2024

I am starting with yesterday's fourth most active thread because the first three most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. This thread was titled, "I am talking to a lot of Democrats who want Trump to succeed." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that he has friends and family who voted for Vice President Kamala Harris but who now want President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump to succeed in implementing his agenda. The original poster further says that they are hoping that those who voted for Trump will learn a lesson. He also indicates that many of these individuals are business people and professionals who will benefit from expected Trump tax cuts. The idea that Trump voters have "f'd around" and now will "find out" has been popular from the minute the presidential election results were known. The irony of the election is that Harris was popular among well-educated, generally affluent voters while Trump gained support from working-class voters. Many think that Trump's proposed policies will fall hardest on those less educated and less well-off individuals. The better-off Harris voters believe that they can survive Trump's policies while his voters will suffer. The reality is that Trump's support included many from the working class, but it also consisted of many among the most wealthy in the country. Indeed, Trump has picked a record number of billionaires for top spots in his incoming administration. The view among many Harris voters is that those wealthy individuals will now proceed to essentially loot the country and create policies that benefit themselves. While I understand the motivation to hope that Trump voters get what they asked for, I am not sure that it is actually a good position to take. On a moral level, some of Trump's policies will likely result in tremendous human suffering. While some of those who will probably feel the pain are likely Trump voters, many are not. We shouldn't support suffering for anyone, in any case. Not even for our political opponents. But even on a practical level, we must hope that Trump's worst ideas are not implemented. Trump critics are correct that Trump probably won't succeed in lowering the cost of eggs, and well-healed Harris voters probably won't mind. But in other respects, Harris voters won't be so isolated. There is an expression that a rising tide raises all ships. The corollary is that a lowering tide will ground a lot of ships that were otherwise thought to be safe. We might be able to absorb rising egg prices, but we can't escape a polluted environment, crumbling infrastructure, or a collapsing government. If Trump's proposed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is successful in his war against vaccines, our children and grandchildren will suffer just as much as those of the working class. This is not a time for emotion, but rather when rationality is most needed. Let's support Trump in those few cases where his policies are likely to improve our country, but in other cases, we must oppose him regardless of the satisfaction of seeing his supporters suffer might bring.

The four most active threads yesterday were all ones that I've previously discussed. Therefore, I am starting with what was yesterday's fifth most active thread. Titled, "What is the Republicans' whole ‘return to office’ obsession?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster has composed a lengthy screed on the topic of federal workers returning to the office. The post seems to be heavily influenced by a commentary published by the Federal News Network to which the original poster linked and which singles out Iowa Senator Joni Ernst for efforts to bring an end to work-from-home policies. Working from home and returning to the office have been the topics of several popular threads, and I have discussed a number of them in this blog. I've even written about efforts to force federal employees to return to the office in recent weeks. As such, I've already discussed much of what is in this thread. One thing that does distinguish the original poster's contribution from earlier threads is his presentation of data that shows that working from home has been studied repeatedly and shown to be more efficient than working in an office. The data contradicts many of the claims made by Ernst. For instance, Ernst has claimed that only 6% of federal employees work in person full-time. However, an August 2024 report by the Office of Management and Budget explains that fully 50% of federal employees are not even eligible for telework. Among those who are eligible, 61% of their work hours are conducted on-site. But what this thread demonstrates is that topics such as this are more often influenced by vibes and anecdotal experience rather than data. For instance, one opponent of working from home stated, "Republicans are pro-business, and WFH [work from home] is not efficient and reduces productivity. I don’t care what anyone says." Apparently, there are no amount of studies that would change this poster's opinion. The original poster is curious about Ernst's motivation for championing this issue. That's a good question. One would think that Ernst might have an interest in promoting Iowa as a low-cost-of-living area that could be attractive to federal employees working remotely. Instead, she appears to be more aligned with First Lady Elon Musk and failed businessman Vivek Ramaswamy in their efforts to use return-to-office policies to encourage federal workers to quit and, thereby, reduce the size of the federal workforce. This is probably the least efficient means of achieving efficiency imaginable. Part of the problem is that the question of where and when federal employees work does not exist in a vacuum. Republicans have devoted years to demonizing federal workers, and such attacks have been internalized into their ideology. Accusing them of abusing work-from-home policies is just one more example. In many cases, there is hope that the jobs can be privatized, perhaps to the benefit of Republican donors. Even someone like District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser, normally a strong proponent of the federal workforce, is supporting a return to office because she is worried about the impact of missing federal employees on DC's downtown businesses. This issue goes well beyond simple efficiency and accountability.