The Most Active Threads Over the Weekend

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Kamala Harris Says Anyone Who Breaks Into Her House Is ‘Getting Shot’" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster quoted from a Huffington Post article describing Vice President Kamala Harris' interview with Oprah Winfrey that took place during an event in Michigan. While the discussion was wide-ranging and touched on a number of topics, the original poster focused on a portion dealing with guns. Harris repeated a statement made during her debate with former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump that both she and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, the Democratic nominee for Vice President, own guns. Winfrey expressed surprise about that statement and Harris, while laughing, went on to say that "If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot." The original poster seems to approve of this sentiment and calls it a "very strong statement". Once again, this thread highlights that the phenomenon of Republicans believing their own lies and then ending up perplexed when they don't align with reality. To hear Republicans tell it, Harris — like all liberals — hates guns and plans to take them away if she wins the presidency. Therefore, Harris claiming to not only be a gun owner, but prepared to use one for self-protection is viewed by conservatives as either an outright lie or hypocrisy. Liberal posters point out that Democrats generally favor common sense gun control but almost nobody proposes banning all guns. Conservatives tend to view guns as a culture war issue and struggle with nuance on the topic. They often interpret support for an assault weapons ban as being roughly the same as the government knocking down doors to seize hunting rifles. Other posters view Harris' statement more in terms of messaging. They say that she is signaling to moderate Republicans and independents that she is not a radical liberal hellbent on taking their guns from them. Some posters agree that this is the intent of the statement, but they consider it pandering and have doubts about the authenticity of the sentiment. Many posters view Harris' statement in traditional gun control terms. To them, this is not a legal or cultural issue, but rather a question of gun safety. They cite statistics showing that a gun in the home is more likely to be a danger to the inhabitants of the house rather than a means of self-defense. These posters are disappointed by Harris, though not enough to drop their support for her. In addition, several posters questioned Harris need for self-defense. She currently lives at the United States Naval Observatory surrounded by U.S. Secret Service protection. There is almost no chance of someone breaking into her house in current circumstances (though at least one poster suggested that recent USSS failures mean that a break-in is possible). Others argued that as a prosecutor, Harris probably faced a number of threats which justified owning a gun for self-protection.

The next most active thread over the weekend was posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Titled, "Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs accused of gang rape of teen girl in new lawsuit", the thread was originally started back in December of last year when Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs was accused of drugging and gang-raping a 17-year-old girl. The thread grew by nearly 20 pages over the weekend as posters commented on new developments involving Combs, who was arrested last week and charged with sex trafficking, racketeering conspiracy and transportation to engage in prostitution. Up until today I had been pretty successful in blocking anything to do with this scandal out of my consciousness. This thread forced me to finally pay attention. However, this thread — or at least the latest posts which were the ones I read because all 72 pages are beyond my endurance — was of little help in explaining events. A number of posters appear to be obsessed with sexual orientation and post after post is devoted to calling various individuals "gay". Once again I am amazed, and a bit appalled, by the obsessiveness of some posters with celebrities. Posters know, or at least claim to know, the most obscure facts about Combs and a host of other celebrities. Yet, despite the apparent abundance of self-described experts on Combs, posters still can't agree on many biographical details, let alone who is also involved with his crimes. Several posters devote themselves to a sort of witch hunt in which they link someone to Combs with the insinuation that somehow they are involved with the worst of Combs' deeds. Other posters rush to clarify that thousands of people were connected to Combs and socialized with him. Not all were involved in the events that led to Combs' arrest. Other posters connect the dots between Combs and other music moguls, especially those involved in rap music, to paint a picture of a 60 year long effort to coerce young Black male artists into sexual relationships. Other posters describe this as an "absurd conspiracy theory." The pages of this thread that I read are bizarre and get weirder by the minute. Two posters get into an argument about which is the most streetwise about New York City neighborhoods with their competence on the topic beging judged by their knowledge of obscure place names. For the most part, however, this thread gives the impression that just about anyone of whom you have heard in the music or movie/tv industry is either gay, a sex predator, or both. There is also a bit of speculation about Combs' future and whether he will end up meeting a fate similar to that of Jeffrey Epstein. Also subject to guesswork was the deposition of Combs' wealth, though some posters suggested that there might not actually be much money left. One thing I don't understand about this thread is how it went from a girl accusing Combs of rape and a series of accusations involving women to an almost exclusive focus on gay men. However, I am willing to live with that being a mystery because, once I finish this post, I plan to return to ignoring anything to do with Combs.

