which involves shuttling the kids to and from school and evening sports practices. In between the driving, she puts in her work hours, prepares dinner, and helps the kids with homework. She finishes the day with a bedtime routine for the kids. This schedule doesn't leave the original poster time to eat. As the original poster responds to questions from other posters, her situation turns out to be even worse than it first appears. Several posters ask why she doesn't eat when the rest of her family eats. The answer is that the kids eat dinner in the car while she drives them to their practices. She doesn't eat because she doesn't like sandwiches or cereal and she finds it hard to eat while driving. Several posters point out the obvious. The original poster is trying to do too much in too little time with no help from her spouse. The posters suggest eliminating some activities or getting additional help such as someone to cook meals or assist with childcare. Some suggest that she cut back on her work hours. But the vast majority of those responding seem to accept the necessity of this schedule and offer advice about how to make it work better. There are several suggestions that the original poster wake up 15 minutes earlier and eat a quick breakfast before the kids wake up. They suggest preparing meals on the weekend that can be reheated during the week. Some posters have specific meal plans or meal suggestions. Other posters suggest eating dinner later, after the practices, which would allow the original poster to join her kids for the meal. Several posters conclude that the original poster is a "martyr mom" who really doesn't want to improve her situation but rather simply wants to be recognized for her sacrifice. This leads to more criticism of the original poster with some of those responding suggesting that she might have an eating disorder. Others criticize her parenting, arguing that putting the kids through this schedule is not healthy for them and that she is modelling a bad lifestyle. This trend became more pronounced after an apparently frustrated original poster responded to suggestions that she was over-scheduling her family by saying that she would pull her kids out of all activities, including one child's therapy. Nobody had made such a suggestion and this reaction reinforced the belief among many posters that the original poster was not really looking for advice.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "apparently something big is about to drop about mark robinson..." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster embedded two tweets, the first saying that Republicans in North Carolina were pressuring Mark Robinson, the Republican candidate for Governor, to drop out of the race. The second suggested that information harmful to Robinson was about to be made public. For those not familiar with Robinson, which at this point is probably nobody, he has a history of controversial statements including anti-Semitic remarks and Holocaust denial. Beyond his crazy statements, the staunchly anti-abortion Robinson also admitted that he paid for his girlfriend — now his wife — to have an abortion. Recently he was accused of having regularly visited pornographic video stores. Given the sort of information that had already been made public about Robinson without causing Republicans to distance themselves from him, posters immediately began speculating on what it would take to reach this point. Former Governor of Louisiana Edwin Edwards once famously said, "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." Thinking the same about Robinson, some posters guessed that whatever was coming might involve a live boy. Others joked that it could involve eating a cat. It soon emerged that what was motivating the North Carolinian Republicans to pressure Robinson to drop out was a story about to be issued by CNN. When that story finally dropped, it reported that Robinson had been linked to posts on a pornography website’s message board. As CNN explained, many of Robinson's posts were too graphic to be published and described them as "gratuitously sexual and lewd in nature". In addition, Robinson referred to himself as a "black NAZI!" and supported the reinstatement of slavery. While Robinson campaigns as being strongly anti-transgender, he posted that he enjoys viewing transgender pornography. The CNN story was pretty damning for Robinson, but even worse were excerpts of his posts that started appearing on social media, including one detailing a sexual encounter with his sister-in-law. It was clear why CNN has been unable to publish them. At any rate, the midnight deadline for a withdrawal passed with Robinson still in the race. The North Carolina Republican Party issued a statement accepting Robinson's denial that he had made the posts in question and attacking Vice President Kamala Harris. Robinson had already been trailing in the polls and, presumably, the latest revelations will not help him. The real battle in North Carolina is not the governorship, which Republicans appear to be willing to write off, but rather its electoral college votes. The state is essential to former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's re-election hopes. The Republicans' fear, and the Democrats' hope, is that Robinson will drag Trump down. This is a real concern given that there is video of Trump praising Robinson and saying that he is "Martin Luther King on steroids."

