2024

After taking a week off, I was not sure how to get back to blogging today. One option was to just ignore the last week and start with a discussion of the most active threads over the weekend. The other choice was to look at the most active threads during the entire time I was off. For better or worse, I have chosen the second option. The most active thread during that time was the one that I have already discussed about the murder of the UnitedHealthCare CEO. After that was a thread titled, "Why is Blake Lively so overrated?" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Let me preface this discussion by admitting that I am probably the least qualified person imaginable to discuss this topic. Frankly, I have no idea who Blake Lively is and could not pick her out of a police lineup if my life depended upon it. I understand that she is an actress, but I am not aware of any role that she has played. I may very well have seen her in a movie or show, but if so, I don't remember it. In fact, were it not for this thread, I am not sure that I could correctly identify her gender given that "Blake" can be a male name. What I can say is that this thread was started in September of 2018 by a poster who believed that Lively has "a weird looking face" and is a bad actress. After three pages, the thread died and sank into obscurity until it was revived just over two years later by a poster who claimed that Lively's biggest accomplishments were getting married and having children. After five posts, the thread returned to obscurity. Then, two months later, it was resuscitated by a poster complaining that Lively's "eyes are small". The thread then returned to hibernation for over a year, being awakened in March 2022 and then taking another year and change off. It was not heard from again until May 2023, at which time it received only a few posts. It was then zombied in August 2024. When the thread was revived in August, it was 8 pages long. Today, it is 95 pages. I understand that most of the new interest is the result of a lawsuit that Lively filed against Justin Baldoni, accusing him of sexual harassment. However, that lawsuit was not mentioned until page 28, so there were 20 pages of fairly recent discussion even before that occurred. Threads like this that are nearly 100 pages in length present a particular challenge to me. I wouldn't read a thread of this length even if the topic interested me, and this topic doesn't. As a result, if there were a lot of complaints about it, I would probably just lock it rather than devote the effort necessary to moderate it. But, as it happens, there have not been a lot of complaints about this thread. Instead, there was a thread started in the Website Feedback forum suggesting that the entire thread consisted of nothing but "PR bot vs PR bot spam". Apparently, "bot" is used in a rather unorthodox sense to refer to people rather than automated posts. At any rate, I noticed one anti-Lively poster who posted 27 times, another poster who posted 26 times, and a pro-Lively poster who posted a whopping 87 times. I suspect that these are actual humans with too much time on their hands rather than paid public relations professionals. I must admit, however, that the suggestion that Hollywood public relations firms would find DCUM discussions worth influencing is rather flattering, if somewhat unrealistic.

Yesterday's most active thread was again the one about the shooting of the UnitedHealthCare CEO that I've already discussed. After that was a thread titled, "Not enough office space: safe from RTO?" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. This is the second day in a row that one of the most active threads has been about federal employees being forced to return to the office. In that thread, as well as several previous threads on this topic that I've discussed, the fact that many federal agencies have reduced office space has come up as an obstacle to returning to the office. The original poster directly addressed that aspect of the issue, saying that her agency was among those that reduced office space and now doesn't have enough for all employees. Moreover, there is no funding to acquire more office space. She wonders if this will make her safe from return-to-office policies. Most of those responding do not think the original poster will be protected. As always in threads of this sort, there are a number of posters who are positively drooling at the thought of federal employees being forced back to their offices. The more painful this is and the more disruption it causes in the employees' lives, the better such posters like it. The idea that federal employees might also be forced like sardines into cramped places without desks is enough for such posters to almost need a cold shower and a cigarette. Many of the responses in this thread were very eye-opening for me. It seems that many federal employees have already gone through returns to the office in which there is no longer a sufficient amount of space. I learned a new term, "hot desk", in which employees scramble for available desks and lose them even if they get up for a meeting. Several posters report that they now work in open environments with desks side by side and face to face. With no privacy, many of the posters say that they have to take telephone calls in their cars. One poster says that her husband, unable to find a desk, works nearly the entire day in his car. Posters who work in the private sector say that this arrangement is increasingly common for them as well. As many posters point out, this situation is not really a bug, but rather a feature. The incoming administration is hoping that federal employees will be incentivized to quit. Some posters report that they did exactly that rather than put up with the insufficient work spaces. Some posters assure the original poster and those like her that she will adapt to such an environment and that she shouldn't be discouraged. Indeed, other posters say that they have adapted. That might require sound-cancelling headphones, constant movements to quieter places for taking calls, or the aforementioned working from their car, but they make it work. The more cynical among us, which most definitely includes me where this topic is concerned, would argue that one of the main motivators of return-to-office policies is the need to fill commercial real estate which otherwise is in danger of collapsing. If agencies are not expanding space, that problem is not going to be addressed. Office building landlords will probably need to trek to Mar-a-Lago in order to convince President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump that the federal government needs more office space.