Next was a thread titled, "MAGA - describe when America was ‘Great’" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster simply asks MAGA supporters to explain when America was "great" and what they want "again". I have frequently complained that threads are often aimed at a particular audience and posters who are not part of that audience jump in to either answer for the others are simply cause mayhem. In the case of this thread, it was clearly aimed at MAGAs and, despite my efforts to be as inhospitable to them as possible, DCUM has plenty of MAGAs who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. Nevertheless, plenty of non-MAGAs, including a number of liberals, butted in to where they were not really welcome. While the goal of these interventions was apparently to make MAGAs look bad, that was not really necessary. They make themselves look bad without assistance. The challenge to those who believe in some idyllic period of the past is that no such time exists. History is full of laudable and deplorable circumstances coinciding. Depending on how you filter reality, any time period can be good or bad. For instance, a poster who on the surface sounded quite reasonable, suggested that the 1960s were a period in which he thought the United States was great. Part of that was due to an absence of "forever wars". However, this poster ignores that U.S. troops were involved in Vietnam in increasing numbers throughout the 1960s. Moreover, that decade was characterized by large scale protests in favor of civil rights and against the Vietnam war. The 1960s were also a time of political violence in the U.S with John F. Kennedy being assassinated in 1963 and both his brother Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. being shot in 1968. This rose-colored glasses version of a particular time is repeated throughout the thread. Often the time period is a window to a poster's priorities. For instance, one person cited the 1980s as a great period because employment opportunities were plentiful and there was job security. But, as another poster quickly pointed out, mortgage rates were over 10%. The national debt also grew significantly during that time. It is also notable given the MAGA tendency toward isolationism, that President Ronald Reagan was much more neoliberal in his foreign policy. He deployed missiles to Europe, sent troops to Lebanon where 241 U.S. troops were killed in the bombing of a marine corps barracks, and invaded Grenada. Consider how MAGAs, who have made the death of 13 troops during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan into a national disgrace, would react to 241 marines being blown up? Many of the liberals posting suggest that MAGAs want to return to times in which some groups had fewer rights and that they actually appreciate aspects of the past that are now considered to be stains on the period. However at times MAGAs seemed to agree with them. One poster who has become a frequent troll posted that he wanted to return to "Before women were allowed to vote and integration". As a troll, it's possible this poster is not being honest. But, given the poster's previous posts that have included the frequent use of the "n-word" — posted one character per line in order to avoid filters — that post (which I removed) was probably truthful. I'm sure the guy can't compete with either women or people of color so why wouldn't he want to return to a period in which mediocre White men succeeded almost by default?

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. Titled, "Daughter & Son expect carryout when we go out", the original poster says that she has three children who range from their late teens to mid-20s. In the past when the original poster and her husband have gone out to eat, they have generally brought carryout home to any of the kids who didn't go with them. Now, however, two of the children have expressed an expectation that this will be the case and are upset when carryout is not brought home to them. They claim that it is normal for parents to do this. The original poster wants to know if this is really the case and whether other parents routinely bring carryout home to their teen (and older) children. The responses range from suggesting that the original poster's kids are spoiled and that kids their age should learn responsibility to arguing that the original poster and her husband were inconsiderate and have a duty to ensure that their kids are fed. Some posters were sympathetic to the original poster's daughter who had worked a double shift and would return home with no food to eat. These posters thought that the original poster should have considered her needs. A number of posters argued that the issue was more one of expectations. Given that the orignal poster says that most times she and her husband brought home carryout food for their kids, the kids' expectation was, understandably, that this is what would happen. Therefore, their daughter's disappointment was understandable. If the original poster and her husband want to stop this practice, they need to communicate that to their kids and make arrangements for the kids to feed themselves (such as making sure there are groceries at home). Some posters say that they never bring home carryout for their kids and, at the ages of the original poster's children, the kids would be expected to fend for themselves. Much of the thread was devoted to debating which type of parenting was better. Were those parents who expected their teens to be responsible and self-sufficient better because their children developed the ability to take care of themselves or were the parents who looked out for their children, made them feel cared for, and provided for them better? Both arguments had their proponents. For some, this was not as simple as a single answer being correct for all situations. As one poster pointed out, the question of "is your teen entitled to carryout?" is different from "do you always provide dinner for your 17 year old that has had a long, busy, productive day?" Many posters conflated the two, but others insisted that those were different questions with different answers.