September

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "How is it a close race?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster points out a number of flaws in former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump such as his frequent failure to pay contractors, his cheating with a porn star, his modifying a weather map with a Sharpie, the way he kowtows to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and his lies about election fraud, and asks how Trump supporters cannot see all of this. The original poster compares the situation to the "Emperor's New Clothes" fairytale in which everyone realizes the truth but is afraid to say it. The original poster is perplexed that this is even a close election given the numerous problems with Trump. Many Trump supporters respond by saying that they recognize Trump's personal flaws and don't really like his personality. However, they claim that they are supporting him because of policy issues. Frequently these posters cite immigration and the economy as areas where they belive Trump has better policies than Vice President Kamala Harris. A number of Trump supporters look back at Trump's previous presidency and suggest that he did a laudable job. Trump opponents point out that Trump accomplished very little as President. His legislative accomplishments were mostly limited to passing tax cuts which caused the national debt to skyrocket. He mishandled the COVID pandemic and never reached even 50% popularity. Given that all the posters in this thread participate in DCUM's political forum, they must have some interest in politics. Yet, many of the Trump supporters demonstrate that they are very poorly informed. Almost universally these posters are acting on the basis of "vibes". They perceive that things were better under Trump than they were under President Joe Biden and Harris but they struggle to support that perception with actual data. Their primary basis for this perception is higher prices and increased immigration. The fact that prices are higher as a result of the pandemic and that Republicans have repeatedly prevented immigration reforms is lost to them. During the Trump administration, Americans suffered shortages of toilet paper and other everyday goods. Automakers could not obtain chips to manufacture cars. The economy was on the brink of disaster. Biden and Harris turned this around and did it without massive unemployment. But Republicans still "feel" that things are worse now. In the face of the January 6th insurrection, Trump's admission that he will be a dictator on the first day, the anti-democratic Project 2025, and Trump's obvious infatuation with dictators, MAGA supporters have convinced themselves that Harris is a bigger threat to democracy. This is absolutely delusional. As the original poster stated, and I repeat almost daily, MAGA really is a cult.

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 most active thread yesterday was titled, "SFFA doesn't like the Asian American %" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster quoted from an article in the New York Times discussing the group, "Students for Fair Admissions". This organization successfully sued Harvard University over race-based admissions preferences resulting in a Supreme Court ruling that ended affirmative action in college admissions. This academic year is the first in which incoming students were admitted under the new rules and the diversity mixes of the freshman classes of top universities have been watched closely. Students for Fair Admissions represented Asian students in its case against Harvard and expected that the Supreme Court ruling would lead to an increase of Asian students among the leading schools. However, three prominent universities — Princeton, Yale and Duke — actually saw declines in Asian American enrollment. As a result, the organization is threatening to investigate whether those institutions are correctly following the law and to sue them if they are not. I have discussed multiple threads on the topic of race and college admissions in this blog as many such threads have been among the most active. The topic has been discussed so frequently that I'd expect the forum's posters to be sick and tired of the topic by now. Indeed, several posters demonstrated considerable fatigue with the topic. But as this thread's position as the most active thread shows, there is stil considerable capacity among posters to debate the topic. Most of the attention in this thread is focused on two groups, Asian-Americans and Black Americans. The primary argument is whether there are too many, the correct amount, or too few of each group. That argument is complicated by the fact that there is little agreement about the correct numbers, let alone whether colleges acting legally to reach that number. Fundamentally this is a dispute between whether universities should seek to admit the "most qualified" students or a "diverse" group of students. Those who favor admitting the most qualified students are not always able to agree on which metrics should determine who is most qualified, but often settle on tests scores. As such, they generally oppose any situation in which a student is accepted with a lower test score than a student who is turned down. Those who value diversity normally take a broader view and argue that diversity strengthens the student body. In their view, a diverse group of students which might include a few with lower test scores is, overall, stronger than a homogenous class consisting only of those with top stats. Colleges themselves have generally taken the second view and, the Supreme Court ruling notwithstanding, have tried to recruit diverse student bodies. The issue up for debate, therefore, is whether those efforts are legal. Posters in this thread obviously have various views. One thing I noticed in this thread that I hadn't noticed in previous threads on similar topics is self-described Asian and White posters arguing strongly in favor of diversity. But that may be the only welcome development in this otherwise tiresome thread.