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that had been most active over the weekend and discussed in yesterday's blog post. Those were the threads about President Joe Biden pardoning his son Hunter and the one about childcare conflicting with returning to the office. After those two, the most active thread was titled, "In praise of Olive Garden and Hampton Inn; praise YOUR lowbrow favorites!" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster just returned from a trip to her hometown in the Midwest. DCUM posters have a reputation for sneering at the Midwest, or what they call "flyover country", as well as the chains of restaurants, stores, and motels with which they associate the region. "Enjoy Applebee's" was once a popular DCUM expression of disdain for those leaving the vibrant city for less exciting areas (which, for the record, included DC suburbs). However, the original poster's experience was quite enjoyable. As she says, "My parents' house is beautiful, their neighbors are kind and generous, and my hometown is delightful." On the trip home, her family spent a night at a Hampton Inn along the way and dined at an Olive Garden. Both exceeded the original poster's expectations and she has only good things to say about them. As such, she invites others to suggest their "lowbrow" favorites. Two reactions were immediately apparent among the responses. One was to agree that Hampton Inns are normally nice motels and good choices for an interstate travel stop. There was really nothing but praise for the chain. The same is true for Embassy Suites. The other reaction was surprise that Hampton Inns and Embassy Suites are considered "lowbrow". For many posters, those chains are almost considered luxury hotels compared to what they were used to staying in while growing up. For the most part, however, this thread was a list of fast food indulgences. Most posters had a favorite fast food option or two. For some, those are regular treats of which they partake normally. For others, fast food is mostly limited to travel, especially by car. There were a few surprises for me in this thread. I understood IKEA as a popular lowbrow choice for furniture and home accessories, but I was not prepared for it to be praised as a dining venue. I had to agree with the poster who wrote, "I am legit fascinated by the PP who’s eating freaking rainbow trout in a furniture store." I'm glad that this was mostly a good-natured and positive thread. The only hint of conflict involved Ann Taylor, a clothing chain that some consider "lowbrow" while others consider fairly upscale. My only contribution to this discussion is to say that if you want to develop lowbrow tastes, take a road trip in an electric vehicle. You will soon become a connoisseur of Sheetz and Walmart dining and bathroom options. As for motels, anywhere with free charging will do.

Yesterday's most active discussion was titled, "JK Rowling's gender policing finally caught up to her", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. I am sure that by now everyone has heard about the controversy involving Algerian boxer Imane Khelif and the Olympics. But for anyone who has been locked away in a cave, here is a summary. Khelif was identified at birth as a female, raised as a female, and has competed in boxing as a female for several years. After she defeated a Russian boxer, the Russian President of the International Boxing Association, Umar Kremlev, claimed that tests showed that she has XY chromosomes and, therefore, is a man. Kremlev disqualified Khelif, along with Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu Ting, from competition. Notably, Kremlev has not revealed which tests were conducted or who conducted them. Nor have the results other than his general statement been provided. The International Olympic Committee has suspended relations with the IBA and rejects its findings regarding Khelif and Lin. It is important to remember that allegations that Khelif has XY chromosomes and tested high in testosterone come only from Kremlev and have not been confirmed otherwise. While many posters in this thread assume Kremlev's allegations are true, that remains an open question. Regardless, Khelif's participation in the Olympics led to a wave of on-line hate and bigotry towards her. Some prominent individuals, including J. K. Rowling and Elon Musk, joined in and encouraged those attacks. In response, Khelif has filed a complaint in French courts accusing those two and others of cyberbullying. The original poster of this thread is doubtful that successful legal action would do anything to temper Rowling's attacks on women who do not conform to her own rigid gender norms, but is happy that Rowling may at least suffer financial repercussions.