The Taylor Swift thread that I discussed on Monday continued as the most active thread yesterday. After that were mostly political threads. The first of those was titled, "A message from PA relatives: Stop sending your political canvassers from Maryland", and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that he has relatives in York County, Pennsylvania who are registered as independents but have been leaning toward voting for Trump. Recently they have been visited by three different groups of vote canvassers who they believe came from Maryland and who knew nothing of local politics. They were offended by Marylanders telling them how to vote. The original poster then advises those who want "left progressive policies and crime and immigration" to stay in the "Baltimore/PG/Silver Spring echo chamber". Most of those replying are not particularly sympathetic to either the original poster or his relatives. Several posters suggest that if the original poster's relatives are going to vote for Trump anyway, nothing is to be gained by stopping the canvassing. They ask if stopping canvassing will cause the relatives to change their vote. Personally, I am sympathetic to people not wanting to be disturbed by strangers coming to their door. But the original poster's relatives have the option of not answering the door or quickly telling the canvassers that they are not interested and ending the conversation. Moreover, if the original poster is representing his relatives' views that anyone from Maryland is a "left progressive" who is in favor of crime, they probably could benefit by being further informed about Democratic policies. The number one motivating issue among Democrats is abortion rights, followed by preserving democracy and affordable healthcare. These are mainstream issues on which Democrats have broad support. You don't have to live in Silver Spring or Baltimore to agree with the Democrats' positions on these issues which are probably even popular in York County. A poster who said that he lives in Maryland said that he took his kids to canvas in Pennsylvania this weekend. Based on his experience, the encounters with local residents were very brief and didn't involve much more than asking if the residents were registered to vote and wanted any information about the election. Nobody asked about local issues and those who they visited would have had no way of knowing the poster and his kids were from Maryland. It doesn't appear that the original poster made any additional contributions to this thread. The thread itself mostly devolved to a simple debate about various unrelated topics such as whether former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump is a threat to democracy or a popular figure who deserves to win the presidency. Most of the posts could easily have been posted in other threads and many of them probably were duplicates.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Svelte teen girls -- being the ugly duckling in a school of swans" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster says that her daughter just started as a freshman at a new private high school. The family is towards the lower end of the economic spectrum of the school's students, something that is apparent due to the family's older cars and the fact that both parents work. But what really appears to be bothering the original poster's daughter is her weight. Most of the girls in the school, according to the original poster, are uniformly thin and athletic. The original poster's daughter, on the other hand, has a body mass index of 25 and is not interested in sports. The original poster asks for advice about how to encourage her daughter to be more active and eat healthier. I am not sure what to make of this thread because almost immediately the original poster, without mentioning that she was the original poster, posted a message saying that the daughter shouldn't try to complete with the other girls. In another follow-up post, again without identifying herself, the original poster blamed weight gain on "endocrine disruptors" rather than over-eating. Even in posts in which she indicated that she was the original poster, the original poster didn't seen particularly receptive to advice. So this thread may have been a waste of everyone's time. The advice that was offered was mainly to convince her daughter to participate in at least one sport. Some posters suggested that if the girl didn't want to participate in school sports, she might pick up an activity after school such as dance. Other posters questioned whether this school is the right environment for the original poster's daughter. They suggested that the issue is not her daughter's weight, but how she fits in. The original poster had cited a number of issues that might cause fitting in to be difficult beyond weight. As a result, posters had advice concerning how to help her daughter fit in better. Others suggested changing schools. Some posters were suspicious of how the other girls were all remaining so thin, suggesting that it might be attributed to eating disorders, ADHD medicine, or controlling mothers. The topic of weight is always controversial on DCUM, especially when involving children and even more when involving girls. As such, posters had strong disagreements about what to do about the girl's weight. Some argued that she was not overweight and, therefore, this didn't need to be addressed. Others, as is common, attributed weight gain purely to eating and suggested that the original poster's daughter should simply eat less. Other posters had complex theories about diet and what should or shouldn't be eaten. Some posters strongly urged the original poster to do all that she can to avoid having her daughter becoming obsessed with her image, her size, or her eating. Instead they suggested keeping her busy with various activities and off the Internet.

As I predicted yesterday when I wrote about the thread about the presidential debate, that thread was the most active yesterday, exploding from 15 pages prior to the debate to 129 pages as I write this. But as I wrote yesterday, since I have already discussed the thread I'll skip it today. The next most active thread was titled, "Dave Grohl, sooo disappointed (had a baby outside of his marriage)" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. As the title says, it was revealed yesterday that Dave Grohl, former drummer for Nirvana and frontman for the Foo Fighters, has fathered a baby outside his marriage. In an Instagram post, Grohl promised to take responsibility for the baby and maintain a loving relationship with her. He also said that he would now work to regain the trust of his wife and daughters. The original poster establishes what will be a major theme of responses in this thread, saying that she had a huge crush on Grohl and believed that he was a feminist with a strong relationship with the women in his life including his mother and daughters. As such, she is very disappointed. The original poster is joined in these feelings by a number of other posters who had held Grohl in high esteme and now feel that he let them down, if not outright betrayed them. Some posters who are also disappointed by Grohl at least respect that he is taking responsibility and planning to maintain a relationship with the child. They say that this is more than what many men in