Thursday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "It's official: Gen Z are not delaying marriage til 30s anymore, young weddings are cool again" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster embedded several photos of the wedding of actress Millie Bobby Brown and singer Bon Jovi's son (who the original poster didn't bother to name and I don't care enough to look up). The original poster also mentioned the recent marriage of Sofia Richie, the daughter of singer Lionel Richie. Brown is 22 years old and Richie was 24 when she married. The original poster asserts that this is evidence that "Gen Z" is now getting married in their 20s rather than waiting until their 30s. This thread is 24 pages long and I simply don't have the interest to read much of it. But, from what I can tell by a brief look, the original post basically set the tone. Most of the discusion is based on anecdotes and focused on celebrities. There has been a proliferation of threads on topics similar to this, often similarly discussing celebrities. The heavy inclusion of glamorous wedding photos suggests that the original poster's interest may be driven by fascination rather than a sociological interest in current trends. Other posters respond to say that they have also noticed more people marrying at a younger age recently. Posters have a number of theories for what might be driving this trend, if it is indeed a trend. A number of posters attribute it to social media, a medium which prizes the imagery that weddings produce. "These kids just want to have nice photos to share on social media," says one poster. Some posters suggest that couples have tended to wait until they have stable jobs and can afford a house before getting married. Today, however, few jobs are stable and houses are unaffordable for many. Therefore, young people are seeing waiting as futile and choosing to marry without stable jobs or hope of buying a home. Conversely, however, several posters say that in their experience the young couples getting married are from wealthy or upper middle class families. This is exactly the group that is likely to have stable employment and the finances to purchase a house. So perhaps things haven't actually changed much. The same posters say that they don't see many poor or lower middle class individuals marrying young. Other posters dispute whether marrying young is even a trend. Instead, they argue that the real trend these days is not to marry at all. I have written about several threads discussing women choosing not to get married or marrying later in life. Many of these women are not waiting for marriage to have babies and have fulfilling lives as single mothers. Other posters argue that posters pushing for younger marriages are fans of the "tradwife" movement, a largely social-media driven movement that encourages traditional gender roles. What this thread appears to be missing, though it may be there and I missed it, is actual data. Certainly there must be statistics regarding the age of those getting married. Such data would certainly be more useful than anecdotes involving a handful of wealthy celebrities.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Emhoff accused of assaulting girlfriend.", the thread is about allegations that Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff slapped a woman that he was dating back in 2012. The original poster linked to a Washington Times article and said that three witnesses supported the claim. In fact, the Washington Times simply summarized a story from the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail said that the alleged victim refused to comment and none of the three friends of the alleged victim — whose identity the Daily Mail did not reveal — were actually witnesses. Instead, two claimed to have been told about the incident immediately after it occurred while the third was said to have been told about it years later. There are a number of odd aspects to this story which those responding point out. The first is that there is no first-hand allegation. The alleged victim, who is not identified by name, apparently cooperated in some manner because the Daily Mail published what they said were travel documents showing that Emhoff and the alleged victim traveled together. It is strange to me that someone would provide documents for a story but refuse to commment. One possible motive for such behavior that I can think of is to avoid legal action. For his part, Emhoff denies the allegation. But, he can hardly accuse the alleged victim of defamation since she has not publicly defamed him. The three friends can always claim that they were lied to by the alleged victim and the Daily Mail can argue that it was simply reporting what it was told. As such, this is a nifty way to launder what might be a false allegation. True or not, a second question raised by posters in the thread is what why this even matters? Emhoff is not running for anything. The alleged incident would have occurred before he and Vice President Kamala Harris even met. It is not clear what such an incident would have to do with her. The MAGAs posting in this thread have lots of answers for that question, however. They suggest that, combined with Emhoff's admission that he impregnated his kids' nanny during his first marriage, he has a number of character flaws that Harris should have recognized. Her failure to do so suggests poor decision-making. Alternatively, they suggest that Harris was aware of this incident and covered it up. There is no evidence to support this claim. The liberals in the thread generally view this incident — assuming that it really happened — as being blown out of proportion. One poster wrote "He slapped the woman once, she slapped him back twice, and then she dumped him. He's a jerk. Don't date him." Moreover, posters point out that this behavior — again if it actually happened — pales in comparison with actions attributed to former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Trump has been found liable for sexual abuse, admitted on video to grabbing women by their private parts, and was alleged by his first wife to have raped her. Trump, unlike Emhoff, is actually running for office.