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Failed my test" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she had a date with a guy who was in many respects great. He is close to her age, has a great job, and is a decent guy. While the original poster found him to be a bit too publicly affectionate for her taste, she doesn't seem to have been overly bothered by that. What really put her off however is a "test" that she uses to filter the men that she dates. She offered to split the check for their dinner and he accepted. In this way, he failed her test. She fully expects her offers to split the check to be politely declined. She believes that this is an indication of a man's generosity and his willingness to care for her. Despite the date being otherwise good, she has no plans for a second date because this guy failed her test. Before going any further, I should address the issue of whether or not this poster is a troll. I received about a half dozen reports suggesting that is the case. All I can say is that this thread is consistent with previous threads by the poster and, despite posting 34 times in the thread, she did nothing to suggest that she was trolling. Instead, she repeatedly stuck to the same message: that she is a high-earning, divorced, mid-40s, professional woman who has the luxury of being picky about men and has strongly held views about gender roles. This does not mean that she has purely traditional ideas about gender roles — she says that she contributed equally if not more to expenses in her marriage and a subsequent long term relationship — but she feels strongly that a woman should not be seen to pay for food in public. Needless to say, not every poster who responded was impressed with the original poster's test. The test was variously described as "idiotic", "silly", and a test of whether her date could "read your mind". While the original poster didn't really care about the amount she ended up paying — she has plenty of money and can easily afford it — other posters tended to fixate on that aspect. The topic of splitting checks on dates has come up a lot in the relationship forum. Some women are uncomfortable with the practice of guys picking up the check and some guys resent the financial burden it places on them. As such, this is a part of dating, particularly first dates, in which there is no agreed upon practice and expectations may differ. That contributes to the view among many of those responding that the original poster's test is flawed and she is wrong to adhere to it so strictly. Many posters have no problem with the guy agreeing to split the check, but they are bothered by his physical forwardness. They consider that a much bigger red flag and are astonished that the original poster, while expressing her discomfort with it, was not more bothered by his aggressiveness. As best as I can deduce, the original poster considers his attempts at public affection to be an indication that he is an "alpha male" which is not something that really displeases her. Rather, it was her date's departure from this alpha male persona when he allowed her to split the check that bothered her. Not all of those responding were critical of the original poster's test. Some thought it was a good screening mechanism. Far more common, however, were posters who thought that the guy was a loser who should have been rejected for multiple reasons. They didn't care which specific reason motivated the original poster and his failure of her test was as good as reason as any to pass on further dates with him.

As has been the case recently, the political forum dominated discussion over the weekend. All but two of the ten most active topics were in the political forum. The most active thread was titled, "Second Gentleman scandal" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article by the Daily Mail that reported that Vice President Kamala Harris' husband, Doug Emhoff had an affair during his first marriage. The website claimed that Emhoff was involved with a woman who was a nanny for his children and a teacher at their school. Moreover, Emhoff apparently impregnated the women. The Daily Mail reported that friends of the woman said that she terminated the pregnancy but also reported on a video posted on the woman's Facebook page that showed a baby around the time she would have given birth. The result is that it is not clear whether the woman gave birth to Emhoff's child and, if so, what happened to it. In reaction to the story, Emhoff released a statement confirming the affair and saying that he had taken responsibility for the situation, though it is not clear what that entailed. Other relevant facts of this story are that the affair happend at least four years before Harris and Emhoff met each other. However, Harris was aware of the affair when they got married and the story was known by the Biden campaign when Harris was selected as his running mate. Clearly this story tarnishes Emhoff's otherwise pretty good reputation. But, as many posters in the thread were quick to point out, Emhoff is not running for anything and the affair has nothing to do with Harris. Moreover, posters who support former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump are not in a position to criticize Emhoff given the fact that Trump cheated on all three of his wives. in addition, according to court testimony and FBI documents, one of those wives, Marla Maples, had multiple affairs herself while married to Trump. So, if being a cheater or being married to a cheater is a problem for a presidential candidate, that's bad news for Trump. But none of this stopped the MAGA cultists who were posting in the thread. Either they were sure a child had been born and that Harris had abandoned it or they were sure that the nanny had had an abortion and that had some negative reflection on Harris. Either way, according to them, it was bad for Harris. While Trump himself seems to be fixated on Harris' race and ethnicity and his choice for Vice President, J. D. Vance, is preoccupied with Harris' not having given birth, many MAGA cultists, including several of those posting in this thread, have decided that Harris sex life — whether real or imagined — is their best issue. For instance, Valentina Gomez, a Republican candidate for Secretary of State in Missouri, recently tweeted that, "Fat & Slut shaming is how we take America Back. Kamala Harris is an Indian hoe". Many posters in this thread seemed to have signed on to this agenda with many using Emhoff's past to disparage Harris, despite her having no connection to it. Other MAGA cultists simply used the thread as an opportunity to directly attack Harris in terms similar to what Gomez tweeted. As such, I eventually locked the thread.

