October

The most active thread yesterday was the one that I discussed yesterday about the presidential candidates and McDonald's. I finally locked that thread because it was ridiculous. After that was a thread titled, "Divorced women in their 40s seem to be doing better in the dating market", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster repeats the claim made in the thread's title that divorced women in their 40s seem to be doing better in the dating market. Better than what is not quite clear. Better than when they were younger or better than other age groups? Who knows? The original poster makes a second claim that divorced men in their 40s are having less success. So perhaps she means that women in their 40s are doing better than men in their 40s? The original poster wonders why the women are more successful then men in this age group. If you detect an underlying note of skepticism in my tone, it is not your imagination. The original poster provides no information concerning how she arrived at these conclusions. Did she conduct a nationwide poll? Survey online dating sites? Or has she relied on purely anecdotal examples? Again, who knows? Nevertheless, most of those responding seem to accept the original poster's claims as true. This thread was really hard for me to follow because many of the posters seem to be on a completely different wavelength than me, and frequently from each other. Like the original poster, those responding kept making broad pronouncements about the state of dating but then, almost universally, someone popped up to contradict the statements. For instance, in response to the claim that men in their 40s are having less success, men in that age bracket posted about having tremendous success with dating, even — as one says — when balding with a "dad bod". Several responses suggest that short-lived flings are not hard to find. Many posters made clear that there are lots of divorced women in their 40s who are not interested in long term relationships, but rather are seeking short term intimacy. In those cases, there are plenty of younger guys willing to serve, not to mention men of the same age. Therefore, the success that divorced women in their 40s may be experiencing could be simply due to their interest in brief sexual encounters, something for which there is obviously always a market. One suggestion that comes up repeatedly is that while women in their 40s interested in sexual hookups can easily find younger guys, who for that specific purpose might be better prospects, guys in their 40s can't as easily find younger women. But guys in their 40s don't seem to be suffering from relationship droughts. In some cases they are finding matches with women who are seeking longer term or more serious relationships and, in other instances, their wallets make up for their other shortcomings. After reading this thread, I am fairly confident that the only generalization that can be made about divorced folks in their 40s and dating is that you can't make any generalizations. If there is anything eye-opening about this thread — and it is only eye-opening because I really hadn't thought about it before — it is the large number of women, especially those who are divorced, in their 40s who are not interested in long term relationships. If they were seeking such relationships, I suspect that their rate of success would be considerably lower.

The most active thread by some measure was the thread that I have already discussed about Vice President Kamala Harris' round of interviews that she has been conducting this week. Yesterday Harris was interviewed by Fox News' Bret Baier and posters' reactions to that event added several more pages to the thread and, as a result, the thread had nearly three times the number of posts yesterday as the next most active thread. The second and third most active threads were also ones that I've already discussed and I will therefore start with the fourth most active thread today. That thread was titled, "DEI at Michigan--NYT article" and was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article by the New York Times but offered no description or summary of the article, simply saying that it is a "must-read." Unfortunately, the article is extremely long and a summary would have been very helpful. The article is about the diversity, equity, and inclusion program at the University of Michigan. The university launched its first DEI program over a decade ago and is now on the second version of the program. The Times article describes how DEI has been deeply integrated into almost every aspect of the university. Considerable time, energy, and money has been devoted to implementing DEI, but, according to the article, the result has not been positive. Minority students don't believe the program is having the intended result, non-minority students often react with disdain, and professors are often fearful of being accused of violating DEI policies. The DCUM college forum is full of posters absolutely obsessed with affirmative action, the use of race in college admissions, and the demographics of admitted students. A number of such threads have been among the most active threads and I have, therefore, discussed them in this blog. It is no surprise then that this thread attracted a lot of attention. It is also not a surprise that most of the posts were by posters opposed to DEI and that the thread largely consisted of criticism of the university's program. Posters criticized DEI