2024

The first thread that I will discuss today was actually the fifth most active yesterday. The four most active were all threads that I've previously discussed. This thread was titled, "New social media trend from Sweden: the 'Soft girl' ?" and was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster linked to a story published by the BBC that describes what they call a "new trend" in Sweden that involves women quitting work and basically becoming housewives, though in most cases they actually appear to be house girlfriends. The original poster was initially horrified by this idea, but then thought that it might actually be good and is intrigued. This thread was the first that I've heard of this so-called trend, but as soon as I read the BBC article, I was ready to blast out a post loaded with my opinions of both the article and the trend. However, I disciplined myself enough to at least look at the replies and realized that everything that I was going to say had already been said. So, let's let the others tell it. First thing, this is not a trend. As one poster wrote, "People (women) have been doing this for a long time. Someone just discovered it for themselves and starting blogging/IGing/TikToking about it, thinking they invented it." Second, it didn't start in Sweden. As other posters pointed out, the original "soft girl" movement started in Nigeria. There is a bit of debate about whether the "soft girl" movement is simply a return to traditional gender roles of the past — or as one poster says, "how human life was for thousands of years". Another poster derides the movement as "a man is the plan". Some posters pointed out that the women highlighted in the article weren't really giving up all that great of careers. One poster wrote, "I would also be happy to quit my job if my jobs were: ‘grocery store, a care home and a factory’, per the article." Another poster agreed, saying, "A lot of these women just don't have great options to begin with." Yet another poster added, "Wouldn't anyone rather stay home, pursue creative outlets, and ‘relax in their feminine’ than empty bed pans or stock shelves?" Many posters simply brush the topic off as nothing but a made-up social media invention. A poster wrote, "Social media trends are painfully stupid." Several posters pointed out the class dimensions of the topic. Traditionally, a life of idle luxury, as one poster says, was only available to "rich women, and during its brief existence, the MC [middle class] women were SAHMs [stay-at-home moms]. LC [lower class] and poor women have always worked." The most common criticism of the "soft girl" idea is that it depends on a partner — normally a man — who is willing to pay for it. This creates a dependence that many posters abhor. As a poster writes, "Yes, let’s encourage women to be financially dependent on men. What could the harm be in that?"

Some days are just déjà vu all over again. As was the case earlier this week, the top two most active threads were the Hunter Biden pardon thread and the soccer league age bracket change thread. Skipping those, the next most active thread was titled, "How to know a college is safe for POC" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread is also a bit of déjà vu since similar threads come up regularly. The original poster says that her son is interested in a top liberal arts college but, according to the Common Data Set, only 22 Black students out of a class of 436 were accepted during the last cycle. Her son was hoping to find a community and is very discouraged by these numbers. The original poster asks whether they should just "throw in the towel". Threads such as this always attract posters who appear offended that the topic was even brought up. They normally call the original poster a troll and suggest that the poster is making things up. I deleted posts of that sort from this thread and the remaining posts were generally very helpful (or at least seemed to be from my point of view — I can't speak for the original poster). The replies generally fall into two different camps. One is the "don't give up on the school" camp. Posters in that group urge the original poster to contact current students at the school and try to hear their experiences firsthand. They argue that simple numbers don't reveal the entire story. These posters suggest contacting any Black-student affinity groups that might exist on campus or the admissions office to arrange video calls with current students. The college in question later turned out to be Pomona College and one poster in the thread has a child attending the school now. That child is a person of color, though not Black. Still, the poster was able to provide links to many helpful resources and describe her child's experience at the school. The second camp consists of posters who argue that there are better options than Pomona. They suggest universities instead of liberal arts colleges. Suggestions include Duke University, Emory University, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia. The original poster said that her son was not interested in historically Black colleges and universities, but posters kept suggesting them. Some posters struggled to understand the vast spectrum of colleges that exist between one with 22 Black students and an HBCU, leading to some vitriolic exchanges. Many posters suggested that the original poster's son has very competitive statistics and would likely have opportunities at many top colleges or universities. However, those colleges also tend to have smaller Black communities. Therefore, this presents a struggle between a better school or a larger Black community. Despite the few bitter posts that I removed, most of the posts in this thread were quite supportive of the original poster and her son. One of the nicest, I thought, was posted by a poster of Korean heritage who described her desire to find a Korean community at college and chose a university accordingly. She attributed much of her success in college to that community.