The two most active threads yesterday were the thread about the apparent assassination attempt of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and the thread about Taylor Swift. Because I discussed both of these threads yesterday, I'll skip them today. The next most active thread was titled, "Overweight boys- constructive help only, please" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster says that she has 8 and 10 year old sons who are both overweight. She says the boys are active and that the family eats healthy foods and has no junk food in the house. But the boys just eat a lot. The original poster is seeking advice about how to help her sons control their weight while not causing "some disordered eating craziness". Most of those responding feel that the original poster is already doing most of the right things. Therefore, several posters suggest that this might be a phase in which the boys are "growing out" instead of "growing up", meaning that they have gained weight quicker than they have gained height and that this will likely change when the boys hit spurts of growth in height. Posters also question whether any family members, even extended ones, have larger body types which could mean that the boys' weight is simply genetic. The original poster does have a brother who went through a chubby phase and has a larger build then she does. Anything involving weight is of course controversial on DCUM. One reason for this is that many posters have very strong opinions which conflict with the equally strong opinions of other posters. One common division involves limiting eating as a means to control weight. For some posters, the sole answer to every question about how to lose weight is "eat less". No surprise then that several posters immediately began advising the original poster to limit her sons' eating. The original poster has cut back snacks based on advice from the kids' pediatrician. However, other posters argue almost the exact opposite. They suggest providing more, but different, types of snacks and food. They contend that if the boys are hungry, they will eat more when the opportunity presents itself. They suggest that a better strategy is to provide healthy snacks, especially those high in protein, more frequently so that the boys don't feel starved when they sit down for a meal. Some posters believe that since the original poster seems to have diet and exercise covered, the problem might be hormonal. They suggest that the original poster have blood panels done to see if anything is affecting the boys' metabolism. Some posters argue the boys weight should not be much of a concern if they are active and eating good diets. Being healthy is more important than their weight, these posters suggest.

The most active thread over the weekend was one that was just created yesterday. Titled, "Shooting at Trump’s FL golf course while he was there" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread was created just after reports that there had been a shooting in the vicinity of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. The first news of this shooting came from a report by Trump's communications director who simply said that there had been shooting near Trump but that Trump was safe and unhurt. A New York Post tweet soon circulated saying that the shooting occurred outside Trump's Florida golf course and involved two individuals shooting at each other and was unrelated to Trump. This caused a number of the early posters to suggest that Trump was attempting to milk an unrelated situation to generate sympathy and redirect attention from his anti-immigrant remarks involving Haitians in Springfield, Ohio. However, officials soon held a press conference in which they described what had happened as a planned assassination of Trump. A U.S. secret service agent had discovered an individual hiding in bushes with a rifle aimed toward the golf course at which Trump was golfing and opened fire. An individual had later been arrested and a semi-automatic rifle had been found at the scene. Once the name of the individual arrested was publicized, posters engaged in a desparate contest to determine his political leanings and blame the opposite political party. In the case of the earlier shooting of Trump, the shooter had unclear political leanings and had researched the whereabouts of political figures across the political spectrum. Trump appears to have been nothing more than a target of opportunity with no particular partisan political significance to the shooter. The individual involved in this incident has a similarly confusing political identity, though one that was much more public. The attempted assassin previously tweeted that he had voted for Trump but then become disenchanted with him. He also tweeted support for former Republican presidential candidates Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley. But, reports showed that he is a registered Democrat. The earlier shooter was a registered Republican but posters devoted pages of posts insisting that party registration was meaningless and that, in fact, people register for a party they don't support all the time. However, in this case, posters insisted that party registration was definitive. The individual in the lastest incident clearly is obsessed with Ukraine, having traveled there and attempted to recruit foreign volunteers to fight against Russia. If he has any political motivation to shoot Trump, it is probably related to Ukraine and its conflict with Russia. However, it is most likely that the man who was arrested suffers from mental health issues. As such, it may be difficult to find logic in his actions. Regardless, posters of all political persuasions in this thread seem entirely uninterested in facts other than using them to support their personal political arguments, even if that meant twisting them or ignoring unwanted information. Very few posters are willing to wait to see what the facts reveal but, instead, simply want to score political points. The result is the thread getting bogged down in disputes over meaningless minutiae such as whether liberals or conservatives are more likely to build sheds for the homeless.