For the first time in a long time, none of the top 10 most active threads were ones that I previously discussed. That almost made me feel that something is wrong. The most active thread was titled, "SMU? Really?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. As I have been saying in recent blog posts, we are now in the college admissions season and will have many threads such as this one dealing with admissions decisions. The original poster says that her son applied to Dartmouth University during the early decision round and was turned down. He is now considering Southern Methodist University, and the original poster and her husband are worried about job prospects from a non-elite college and find the choice very disappointing. Unfortunately, the original poster is a troll. Almost immediately after starting the thread, the original poster began posting replies using different personas. Mostly, the original poster posed as a third party responding to the original poster and fluffing SMU as a great college and Dallas as a liberal bastion in conservative Texas. The original poster defended herself from criticism from other posters and, in turn, posted criticism of others. The personas used by the original poster changed, sometimes having a son, sometimes having a daughter, sometimes claiming to live in Dallas, and sometimes claiming to live somewhere else. Looking at other threads started by the original poster — which I subsequently removed — it appears that the original poster has been following this pattern from as far back as August. Since then, the original poster has undergone racial transformation, gender changes, had children who experienced gender changes, and considered a baffling range of colleges. Just yesterday, the original poster started a second thread titled, "Reed v Swarthmore". Strange that a student planning to commit to SMU is also planning an early decision strategy (presumably for next year) for those two schools. Based on the IP addresses used by this poster, my guess is that the poster is a college student who is currently home for winter break. If so, it is sad that trolling DCUM is the best way the individual has found to spend their free time. As an anonymous website, DCUM is very easy to troll. It really takes no talent. However, as this poster shows, if you do it long enough, you will eventually be caught. Perhaps that doesn't matter, but hopefully, the karmic effect of a significant number of people simultaneously thinking you are a loser will have some impact.

The first two most active threads yesterday were Vice President Kamala Harris-related threads that I've already discussed and, therefore, will skip today. The third most active thread was titled, "Horrible dorm assignment!" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that her child is going to college in southern California and, despite requesting a roommate, was assigned a single room in the basement of a building without air conditioning. The original poster is quite unhappy, believing that the school can easily afford to install central air conditioning in the building, and says that the experience has soured them on the university before school even started. A large number of the responses are from posters who also lived in college dorms that did not have air conditioning. Because they survived it, they don't have much sympathy for the original poster's child. Moreover, several posters point out, most students would love to have a single room. Therefore, they suggest the student should be able to trade rooms with someone else fairly easily. Other advice is to open a window and use a fan and that the warm weather will only last a couple of months. A number of those responding are either from California or have spent time there and they explain that temperatures cool off at night and it is not as humid as DC. Therefore, the nights are comfortable and the lack of air conditioning won't be a problem. The attitude of a lot of the posters is that freshmen year dorm experiences are almost always bad and something about which it is normal to have concerns. But, the original poster's child will survive it and she shouldn't worry. Other posters argue that if comfortable dorms were a priority, the original poster should have researched that ahead of time and chosen a college that has nicer dorms. In contrast to the "suck it up" crowd, a number of posters have advice about how to facilitate a room change. Some of these strategies are fairly elaborate with one poster even suggesting that the student grow mold in the room and then justify a room change because of the presence of mold. Much later in the thread, the original poster insisted that the lack of air conditioning was not the most important issue. Rather, her child is going cross-country to school and would now be living in a single room in a corner of the basement and somewhat isolated from other students. The original poster thinks that all of this combined is not conducive to an enjoyable college experience. She was hoping that her child would have a great experience at the university and this has tarnished things. It's possible that the concerns about the room are more on the part of the original poster and perhaps not shared by the student.