The most active thread over the weekend was the one asking why people are Republicans which I have already discussed. That thread had twice as many posts as the next most active thread which was titled, "‘Don't Text Me So Early!’" and was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster explains that she texted her sister-in-law at 6:51 AM Saturday morning to invite her to the original poster's son's high school graduation party. The original poster's sister-in-law responded by telling her not to text so early. The original poster doesn't think there should be times when you shouldn't text and asks if she is correct in this regard. I am not sure why the original poster chose this forum rather than the "Family Relationships" forum. For that matter, to the extent this thread deals with relationships, it is more about relationships with technology. So maybe the "Electronics and Technology" forum would have been better. Those responding were split between posters who agreed with the original poster that texts can be sent at all hours and it is up to the recipients to turn off notifications or silence their phones and those who believe sending texts deserves some consideration and that texts shouldn't be sent before 8 AM. In other words, the division is between those who see this as a technical issue and those who see it as a matter of good manners. The technologists argue that it is easy to turn off notifications. The manners folks claim that they have reasons for keeping notifications on such as teens out late at night while parents want to sleep. The technologists respond saying that phones have settings to allow the kids' numbers through and there are ways to block text notifications but still allow phone calls. The manners posters identify other reasons that they can't block notifications for unknown numbers. What is clear is that this is an area in which social norms have not been established and, therefore, posters have much different ideas about what is acceptable. The responses also demonstrate posters' different perceptions of texts. For many, and I probably fall into this group, different forms of communications have different priorities. Email is generally the least time sensitive and phone calls are the most urgent. Texts fall somewhere in the middle. But for some posters, texts seem to be treated with the same importance as phone calls. This is understandable, I guess, when you realize that for some young folks, the idea of using a phone as a phone is almost incomprehensible. They don't expect audio unless it is accompanied by video. Therefore, while some posters can't imagine a text being sent in a true emergency rather than a phone call, for others this is a perfectly normal expectation. This highlights another factor that eventually came to dominate the thread. Many of these divisions are broken down by age. Those who are comfortable setting intricate settings on their devices slag off those who don't want to or are not capable of delving into all the features of their phones as being "old". So a fair number of age-based epithets were slung back and forth. What is clear is that this is uneven terrain and that individuals should, as one poster put it, "know their audience" in order to avoid giving offense.