The most active thread yesterday continued to be the presidential debate thread that has been among the most active threads since Monday. The most active thread after that was somewhat related. Titled, "Taylor Swift has announced that she is voting for Harris after watching the debate.", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster simply linked to pop star Taylor Swift's Instagram page where she urged her fans to research the presidential candidates. Swift went on to say that she would be voting for Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. She signed her post, "Childless Cat Lady" and was pictured holding her cat, an obvious reference to statements by Republican Vice Presidential candidate J. D. Vance. As those responding in the thread pointed out, Swift had been expected to endorse Harris after previously endorsing President Joe Biden. However, there had been some concerns about Swift lately due to her close relationship with Britany Mahomes, wife of Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes, and a supporter of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. In addition, Trump recently posted a fake video produced using artificial intelligence showing Swift endorsing Trump, something that Swift mentioned in her Instagram post. Supporters of the billionaire celebrity Trump, including his running mate Vance, immediately began suggesting that nobody cares about the opinion of billionaire celebrities. However, Swift seemed to have some impact because interest in voter registration surged as demonstrated by both search engine queries and traffic on vote.gov. There was also discussion about the timing of Swift's post. Her fans suggested that she had been smart to post after the debate because that showed that she had made an informed decision. Critics, however, argued that she was trying to draw attention away from Harris' poor debate performance. This was particularly deluded because Harris was almost universally seen to have had a great debate performance. If anything, the Harris campaign would have preferred the endorsement to have come at another time since they clearly wanted the limelight on Harris and the debate. Like Vance, many of those responding proved to be obsessed with the fertility and marital status of women. Despite Swift's clear ownership of the "childless cat lady" label that Vance has popularized, several posters criticized not only Swift, but Oprah, and Harris herself for not having children. Misogyny from anonymous posters on DCUM may not be important, but then the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, weighed in on X offering to give Swift a child. While Swift is encouraging millions of fans to support Harris, Musk is cementing the Republican Party as the home of misogynist weirdos.

The most active thread yesterday was, unfortunately, about the British Royal Family. Titled, "New Princess Catherine video", and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum, the original poster made about as little effort as possible starting this thread. She simply wrote that a "stunning" video involving Catherine, The Princess of Wales, was available on Youtube, not even bothering to link to the video. Yet, this was enough to create the most active thread of the day. In the video, which I must stress I have not watched, Catherine apparently announces that she has completed her chemotherapy treatment. Immediately posters reacted critically, complaining that the video was overproduced and boring. The few posters who were glad to see Kate seeming to be in good health and who wished her well were mostly drowned out by those who claimed not to care about her or the Royal Family in general. In fact, those posters cared so little that they posted about how little they cared. That, of course, is the ultimate sign of not caring. Beyond that, a large portion of the thread was devoted to Catherine's hair, or more specifically, why she still has hair. Many posters expect that the chemo treatments would have caused the Princess to lose her hair, which based on this video, she hasn't. Posters had plenty of theories explaining this apparent discrepancy. There was also considerable discussion of Kate's specific medical condition. Many posters questioned how accurate of a story the public has been provided. They pointed out what they believe to be discrepancies or holes in the story. Getting back to the video itself, posters were unrelenting in their criticism. There were constant complaints that it was fake and simply a public relations effort. Posters described scene after scene as being "set up" and not natural. Not a single frame was safe from nitpicking. Fans of Kate posted every now and again, but their posts tended to be lost in the sea of criticism. As a result, many of fans resorted to reporting posts that they considered inappropriate. I received at least 10 reports about posts in this thread. Eventually it seemed that this thread would go nowhere and simply continue a cycle of critical posts and reports to me. As a result, I locked the thread which is the normal fate of most Royal Family threads.