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and, therefore, will start today with the third most active thread. That thread was titled, "Why pay all of kids' college?" and posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. The original poster says that she does not understand the expectation that the average middle class person should save to pay for 100 percent of their kid's college. She says that everyone she knew growing up had college loans and they were fine. She has decided that she will pay for two years at a public university for her kids and the rest is up to them. Reading the responses, it is clear that posters approach this topic from very personal angles. Those for whom college loan debt was a burden tend to believe very strongly in paying for their children's college. One poster compared this to passing on generational wealth. These posters often stress the significant impact of large debt that forces young people to delay many other aspects of their lives. As one poster put it, "If they are saddled with loans, they will never own a home". In contrast, those like the original poster who didn't have personal experience with significant debt see less importance in saving for college and are more likely to expect their children to take out loans. Some posters contend that kids should have "skin in the game", meaning that they be responsible for paying for at least part of their education so that they will value it. Otherwise, these posters suggest, the kids might see college as a four-year long party at their parent's expense. Many posters see attitudes about paying for college as having regional or social class divisions. One suggests that DC-area families are more likely to pay for college than those in her home state of Pennsylvania. Others argue that upper middle class families are more likely than middle class to save for college, though this may simply be an issue of means. Some posters think that unless saving for college would cause significant financial problems, it is selfish not to save for your kids' college. A number of posters point out that young people just starting college often are naive and uninformed about the ramifications of debt. They don't have a proper understanding of how much a burden paying off loans can be or they wrongly believe that loans are easily forgiven. Therefore, many posters feel they have an obligation to pay for college to prevent these kids from making mistakes. There was quite a bit of discussion of the Public Service Loan forgiveness (PSLF) program that forgives loans of those who choose specific professions. However, this forgiveness only occurs after 10 years of making payments. For some posters, struggling with debt for even that long is unreasonable if parents could prevent it. For many, this is a question of priorities. Whereas some posters see giving a debt-free education to their children as way to give them a leg up and a good start to their lives, others have different priorities. As one poster put it, "I want to retire and enjoy what is left of my life. I can afford to retire while I'm young and do the things on my bucket [list]". This poster was specifically discussing paying for graduate school, but the sentiment was representative of some posters' attitudes about paying for college in general.

Yesterday's most active thread was again the college protests thread which, again, had several times the number of posts of the next most active thread. But, since I've already discussed that thread I'll skip it today and move to the next most active thread which was titled, "NYT: ‘Peak College Admissions Insanity’" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a New York Times article with the same title as the thread. The author of the article, a former official in the US Department of Education, describes a number of developments that led to admissions for the 2023-2024 school year at selective universities becoming a chaotic and unpredictable experience. As the author wrote, "even the gatekeepers seemed not to know what the new rules were." I was about halfway through this article when I decided that it was clearly written for the express purpose of trolling DCUM. The article hit on all of the hot button DCUM college forum topics including the obvious ones such test optional admissions, early decision, and financial aid. But it also hit some of the deep cuts such as when the author name-checked Northeastern University. When he brought up "yield protection", I imagined the forum's yield protection obsessives setting off fireworks in celebration. In many ways, the article is the culmination and distillation of all of the most active college forum topics that I have discussed in this blog. The article emphasizes the impact of early decision applications and how they have changed the admissions calendar. It discusses the importance of colleges making standardized tests optional and the huge growth in the number of applications the top universities receive. The decision by the US Supreme Court prohibiting the use of race in college admissions received only a cursory mention, putting the article somewhat at odds with DCUM's college forum where the topic is heavily discussed. DCUM posters quickly caught on to an error in the author's understanding of when applicants accepted in the early decision round must pull applications from other colleges. However, financial aid decisions this year were delayed due to changes in the FAFSA application that postponed its availability. So for this year, the author may have been correct. In addition, posters pointed out additional factors that the author did not appear to consider. Generally, however, posters agree that the current college admissions process is filled with unknowns and that there appear to be few rules. As one poster summarized things, "High school seniors think this is checkers, but the schools know it’s chess. This has all become frankly terrifying for students, who are first-time players in a game their opponents invented."