generally and the University of Michigan's implementation of it specifically. They claimed that the program was a waste of money that could have been used more effectively to help minorities in other ways. Some posters claimed that DEI creates resentment and increases racial conflict rather than lessoning it. Other posters went to the defense of Michigan's DEI efforts, arguing that racial relations in the country are terrible and at least Michigan was trying to address the topic, even if its efforts weren't perfect. Other posters were willing to defend DEI more broadly and claimed that most of the criticism was from those who had previously been privileged and were now upset that they no longer held a special place in society. The University of Michigan generally has a good reputation on DCUM but also has a number of critics. Many from the second group used this opportunity to bolster their claims that Michigan is not as good as its reputation would suggest. Those accusations resulted in considerable pushback from Michigan boosters. Posters argued that DEI or not, the school was still a top school.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Honestly asking Trump voters: how can you support him after this bizarre episode?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a Washington Post article about a bizarre incident involving former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and asks what the thinking is of those who continue supporting someone who is so obviously mentally declining. The incident in question occurred during a town hall meeting Trump was holding in Pennsylvania. The event was interrupted twice by medical emergencies involving audience members. But after those were addressed, Trump suddenly said that he was done taking questions and suggested that music be played. He spent the next 39 minutes slowing dancing on stage as a list of his own personal bangers was played. Even before Trump decided that he would dance the night away, he had already displayed a lack of mental acuity. When an audience member noted that her grocery bill was still very high and asked Trump what he would do about inflation, Trump replied that people mention grocery prices to him a lot. But then Trump started talking about farmers and Chinese President Xi. Trump went on to say, "But you asked another question about safety and also about Black population jobs..". The audience member had not brought up those things at all. Trump then veered into talking about immigration and unions. After that, Trump rambled on about Hannibal Lecter for a while before turning his attention to the Border Patrol. Trump then discussed Springfield, Ohio, a city whose Haitian population he has falsely accused of eating pet cats and dogs, though he didn't bring pets up on this occasion. Finally, Trump wrapped up by complaining about early voting. Nothing in this response addressed how Trump would combat inflation. This thread is 23 pages long and I can't read it all. But from what I did read it looks like many posters provided additional evidence that Trump is losing his mental capacity. The day after his town hall, he cancelled a scheduled interview with CNBC. While he did appear at a question and answer session before the Chicago Economic forum, that did not go well for him. When asked if he would break up Google, Trump went on a tangent about voting rolls in Virginia, never mentioning Google. When President Biden was still in the race, conservatives repeatedly highlighted the slightest mental lapse he experienced, accusing Biden-supporters of being in denial about his condition. Now, the tables have turned and Trump-supporters deny what is plain for everyone to see. Just imagine the conservative reaction if Biden had spent 39 minutes swaying to music while in the midst of a town hall? Conservatives in this thread either simply denied that Trump is showing cognitive decline, claiming that liberals are providing biased descriptions of events. Otherwise, they tried desperately to change the subject. Their most frequent diversion was to Biden, who of course, is no longer a candidate.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Bill Maher explains the Middle East to Gen Z: Can anyone really dispute the facts?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a segment of "Real Time with Bill Maher" in which Maher directly addressed singer Chappell Roan, and by extension the entire Gen-Z, and provided what Maher and the original poster apparently believe to be an accurate history lesson about the Israel-Palestine conflict. According to both Maher and the original poster, Gen-Z is wildly uninformed about Israel due to relying on TikTok for information. The original poster finds Maher's version of history to be indisputable. I was an active participant in this thread and found several fundamental errors in Maher's version of history. One issue is less about historical fact and more about interpretations. Maher argues that Israeli Jews cannot be colonizers because Jews have a historic connection to the land of Israel. This ignores that the Jews who created Israel largely came from Europe which had been their home for hundreds, if not thousands of years. There is a legitimate debate over what rights are really construed by such a tenuous connection, especially when Palestinians with much more recent claims on the land are denied any similar rights. Maher also claimed that for 2,000 years, nobody was interested in the land that is today's