this situation would do. But others suggest that Grohl's statement was a creation of his public relations team and probably should not be taken too seriously. They predict little in the way of a true relationship between Grohl and his new daughter. A number of posters commented on the future of Grohl's marriage with some saying that if they were his wife they would immediately divorce him. Some guessed that this was likely not the first time that Grohl had cheated and they blamed him for putting his wife at risk of STDs in addition to being unfaithful. Others suggested that his wife may have been willing to look the other way in the past, but this public incident could not be ignored. Posters were divided between whether forgiving him would encourage Grohl to continue cheating or whether it was the right thing to do in this situation. Some posters argued that it was in her interest to remain married. Many posters were utterly disgusted by Grohl with some being particularly worried about the impact on his daughters, suggesting this showed a very negative attitude towards women. For other posters, however, this was no big deal. As a rock star, eager and willing women were probably a fact of life for Grohl and a rock star having sex outside of marriage is hardly news. For some, this was less an issue of morals and more of one of judgement and practicality. Sex is one thing, but unprotected sex is quite another and, at least, Grohl should have had a vasectomy they say.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Why do men still believe that divorce laws favour women?", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster notes that child custody and assets of spouses are split 50/50 during divorce and asks why men still believe that divorce favors women. She says that some men claim that occasionally she reads about men who claim to have lost custody of their children and their house and this is confusing to her. I know next to nothing about divorce laws and, to be honest, that seems to be true of a significant number of posters in this thread as well. Responses seem to reflect anecdotes that posters have heard, in some cases many years ago, partial knowledge, pure speculation, and a limited amount of personal experience. As a result, many of the replies directly contradict each other and, not personally knowing fact from fiction in this case, I have no idea which responses are accurate. Many posters, presumably women, argue that men believe that 50/50 is unfair to them. Others argue that men only lose custody of children in extreme circumstance and, when this happens, they are reluctant to admit their own failures and, therefore, blame unfair courts. Several other posters, presumably men, claim that the presumption of 50/50 division is not true everywhere and, in many cases, women end up with considerably more. Where a big difference of opinion exists, and ironically reinforces both main narratives, is over the issue of who earned the family's income. Several posters note that men often earn more money than women, this is especially the case when the women is a stay at home spouse. Some male posters argue that men work extra hours and make sacrifices to provide for their family and allow their wives to stay home and when those women turn out to be "losers" men are expected to continue working just as hard to provide the women the same lifestyle after divorce. They feel that these women should be required to get jobs and support themselves. Women posters contend that what is missing from such scenarios is the value stay at home wives contribute to their families and the sacrifices that they often make to further their husbands' careers. Other posters list a number of areas in which women are frequently treated unfairly, including wage disparities and professional advancement. But this sort of divisiveness doesn't characterize the entire thread. There are several posts from those who have divorced, split their assets and custody of their children 50/50 and are quite content about the situation.

I have had a busy few days, doing a bit of traveling and spending time with family. I was unable to write a blog post on Friday, so today I will discuss the most active threads since Thursday. The most active thread during that period that I have not already discussed was titled, "Harris Walz interview w CNN" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original title of this thread was actually, "Harris Walz interview w CNN – only 18 minutes", but after a number of requests I shortened the title because it misstated the actual length of the interview. The controversy over the length of the interview is a story in itself. Former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and his supporters devote a huge amount of time and effort to trying to convince the public that they are not being treated fairly. In this instance, soon after the announcement that Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz would be interviewed by CNN, Trump supporters began circulating on social media the claim that the interview would only be 18 minutes long and that a full transcript would not be released. This, they claimed, was evidence that the interview would be cleaned up to hide the fact that Harris is, according to them, unable to articulate a complete sentence or connect two thoughts together. The original poster apparently based this thread on those inaccurate claims, but attributed the misinformation to CNN. As it turned out, the interview was longer than 18 minutes and a full transcript was released. A recurring phenomenon that has really started to bug me is that right-wingers will post false information and left-wingers will accept those falsehoods as fact and defend them. In this instance, posters immediately began defending Harris for giving an 18 minute interview and not making a full transcript available. This only helped to spread and confirm inaccurate information. My rule of thumb is to assume by default that anything posted by conservatives is wrong, either intentionally or simply because they don't know any better. Instead of posting knee-jerk responses defending lies about Democrats, liberal posters should take a minute to check whether the information is true or not. As for posters' reactions to the interview, they were about what you would expect. Conservatives had plenty of criticisms. According to them, Harris looked down too much, did not speak coherently, and had lots of help from Walz and Dana Bash, the interviewer. Liberals, of course, thought that Harris had done great. There were a few posters who claimed that their vote had been influenced one way or another but most people simply had their previous opinions reinforced. There was almost as much discussion about Bash as there was about Harris and Walz with conservative posters trying desperately to demonstrate that she was biased in favor of Harris. Several liberal posters also believed that Bash was biased, but against Harris rather than in her favor. Another manufactured controversy involved the fact that Walz was included in the interview. Right-wingers argued that this was unusual and showed that Harris could not be trusted on her own and needed Walz to babysit. In fact, interviews including both the presidential and vice presidential nominees are common and have been conducted by all recent nominees.