Next was a thread titled, "DDOT's latest plan to destroy traffic, Georgia Avenue edition" and posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. The original poster seems to have just discovered the District of Columbia Department of Transportation's plan to create bus-only lanes on Georgia Avenue. This project, which was started in 2022, will extend existing bus-only lanes from Barry Place NW to the DC/Maryland border at Eastern Ave. The original poster is quite angered by the plan and claims that because the project removes half the existing travel lanes, it will result in gridlock. Moreover, the original posters claims that few people ride the bus and this won't change that, and it will increase traffic on other roads in the area. Finally, only nine people were killed in DC due to speeding drivers in 2022. Posters quickly challenge the original poster's objections. The most obvious point deserving of a side eye is the apparent willingness by the original poster to sacrifice nine lives in order to avoid traffic calming measures. Nobody denies that the new bus lanes will cause gridlock among cars, but they disagree about whether this is a bad thing. Several posters look forward to slower vehicle traffic which they believe might encourage bicycle use and will make the street more pedestrian friendly. As for bus use, posters with personal experience argue that the original poster is wrong. Buses along Georgia Avenue are heavily used and if bus lanes make them more reliable and faster, ridership will certainly grow. Similarly, the original poster's concern about traffic moving to side streets suggests a lack of familiarity with the area. One reason for Georgia Avenue's current popularity is that there are very few through streets that provide alternatives. Any cars hoping to avoid traffic on Georgia by cutting over to a side road are likely to soon be trapped in a warren of deadends and one-way streets. It seems like almost every thread in this forum turns into a battle between development-supporting YIMBYs and anti-development NIMBYs. This thread was no exception. The NIMBYs oppose the bus lane which, in their minds, is almost as bad as a bike lane and bike lanes are clearly the work of the devil. YIMBYs, on the other hand, are convinced that D.C. could easily be turned into Amsterdam if everyone would just listen to them. Caught in the middle are those simply trying to get from point A to point B and don't really care about religious wars being fought over cars, buses, and bikes. Several such posters point out that the real congestion problem on Georgia Avenue currently is cars double-parked in traffic lanes. If police would simply ticket and/or tow those cars, traffic would flow much quicker and even buses would see improved times. The root of the disagreement in this thread is the purpose of roads. Car drivers tend to see the purpose as being to move traffic as quickly and safely as possible. Others see roads as public space, to be shared by all types of users. That includes those on buses, bikes, and pedestrians. Cars have a place, but just aren't the priority. One thing that is apparent from this thread is the negative attitudes towards buses among some posters. They have a litany of excuses for avoiding buses. One poster cites an elderly woman being slapped in the face on a bus as her reason for avoiding buses. Of course, numerous carjackings and auto accidents have apparently not deterred the poster from driving a car.

The next three most active threads were all ones that I've previously discussed. After skipping them, the next most active thread was one posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Muslim Americans: Who are you voting for?", the orignal poster says that she was originally going to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris but the war in the Middle East has made that less likely. If there were a palatable Republican candidate, she would vote Republican, but cannot do that in current circumstances. Now the poster doesn't know what to do. This post really gets to the heart of the dilemma that many Muslim and Arab Americans are facing this election. From their perspective, there are literally no good choices. As posters explain in the thread, Vice President Kamala Harris is associated with President Joe Biden's administration that has stood firmly behind Israel as it has destroyed Gaza, potentially committing genocide, ravaged the West Bank, invaded Lebanon, and now preparing for an attack on Iran. Despite the Israeli violation of multiple "red lines" set by Biden, he has continued to ensure the flow of weapons and provided political backing. Biden has even personally engaged in spreading Israeli propaganda that later turned out to be false. Harris has done the absolute minimum to disassociate herself from this record. Former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump carries almost as much baggage. During his previous administration, he implemented a "Muslim ban" and, as a poster reminded in this thread, uses the term "Palestinian" as an insult. Most Muslim and Arab posters have little love for him. Harris seems to have believed at one time that she might be able to win over Arab and Muslim Americans with a change of tone. Unfortunately for her, she doesn't seem to have been able to pull that off. Recently the campaign dispatched Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to make conciliatory statements to Arabs and Muslims. That is probably a welcome gesture, but I think that the original poster and others of similar views are more concerned with actions. The Administration's actions right now are leading to the death of tens of thousands of Arabs, many of whom are related to those struggling over the question of for whom to vote. Arab and Muslim Americans are forced to choose the lesser of three evils. Some are willing to put aside Trump's anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry in hope that he might be more successful in ending the fighting. Moreover, some of them are uncomfortable with Democratic positions regarding gender, sexual orientation, and abortion. Muslim and Arab Americans, like most other groups, are far from homogeneous. Others will choose Harris precisely because they agree with her on gender and abortion. Others will choose not to vote or to vote for a third party. They are not naive and understand that is a futile gesture, but, in their view, there is no good option. The situation in the Middle East is tragic and it is very difficult not to hold Biden and Harris somewhat responsible. This is a real blemish on their time in office. Many Arab and Muslim American voters will not forgive them and the result may be the election of the bigoted anti-Arab and anti-Muslim Trump who may well go on to have an even worse record in the region.