Israel. This is so fundamentally wrong that it really undermines everything else Maher has to say. Multiple crusades were fought over the land. That hardly signifies a lack of interest. Moreover, Maher erases the thriving Palestinian cities, towns, and villages that existed there for hundreds of years. Maher implied that Zionism was a reaction to the Holocaust and Jews didn't begin migrating to today's Israel until after World War II. Factually, Zionism had its roots in the late 1800s and Jews were emigrating as early as 1882, the time of the First Aliyah. Maher also suggested that anyone opposed to Israel's killing of Palestinian civilians is a supporter of Hamas or Hezbollah. This is a logical fallacy often employed to delegitimize critics of Israel's policies. The irony of Maher's version of history and the original poster's praise for it is that Maher's rendition is more fundamentally flawed that any TikTok video could hope to be. Maher is really in no position to be criticizing anyone else's knowledge given his own apparent ignorance. As several posters pointed out, those like Maher and the original poster criticize young folks for allegedly relying on biased sources of information but Maher and the original poster also have generally only been exposed to equally biased sources. In the Middle East, history is more often used to obscure facts than to clarify them. When people say that the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is complicated, they generally mean that they are confused by history. But history really has little meaning to the current conflict. Jews and Arabs have not been fighting for thousands of years as many would have it. Instead, the conflict is relatively new and quite simple. Two different groups want to live on the same land. It is really not any more complicated than that. Maher's resort to distorted history is really an acknowledgement that Gen-Z is closer to the truth than he would like.

While many of the most active threads yesterday were ones about which I have already written, that was not the case with the most active thread overall. That thread was titled, "Are you offended when someone says they ‘didnt [sic] want someone else to raise my kids’?" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster asked if the expression, "I didn't want someone else to raise my kids" is an appropriate response to questions about why one spouse chose to not to work out of the house or to work part time. This is a classic "work out of the house moms" vs "stay at home moms" debate. DCUM doesn't have these arguments as much as we used to, but — as this thread shows — they have not gone away completely. The fact that this thread generated 30 pages of discussion in just one day shows that this topic can still animate posters. After 20 years of reading variations of this dispute, I really have no interest in reading 30 pages, or even 3 pages about it. The fundamentals of the argument are well known. Some moms want to stay home and raise their children and they have the luxury of being able to make that choice. For these moms, being a stay at home mom is fulfilling and they enjoy it. If they are asked why they made that choice, responding by saying that this was something they wanted to do would be perfectly honest. I am not sure why anyone would object to such a response, but I expect that someone would anyway. Problems arise, however, if the responses is phrased some what differently. For instance, if they say that they wanted to be the one to raise their children or that they didn't want someone else to raise their children, it implies some amount of judgement that women who didn't make that choice didn't raise their children. Women who didn't stay home often find this implication rude or insensitive. Predictably, therefore, many posters respond to the original poster by saying that they are not necessarily offended by this expression, but that they do find it inappropriate. Moreover, these posters often go a step further and explain that they believe saying such a thing is revealing about the person who said it. For instance, it might indicate that the person has a myopic view of things or might be trying too hard to justify her own choice. A number of posters who did not stay home argue that they still raised their kids. While a nanny or daycare might have cared for their children for a few hours a day, the most important parenting decisions and involvement still came from the parents. The other side of this coin is the negativity with which work-out-of-the-house moms often view stay-at-home-moms. Remarks about staying at home not being intellectually rewarding or wasting an education or career are not uncommon and are often hurtful to moms who stay home. As a poster on the first page pointed out, the tables are turned in this debate once elementary school starts. Nobody accuses moms of having someone else raise their children when the kids are going to school. However, criticism of moms who continue to stay home can rapidly increase with suggestions that they are sitting home doing nothing while their kids are in school. The bottom line is that neither group likes to have its choice criticized. The more that everyone can learn to respect the choices of others and understand that people are different and have different priorities, the sooner we can get past threads like this. Mothers, and fathers, may take different paths, but they almost all have the same goal and are doing their best.