The first thread that I will discuss today was actually the third most active yesterday since the first two were threads that I've already discussed. The thread that I will start with was titled, "DH says his success is my success" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she and her husband met in grad school and when they got married they both had demanding careers. However, the original poster later "mommy tracked", eventually becoming a stay-at-home-mom. Meanwhile her husband has been very successful in his career, earning a very high salary that has allowed the family to have a very wealthy lifestyle. However, when the original poster recently had a college reunion, she decided to skip it, partially because she is embarrassed that she no longer works. Her husband says that she has the right to be proud because his success is her success. The original poster is not sure how to think about that and asks if others view the success of their children and spouse as their success. Many posters agree that the original poster's spouse's success is her success because she supported his career and contributed to an overall successful life. Others don't really comment on whether his success is her success, but argue that the original poster has a life that is considerably better than most people's and has a spouse who recognizes her contributions. That is enough in which to take pride and she should simply be happy about it. Similarly, some posters think the original poster is being ridiculous and does not appreciate all that she has. A small number of posters contend that, like the original poster, they would be embarrassed to attend their college reunions because they don't see marrying a rich husband as being an achievement. Many posters argue variations of the idea that there is no perfect life. Instead, everything involves trade-offs. Had the original poster not made sacrifies in her own career, her husband likely would not have achieved the same level of success that he has or something else in their lives would have suffered. These posters suggest that the original poster just needs to accept the trade-offs for what they were. In some ways this thread may reflect changing ideas of feminism. In the 1960s, the expression, "Behind every great man is a great woman" was adopted by the feminist movement as a way to recognize the contributions of often ignored women who frequently enabled the success of their husbands. But these days, many woman don't want to be recognized for standing behind a man, but rather want to be up front or, at least, on equal footing. Also at issue is what is meant by "success". While many can agree that the original poster may not have succeeded professionally, she has contributed to a successful family life. Many see that as "success".

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Big 15??" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. The original poster provided a list of 15 private and independent schools and suggested that posters rank them using various criteria that the original poster provided. The original poster also said that others could not add or subtract from the list. Almost from the beginning of this forum's creation there has been an obsession among some posters with the rank of schools. There have been bitter battles waged over which schools should be considered the "Big 3". The "Big 3" or "Big 5" or even the "Big 10" has been so contentious that the forum even has a "sticky" post on the topic. Expanding the list to the "Big 15" may be taking things a bit too far and the stipulation that schools cannot be added or removed seems a kind of controlling if I am honest. But, as you would expect from DCUM in general, and this forum in particular, posters are not too concerned about following rules. Before the first page was complete posters had already started adding and removing schools. The position of various schools in the original poster's list is disputed with boosters of particular schools arguing that they should be higher on the list and detractors arguing they should be lower. These disputes are sometimes accompanied by derogatory comments such as those accusing both Holton and Georgetown Day School supporters of being "delusional". The thing about a thread like this is that the original poster knows it will turn into a train wreck and everyone replying knows that it will be a train wreck. Yet, they can't help themselves. I probably received a half dozen reports about this thread from posters complaining that it is a train wreck. Of course it is, why would anyone expect anything else? I finally locked the thread this morning mostly so I could write this post without being interpreted by additional reports about it. The original poster had warned against adding BASIS Independent McLean, a member of the BASIS independent school network that has become quite controversial. The school, normally referred to as "BIM" on DCUM, has a group of extreme boosters who I've repeatedly caught sock puppetting supportive posts. The boosters tend to stake their claim for the school's superiority on ratings by Niche, a website that collects data and reviews about schools. I really know nothing about Niche and can't comment on the accuracy or validity of it ratings. BIM supporters and detractors obviously hold contrary opinions of the website. Despite the original poster's prohibition on adding BIM to the list, a BIM booster was not to be stopped and promptly put BIM at number 1 in her list. Then, true to form, the poster immediately sock puppetted a response quoting her own post and describing the list as "Very accurate". Other posters attempted to add public schools to the list, creating their own controversy. Just to be clear, I think any thread of this nature is pretty stupid and a waste of time. If your ego is so fragile that it hinges on whether your kids' school is number 1 or number 5 on a list, you would probably be better off spending money on therapy than private school. The only redeeming value of such threads is that the vast majority of posters don't take them seriously.