The most active thread yesterday was the school shooting thread that I already discussed and, therefore, will skip today. The most active thread after that was titled, "WSJ Rankings 2025" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Apparently this is the college ranking season and we will probably have as many threads as there are different rankings. Based on what we've seen so far, every one of them will be controversial. This list was developed by the Wall Street Journal and College Pulse. The rankings in the list was determined by how well colleges set students up for financial success. That makes this list a bit different than others. What is not different is that the list is topped by Princeton, something that seems to be fairly common. However, in second place is Babson College, a school that I don't recall have ever heard of previously. Though that may well say more about me than the school. Many posters expressed surprise about Bentley University which was ranked 11th and is another school of which I have never heard. While some posters expressed appreciation for the list, many more were critical of it. If anything, reaction was very polarized with posters either hating the list or loving it with not many in between. There were, of course, lots of reactions to the placement of specific schools. Virginia Tech at 19th surprised and, in many cases, excited posters. The same was true of Towson University which was ranked 40th. One thing this list does is draw attention to a topic on which I have commented several times and which is really starting to become my pet issue with regard college education. Is the purpose of college to educate in the broadest sense of that term or to simply be an on-ramp to a high salary? I have tended to personally land somewhere between the middle and the eduction end of the spectrum. I don't think college should be a glorified vocational school but I also think that it is important to be able to command a living wage upon graduation. This list is clearly weighted toward the opposite end of the spectrum, prioritizing high salaries. However, I have difficulty believing that Princeton is not providing a broad education so it's place at the top may be somewhat redeeming. Many posters praised the rankings because they were based on actual data and, therefore, believed to be more objective. But posters may be familiar with the saying that there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics." Several posters criticized the methodology which they viewed as fundamentally flawed. As one poster colorfully put it, "it's like measuring your schwantz from the floor up. Does not give an accurate measurement of what it claims to. It's data, not information."