The trend that I have mentioned every day this week in which many of the most active threads are older threads that I've already discussed not only continued yesterday, but actually became more pronounced. Fully eight of the top 10 most active threads were ones about which I've already written. As a result, the first thread that I will discuss today was actually yesterday's seventh most active. Titled, "I’m so sick of dogs everywhere" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, the original poster describes two recent incidents in which she was in public places and encountered pet dogs. One was a restaurant with patio seating where another customer's dog kept lunging at another dog and brushing against the original poster's husband's leg. The other encounter was with two dogs in a grocery store. The original poster wants to know why some people feel the need to bring their dogs with them everywhere. The first thing I did when I saw this thread today was move it to the "Pets" forum. So that is where you will find it now. Debates over where dogs do and do not belong are pretty legendary on DCUM and, as such, I expected this thread get heated. What I was not prepared for was exactly the way in which it got heated. If someone wanted to satirize a DCUM thread, this thread is a good example of how it might turn out. The first poster to respond berated the original poster, not because she was not tolerant of dogs, but because she had been too passive in response to her encounters. The poster was angry that the original poster didn't complain to the manager of the restaurant and didn't contact the Health Department about the dogs in the grocery store. When another poster told a cute story about a dog on a high speed train in France, another poster accused her of liking dogs more than people. But that poster was silent when a poster complained that some restaurants are more hospitable to dogs than children and was told that is because kids are worse than dogs. Other posters agreed with that last poster and expressed happiness that dogs are more welcome than children in some places. As in most things, opinions on this topic exist on a spectrum. Yet it is the extreme opinions that get the most attention, which, of course, is not unusual. Those extreme positions, in turn, caused extreme reactions. In response to anti-dog posts, some dog owners promised to begin bringing their dogs to public places more often. In response to intransigent dog owners, other posters say they will begin complaining to management and other authorities more frequently. For much of the thread I wondered why those who bring their dogs everywhere didn't provide explanations for that behavior. But then explanations were provided and I almost felt that made things worse. For instance, some posters bring their dogs inside stores and restaurants because they are afraid that if they tied them up outside they would be stolen. Maybe not an unreasonable fear, but why bring the dog in the first place then? The answer in one case was because the dog is uncomfortable when left at home alone.

A year ago on October 8 I wrote about the Hamas attack on Israel that had occurred the previous day. When I was writing, the full scale of the horror that Hamas had visited upon Israel was not yet known. Had I written that post a week later, I probably would have taken a different approach. In particular, I would have paid more attention to the brutality of the attack and the murder of many innocent and undeserving Israelis. In addition, I probably wasn't clear enough that I hold Hamas solely responsible for the attack. However, Hamas didn't act in a vacuum and what I was writing about were the conditions that made the Hamas attack possible. That continues to be an interest of mine. Re-reading the post today, I continue to feel that its analysis was solid. More importantly, I think the the main point of my writing — that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, due to personal interests, was responsible for creating an opening that Hamas exploited — remains true today. Netanyahu was pursuing a personal agenda that led to a national disaster. Netanyahu's motivation has not changed, which explains his willingness to sacrifice the remaining hostages held by Hamas and to expand Israel's wars rather than seeking a ceasefire.