The most active thread yesterday was a bit of a surprise. Titled, "Is Saoirse cruel?" and posted in the "Expectant and Postpartum Moms" forum, I honestly had no clue what this thread was about based on its title. My first thought was that it was referring to a new fangled birthing method or the latest fad child-rearing philosophy. But, it turns out that "Saoirse" in an Irish name that the original poster is considering using for her daughter. The original poster is Irish-American and has loved this name for many years. She would like to give her daughter an Irish name as way of connecting the child to herself and her family. But she wonders if a lifetime of mispronunciations and poor guessing is a cruel burden to put on the child. To make things even more confusing for readers, the original poster added that they would also use the nickname "Sari (said like hair, just like how we'd say sair-shuh)". The immediate reaction from those responding was that not only did they not have any idea how to pronounce "Saoirse", they could not comprehend how "Sari" could be said like "hair". Therefore, as you might expect, there was a wave of responses advising the original poster not to choose this name. The orignal poster has also mentioned that there might be more awareness of the name because of Saoirse Ronan. I had to Google "Saoirse Ronan" in order to learn that she is an actress, but one whose performances I've never seen. So, she was, in fact, no help in my case. I seemed to not be alone in this regard. Amidst the warnings that nobody would be able to either pronounce or spell the name, a few posters were supportive of using it. They think the name is beautiful and argue that the original poster should not worry about the concerns expressed by others. Some posters suggest that "Saoirse" might, in fact, be getting more well known in the US and that many children have unusual names these days. There was an entire side debate about the appropriateness of Irish-Americans using Irish names, especially ones that are not even that common in Ireland and, as in this case, have political significance. Multiple posters, including one who herself has an Irish name that is difficult for Americans to pronounce, believe that parents who choose such names are being pretentious and "try-hard". They think such parents enjoy correcting others and either showing that they are worldly or stressing their Irishness. However, every objection to the name was met with a response brushing off the criticism. There were also suggestions for alternatives such as using "Saoirse" as a middle name or spelling it phonetically. For her part, when the original poster finally returned to the thread, her reaction was "Woah I didn't expect people to have this much to say!" Welcome to DCUM. Or should I say, fáilte.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Do I need to lower my expectations ( dating)" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she is a 27 year old woman who has a career that she loves, makes decent money, owns a home, and has no debt. She has been dating in hopes of finding a husband but coming up empty. She hopes to find a guy who earns as much or more than she does, lives alone, has not been previously married, does not have children, and has no debt. Because she can't find these characteristics in men her age, she has been looking at somewhat older guys. But, since she has been unsuccessful, she wonders if she should lower her expectations. A number of posters suggest easing up on the salary requirements and dropping the requirement that the guy live alone. Living with roommates is both economically efficient and indicates an ability to successfully live with others they say. In response, the original poster emphasized the importance of income because she hopes to quit her job or work part time to raise kids who she also wants to send to private school. Several posters note that she is not considering some important attributes in a mate with one poster suggesting that she look for "someone who shares your values and will be a good partner." As another poster writes, "You sound like you're vetting loan applicants, not life partners." The original poster agreed that shared values are important, but her initial set of expectations was simply to screen for dates. She explores values and compatibility during dates. Posters warned that in order to attract the sort of man she is seeking she would need to meet certain beauty standards. "Are you Instagram fitness model caliber or nah?", asked one poster. The original poster's response, at least in my mind, left that as an open question. But, then on the second page of the thread a poster wrote, "Every single one of these threads lately reads like the ‘wife is a bad sham’/‘using pregnancy as an excuse’ troll" referring to a troll about whom I wrote in yesterday's blog post. Agreeing that this poster was on to something, I began to investigate that possibility. That particular troll uses DCUM in such a way that it is not possible to make conclusive determinations about his/her identity. So, I can't say that I know for sure that this poster is that troll. But, there are signs that indicate this might be the case. Enough signs that I have locked the thread this morning. But, I should emphasize that I could very easily be wrong in this identification. Assuming that I am correct, one reason that this troll has been so successful at creating threads that are among the most active threads of the day is through their shear tenacity. The poster posted more than 50 times in the thread yesterday.