Monday's Most Active Threads

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. The third most active thread was titled, "Trump wants Ann Selzer punished for her Iowa poll Predicition." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster links to a New York Post article describing a demand by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump for an investigation of J. Ann Selzer. Selzer is the pollster behind the highly regarded Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll. Despite its reputation for accuracy, Selzer's poll had a big miss in this election, predicting that Vice President Kamala Harris would win Iowa by 2 points. Instead, Trump won by 13. Right-wingers have long viewed polls with skepticism, accusing pollsters of skewing polls for the past several elections. Moreover, it is fairly routine for MAGA posters on DCUM to brag about lying to those conducting polls. They are apparently invested in ensuring that polls are inaccurate. Trump did not specify what sort of investigation of Selzer he wants to see conducted. Selzer recently announced that she would be leaving the Des Moines Register, a departure that has been long planned and is unconnected to the polling failure. The MAGAs in this thread are certain that Selzer intentionally skewed her poll in order to boost Democratic morale and give a false impression of Harris' chance of winning. Some go so far as to describe it as an illegal campaign contribution. Liberal posters don't see any advantage to Selzer posting false polling results and accuse Trump of interfering with freedom of the press. The best explanation that I've seen of why Selzer missed so badly was posted as a response in this thread. According to the poster, Selzer's method of identifying "likely voters" unintentionally overlooks many likely Trump voters and leads to Trump voters being underrepresented in her poll. According to this poster, Trump voters tend to be hostile and uncooperative, if not downright belligerent, in response to polls. Selzer discards responses from those who are not cooperative as unlikely voters. In reality, antagonistic Trump supporters are apparently very likely voters. Don't forget that some of this lack of cooperation includes outright lying. At any rate, many posters question why Trump is bothering with Selzer given that he won the election. Some suggest, correctly, that Trump voters are mostly motivated by anger, and Trump needs to provide a constant stream of reasons to be angry. I think another explanation for Trump's threat is his desire for dominance. Josh Marshall, editor of Talking Points Memo, has spent years discussing Trump and dominance. As he has pointed out, Trump does not seek compromise with his opponents, but rather complete dominance over them. His goal is to leave them cowed and unwilling to challenge him in the future. This explains his frequent ritual humiliations of those who have crossed him. There is no question that Selzer's reputation has been severely hurt by her last poll. Normally, that would provide plenty of satisfaction for her critics. But not for Trump. By piling on, Trump is sending a message to anyone else who might challenge him. Act in a way in which Trump disapproves and he will come after you. Intimidation and bullying are Trump's tools of the trade. We can expect to see this behavior frequently during his second term.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Religion" forum. Titled, "Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?", I assumed from the title that the original poster was a religious person questioning why atheists have invaded the religion forum. Instead, the original poster was actually an atheist who was essentially answering the question posed in the thread's title. She said that she wished that she had discovered the forum earlier when she was questioning religion but is glad to have found a community of "seemingly intelligent, good-humored and logical people who have rejected religion". Almost from the day it was created, the religion forum attracted a small group of atheists who seem to thrive on debate with religious people. This has provoked endless complaints from religious posters about their threads being disrupted. It is true that a simple question such as "how often do you pray" will elicit feedback from an atheist challenging the entire concept of prayer. I would be surprised if there were a single thread posted by religious people that has not been disrupted in this manner. On the other hand, there are religious posters that seem to go out of their way to provoke atheists. In more than one case, I have seen a religious poster bait atheists into responses and then go running to "Website Feedback" to complain about the atheists being nasty. This has pushed me firmly into a "pox on both their houses" position. In the case of this thread, I think an appropriate response from both religious and non-religious posters to the original poster's explanation for why she posts in the forum would have been, "good to know." Nothing more than that was required, but of course, that's a bit much to expect from the religion forum where reticence is definitely not considered a virtue. True to form, the first poster to respond was an atheist who appears to have read nothing but the thread's title. Ignoring everything the original poster wrote, this responder claimed that atheists post in the forum because, "religion infringes on the rights of atheist[s]". This led to questions about which rights were being infringed upon and responses to those queries. Soon, the thread was nothing more than a debate between religious posters and atheists. In other words, the thread is basically the same as every other thread in the forum. The problem with these debates is that religion, and ultimately atheism as well, rests on belief. Belief cannot be proven or disproven. If someone believes something, they don't require evidence that it is true because they have already accepted it as true. Atheists demand proof from religious posters which, of course, cannot be provided. But atheists also refuse to recognize that, as one poster points out, even atheism cannot be validated or invalidated by the scientific method — a characteristic it shares with religion. In addition, a large part of this thread involves complaints by atheists about the intrusion of religion into public life and political governance, particularly where sexual orientation and reproductive rights are concerned. In response to this, religious posters complain about all religious people being painted by the same broad brush and argue that not all religious posters support such positions.