The three most active threads over the weekend were ones that I've previously discussed. Therefore, I am starting with the thread that was fourth most active over the weekend. That thread was titled, "UVA info session today said ‘most rigorous in ALL 5 core subjects.’" and was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster apparently attended an information session for the University of Virginia. During the session, the UVA representative stated that admissions officers expect applicants to have taken the "most rigorous" classes in all 5 core subjects. The original poster asked whether this meant advanced placement classes or dual enrollment classes in all core subjects including world language and was answered in the affirmative. When the original poster tried to further pin the representative down on the meaning of "most rigorous", the representative explained that Common App has a box that an applicant's high school counselor checks to indicate that the student took the high school's most rigorous classes. The original poster concluded by complaining that the UVA representative would not give direct answers and, instead, kept emphasizing the "holistic" nature of of how applications are reviewed. As described by the original poster, the UVA representative's answers seem contradictory. On the one hand, either APs or DEs are required. On the other, only the counselor's certification that the student had taken the "most rigorous" classes was needed. I assumed that this was the root of the original poster's frustration. In a follow-up post, the original poster said that she had asked whether it would be looked down upon if an applicant had not taken an AP foreign language class and was told that it would be, but that the applicant could try to explain this choice. Further posts by the original poster suggested that her child did not want to take an AP foreign language class but didn't want to be eliminated from consideration by UVA as a result. I saw this as a bit ironic given the original poster's complaint about holistic admissions because a holistic review would allow for the absence of an AP foreign language class to be explained and perhaps excused. But I think it was the lack of certainty that bothered the original poster. Unfortunately for the original poster, and many others who have kids applying to UVA, uncertainty is part of the process. Given the competitiveness of UVA's admissions, many qualified students are going to be disappointed. The original poster doesn't get a lot of sympathy from those responding. There is some debate about whether a foreign language should be a requirement and why playing a musical instrument is not considered equally important. But, for the most part, posters don't think the "most rigorous" requirement is inappropriate. To the contrary, they think that it should be expected. Many posters are not particularly put off by the "holistic" admissions policy either. As one poster says, "And it seems to work. Rankings are high. Demand is high. Graduates are very accomplished."

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.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Why isn't the aftermath of Helene bigger news?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was actually created on Sunday but was particularly active yesterday. The original poster asks why the aftermath of Hurricane Helene is not getting more media attention. The original poster admits that both the Washington Post and the New York Times have covered the disaster, but he complains that the coverage is below that of the Middle East and the election. The supposed lack of media coverage was a common complaint among the MAGA crowd following the hurricane. While there are stories that the mainstream media miss, more frequently when posters complain that something is not getting coverage they are really complaining that the media sources on which they rely are not providing such coverage. Often, as in this case, mainstream outlets are covering the event. Moreover, as posters in the thread note, the destruction wrought by Helene presented a number of challenges to reporters. The media had been prepared for the hurricane to land in Florida and were positioned to cover events there. However, the deluge of rain dumped on Tennessee and North Carolina was, for the most part, a surprise. With roads closed, electricity out, and both land lines and cell phones unavailable, getting news out was difficult. Moreover, as in many parts of the country, private equity investors have purchased several local news outlets and purged many of the reporters. As a result, there was a scramble to get coverage in many areas. Nevertheless, there was significant reporting on events. Despite this, many posters insisted that due to specific agendas, the media was ignoring the situation. A common complaint was that the disaster was being ignored because it impacted conservative areas. As was again pointed out in the thread, this ignores that one of the worst hit cities, Asheville, NC, is one of the most liberal parts of the state. After it became clear that media coverage was not in short supply, the focus of the thread shifted to relief efforts. Again, conservative posters made unfounded accusations. They accused the Biden/Harris administration of not doing enough and not providing assistance because the victims were conservatives. In fact, the Republican governors of Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia all praised President Joe Biden for the performance of FEMA and other federal agencies. There was also considerable debate about whether residents of the affected areas were properly warned about the potential destruction. Somewhat ironically, the MAGA posters most responsible for such complaints had little interest in former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's history of cutting funds from the agencies tasked with providing such warnings or the Project 2025 plan to get break up NOAA and commercialize the National Weather Service. Left-leaning posters also noticed that the Republican-led House of Representatives left town rather than staying in session to consider supplemental expenditures that may be needed to fund the recovery.