Seven of yesterday's top 10 threads, including the top three were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. That means that I will start with the fourth most active thread yesterday which was titled, "Off the waitlist at Duke - unsure what to do" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that her son who had previously committed to attend the University of Pennsylvania was just accepted off the waitlist by Duke University. She says that he will study math and statistics and asks if anyone has experience with the two schools. The number one thing that those responding emphasize is that the schools have very different atmospheres. The campuses and surrounding areas are very different from one another and, as a result, it is important to determine which is more appealing to her son. Many posters stress the importance of finding the right fit. In terms of academics, posters didn't  think that there was much to distinguish one school from the other. A poster who has a child at each school agreed that there is not much difference. Another poster similarly argued that little separates the two schools academically, but that same was true of most of the top 20 schools. As such, everything kept coming back to whether the original poster's son would prefer a large campus to a compact one,  an urban location to an isolated one, or a northern climate to a southern one. One problem with threads such as this in the college forum is that so many posters respond who might not have firsthand experience with either school, let alone both. Their responses tend to reflect their personal biases and priorities. For instance, many posters suggest Duke between the two universities simply because they prefer warm weather. Others are angry about Penn because of the recent demonstrations against Israel's war in Gaza. Several posters appear to base their judgement entirely on their opinion for or against the Ivy League. Over the years DCUM has managed to attract a large collection of strange posters. If nothing else, running this site has taught me that there is no limit to idiosyncrasies. One example was represented in this thread by a poster who wrote, "Duke. Many people confuse Penn with Penn State." This probably would not be notable, but therex is a poster who posts this in almost every thread dealing with Penn (I can't confirm that is this poster, but it is probable). To make things worse, multiple posters thought this was a legitimate point. I loved the response though, "Many confuse Duke with dukes of hazard." There is also always a poster who shows up to comment on the physical appearance of female students and has a strong personal preference for southern women. In this thread, such a poster, probably the same one as always, opined, "Duke has prettier women by some margin". Several posters claimed that despite the differences in atmosphere, Penn and Duke attract very similar students and more than one poster said that they knew of multiple couples made up of alumns from each school. So based on the logic of this thread, the original poster's son should go to Penn with the expectation that he will eventually marry a more attractive Duke graduate.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Are Any Fellow Jews Thinking of Changing Their Voting", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she is a lifelong Democrat but that she is very angry about the college protests and is considering not voting for Democrats and possibly even voting for former President and current cult leader Donald Trump. While the original poster perceives significant and obvious anti-Semitism among the protesters, she is dismayed that many liberal groups that she has supported don't seem supportive of her at this time and she is upset by non-Jews who deny the anti-Semitism that she observes. This thread is sort of ironic in view of the thread I discussed yesterday that suggested that Biden is intentionally trying to lose the election by alienating young, Arab, and Muslim voters due to his statement that appeared to oppose the college protests. Biden is literally being criticized from both sides. Just as I said when reviewing the thread yesterday, this is really a problem of differing perceptions that is probably going to be impossible to resolve. The history of anti-Semitism has understandably made many Jews especially sensitive to perceiving anti-Semitism. In addition, there are politically-motivated groups and individuals who have an interest in increasing the perception of anti-Semitism. Moreover, anti-Semitism very much tends to be in the eye of the beholder. There is not even universal agreement on a definition of anti-Semitism. Combine this with the relationship between Israel and Jews and things get even more complicated. I will hasten to add that there have been clear and indisputable incidences of anti-Semitism among protesters, so I am not suggesting that the original poster's observations and unfounded. But, the result is that the original poster and someone like me might witness the exact same event and perceive it entirely differently. Where I might see a group standing against the killing of Palestinian civilians and the destruction of their towns and cities, the original poster can — with equal legitimacy — see a mob threatening Jews. There is enough objective evidence to support either perception. In an ideal world, those holding these differing views might be able to come to some amount of reconciliation through communication and understanding. But today's political environment, and particularly a DCUM discussion thread, doesn't really provide for that opportunity. Instead there is more interest in exploiting these divisions for political gain. As such, those with conservative and Republican tendencies are more than willing to welcome those such as the original poster, never mind the Republicans' own struggles with anti-Semitism. In contrast, Democrats in the thread reacted much as they have to the voters who have threatened not to support Biden because he is too pro-Israel. They warned the original poster against throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying that Trump would be worse on host of other issues and not necessarily better regarding Israel and anti-Semitism. Trump associates with actual Nazis and personally has made a number of statements that could be considered anti-Semitic. While many believe that he would be more pro-Israel than Biden, Trump seems to have personal animosity for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and has strong business and financial ties to Saudi Arabia. Therefore, Trump's support for Israel might not be as ironclad as many believe. Biden, on the other hand, has done almost everything possible to support Israel.