Next was a thread titled, "Boyfriend doesn’t want to bring me to wedding" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she and her boyfriend — who are both middle-aged — have been together for a year. Her boyfriend has an adult son who is getting married in a few months at an out-of-town venue. The original poster's boyfriend does not want her to attend the wedding because his ex-wife will be there and the original poster's presence would upset her, even though the ex-wife is herself remarried. The original poster is upset by this and wants to know if it would bother others as well. There are two distinct views on this. Probably the most prevalent is that the wedding is about the son and his betrothed, not the original poster. As such, the son's interests are more important than the original poster's. If her presence risks causing problems and possibly having a negative impact on her boyfriend's son, it is better for her to stay away. Moreover, several posters suggest that they wouldn't be that comfortable attending a wedding where they might upset the mother of the groom and would probably be left on her own in a place where she didn't know anyone while her boyfriend attended to his father-of-the-groom duties. They would prefer to skip the wedding. On the other hand is the view that the original poster's not being invited is an indication of the lack of importance with which her boyfriend holds her. They argue that this is an important milestone in his own life and that he apparently does not want her to share it with him. They suggest this demonstrates a lack of seriousness. Some posters argue that she should break up with him if he is not willing to include her in major life events. This same division is repeated in various forms. Some posters see this as a red flag regarding the original poster's boyfriend because he is putting his son first. Others think that this is an occasion in which he should put his son first, and hence, this is a good sign. A few posters find fault with both the original poster and her boyfriend. For instance, one poster suggests that "He’s not that into you" but also, "You also sound self-centered and oblivious". Is it just me or are those two points contradictory? If he is not that into her and she is picking that up, she is not really oblivious, is she? Other posters suggest that the original poster's boyfriend's son might not want to meet her and that her boyfriend is simply respecting his son's wishes. Many also consider this a positive sign about the boyfriend. But other posters say that, if this is the case, the boyfriend should have been direct in explaining this and also should facilitate another time for the original poster to meet his son. In addition, a number of posters pointed out that, with the holidays coming up, the way in which the original poster's boyfriend handles those will be a much more important indicator of her standing with him than the wedding.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum and titled, "are you buying your kid an ED school tee or sweatshirt before admissions are out?". We have now reached the college admissions season, which means that I will likely be writing about such threads on a fairly regular basis. Long-time readers of this blog (all three of them) will know that, in this context, "ED" does not refer to erectile dysfunction, an eating disorder, or the Department of Education. Rather, it stands for Early Decision, which is the favored type of college admissions application for selective colleges. Students can only apply to one college for ED and must commit to attending that school if they are accepted. The original poster says that her son has a good chance of being accepted by his ED school, though both he and the original poster understand everything is a lottery in such cases. He does not currently own any college gear from the school but has expressed a desire to begin wearing some as soon as possible. I assume that means immediately after he is accepted, assuming that happens. Apparently, recruited athletes are already doing so. The original poster is concerned that this might not be nice to those who are still waiting for admissions decisions and worried that her son has not thought things through. She suggests that maybe she should buy a shirt to have on hand and then advise him not to wear it out or purchase a shirt as a Christmas gift. She asks what others are doing. Responses are across the board. Some posters worry that buying the gear now would jinx the original poster's son, and they are reluctant to tempt fate. Others have already bought shirts to have on hand but are prepared to return them if necessary. Many posters say that they can get shirts the same or next day from Amazon and will wait until their kid has been accepted. A few posters have already purchased clothing from the schools that they toured and in some cases, their kids already wear the clothes to school. At least one poster expects her child to continue wearing the shirts even after deciding not to attend the schools. Quite a few posters are in favor of wearing school gear even before acceptance. There are a number of suggestions for snappy replies if someone questions a shirt for a college that rejected the student. The conversation also expands to include parents wearing school gear. While there were concerns that kids wearing college swag to school might not be kind to those still waiting for decisions, there are no such worries about parents. But the concerns based on superstition still exist. As one poster summed up, the thread mostly consists of "differences of opinion, fun superstitions and personal rituals, plus a few snowflake school hang-ups." But for some posters, it's not that complicated. Some kids either bought or were given swag during school visits, and they enjoy wearing it. Not wearing it would be a waste. It's no more complicated than that.