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Are all the good guys taken by early 30s", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster didn't have much more to say beyond the thread's title, writing nothing more than "Please give me hope" in the body of her post. However, the original poster did have a lot to say in her follow-up posts. Sadly, most of those posts were sock puppeted. The original poster's first response to herself was to offer assurance that not all was lost in DC, writing, "I would say 30-33 is the perfect age for dating in DC.". She then followed that by saying, "Every big law guy I ever dated (which is to say a lot, sadly) was at least 30." In another post, she wrote, "I know a lot of late 30s/early 40s guys who are catches." In fact, the original poster did such a great job of offering herself encouragement, I am not sure why a thread was needed. She could have handled this whole thing in her personal diary. Or maybe she could just give herself daily affirmations like Stuart Smalley. She could simply stand in front of her mirror and intone, "I'm considered pretty attractive and the two times I've been on dating apps I got a boyfriend within like 3 weeks." One would assume from the first post that the original poster is a single woman who is looking for a guy. But a later post by the original poster suggested that might not be the case. In that post she wrote,"My boyfriend and I are both in our 30s and work for nonprofits." I doubt that the original poster is actually seeking greener pastures at the moment, though I guess I wouldn't rule it out completely. I suspect that she is just trolling for entertainment. But the most hilarious post by the original poster was the one complaining that, "As always, this thread does nothing to help OP." Not true, the original poster gae herself plenty of help. The original poster clearly took to heart the advice that "if you want something done right, do it yourself." When the going got tough, the original poster even started quoting her own posts and providing responses to them. It looks like the original poster's goal was to trigger incels so that she could then complain about incels. Or, maybe she wanted to trigger single women in their 30s and beyond? I didn't read every reply in the thread, but from what I did see, posters were pretty untriggered. One male poster who might have been off-putting mostly embarrassed himself rather than upsetting the women. If the thread had been serious it would have been a pretty depressing read. Perhaps it still is, but the original poster's dialogue with herself is amusing. It would be interesting to know which parts are true.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Helicopter parents and their presence out of control?", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster describes three cousins that attended large southern universities. One of the cousin's parents purchased an apartment in the town so that they could attend football games. The other two cousins' parents bought houses where the universities are located so that they could attend games as well. The original poster asks whether this type of clingy parenting is common these days, saying that it was unheard of when she went to college. As the first poster to respond says, "This seems to be more of an SEC football thing than a helicopter thing." Several posters agree that this sounds more like well-to-do parents who are dedicated to football rather than traditional helicopter parents. Moreover, several justifications for purchasing real estate in college towns that didn't involve helicopter parenting were suggested. Other posters, however, do have stories that describe what would be expected from helicopter parents. One poster told of parents sitting in on Zoom interviews for graduating students applying for jobs. Several of those responding mentioned Facebook groups for parents in which all sorts of helicopter behavior is on display. Another poster said that at her son's college, parents of freshmen had to be told that they could not attend "student only" bonding events. On the other hand, one poster — later supported by several others — defended helicopter parents, saying that being a close-knit family is not inherently bad. These posters argued that parents were all trying to do their best and should not be criticized. They argued that helicopter parenting was not hurting those who opposed it and, therefore, they shouldn't care about it. However, other posters contended that helicopter parenting does have negative effects. They describe kids who have been coddled their entire lives failing to develop resiliency. When such students are hired, they crumble instantly when things get rough. Some posters say that this phenomenon significantly increased when the cost of colleges grew. Because college is now often one of a family's biggest expenses, they want to make sure they are getting their investment's worth. Several posters defend this attitude, saying they have paid for services and want to make sure those services are being provided. Other posters don't disagree that getting what is paid for is important, but they argue that it is the role of the students to advocate on their own behalf and that parents shouldn't intervene.

Yesterday was Labor Day and it appears that many DCUM users were offline celebrating rather than posting on DCUM because the active threads were not all that active yesterday. The most active thread was titled, "High schoolers can’t write", and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. The original poster says that her kids go to Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, are native English speakers, and get all As in school. Nevertheless, their writing is "awful". They have poor grammer and punctuation and can't correctly form an argument. The original poster says that she is in shock and wants to know if others have noticed this issue with their kids. Almost all of those responding have noticed this. They blame it on Montgomery County Public Schools not teaching grammer, spelling, or writing skills anymore. Some posters allege that the problem begins in early grades so that by high school the teachers have given up. Others say that kids don't read enough these days and that reading is important to gaining writing skills. Another poster, however, says that reading doesn't build writing skills but rather practice does. A teacher says that in public school she had too many students and not enough time for reviewing their writing, implying that she didn't provide writing assignments as a result. However, after switching to private school, she had greater support and fewer students and the school placed more emphasis on writing. Therefore, she was much more involved in teaching writing. Because of the shortcomings posters see in MCPS with regard to reading and writing, many posters say that they have either supplemented with tutors or writing classes, or moved their children to private or parochial schools. In their search for whom to blame for the current state of writing education, some posters focus on kids with special needs who, in these posters' view, require too much support and take away resources – especially the teachers' attention — from the other students. According to these posters, teachers are spending their time assisting students with special needs and, therefore, don't have time to teach writing. The second target is the "social justice, social emotional learning, anti-racism" initiatives that some posters believe have replaced traditional teaching in MCPS. Several posters would like to see MCPS return to focusing on the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Other posters blame the parents who are complaining, asking why they didn't read to their kids and teach them writing themselves. These might be valid questions for the average DCUM poster, but it ignores that some MCPS parents may lack proper English reading and writing skills themselves and, therefore, are not in a position to assist their children. Much of this thread is devoted to debating the pros and cons of private or parochial education compared to public. Catholic schools are especially debated with several posters praising their traditional teaching while others decry them as "archaic" or unappealing to non-Catholics.