The most active threads over the weekend were mostly ones that I've already discussed. That was the case with the most active overall, but the second most active thread, which was titled, "Here’s Why Asian Americans Shifted Right by 9 points" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, was one that I haven't previously addressed. Therefore, I'll start with that one. This thread was started on Saturday and is currently 26 pages long. I was a bit confused reading the first post of the thread because the original poster did not indicate that the text was entirely a quote. When I started reading, I was under the impression that the original poster had personally conducted detailed research into the voting patterns of Asian Americans. I eventually figured out that the original poster was actually quoting from an article published on the Real Clear Politics website. The main point of the quote is that Asian Americans voted for President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump in greater numbers than was initially believed and that their motivation was the Democrats' focus on "woke" issues, especially affirmative action. I think that it is worth pointing out that Real Clear Politics is a right-leaning website, the author of the article is an employee of the conservative Manhattan Institute, and it appears that only right-wingers were quoted in the article (at least in the portion quoted). That doesn't mean that the conclusions are wrong, but it is worth noting the perspective being presented. What was wrong, however, is the spin the original poster gave the thread. The thread's title suggests that the thread will explain why Asian Americans shifted toward Trump. Then the quoted passage only deals with "woke" issues, giving the impression that Asian Americans were mostly motivated by opposition to woke policies. However, the article itself says that Asian Americans were primarily motivated by concerns about the economy and secondarily by worries about public safety. The original poster, who did not mention the economy or public safety, was quite misleading in how this was presented. "Asian Americans" are getting a lot of attention these days, especially in topics surrounding education such as affirmative action. What is normally missing from such discussions is the diversity of the Asian American community. Not only are there East Asians and South Asians who differ significantly, but there is tremendous diversity even within those groups. It is somewhat ironic that at a time when Democrats are being criticized for "identity politics", it is conservatives engaging in identity politics when it comes to Asians. Moreover, there are some shortcomings in the analysis presented in this article. The author appears to have entirely judged the "shift" in Asian American voting based on presidential votes. It would be interesting to know if a similar voting pattern occurred in other races. In addition, the author seems to have relied on sources who are far from objective. For instance, local right-wing firebrand Asra Nomani is quoted throughout the article. Nomani's perspective is not all that widely shared even locally among Asians — at least as I can determine from DCUM posts — let alone nationally. Nevertheless, she is quoted as citing admissions changes at Thomas Jefferson High School as a reason for changes in Asian American voting. Call me skeptical that anyone outside the Northern Virginia region even knows about TJ, let alone changed their votes because of the admissions changes.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Head of School at National Child Research Center (NCRC) - Arrest warrant issued" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. By the time I learned that this thread existed yesterday, the title was already out of date. The original poster started this thread after learning of reports that an arrest warrant had been issued for James Carroll, the Head of School at the National Child Research Center (NCRC), an elite Washington, DC preschool. Less than half an hour later, Carroll's arrest for attempted coercion and enticement of a minor was announced. For me, this thread provoked an immediate sense of déjà vu. Back in 2006, when DCUM's forums were still in their infancy, a scandal involving a teacher at Beauvoir was the subject of what would become, at that time, the most active thread in DCUM history. That case involved Eric Toth, a 3rd grade teacher at Beauvoir who was found to have taken sexually explicit photos of children using a school-owned camera. Toth fled and ended up replacing Osama Bin Laden on the FBI's Most Wanted list after Bin Laden was killed. Toth, who was later arrested in Costa Rica and is now in prison, had actually been an active DCUM poster. My immediate reaction upon seeing this thread was to think that we were going to have another Beauvoir situation. Carroll has a long history in the DC private school world, including a Beauvoir connection. He apparently was teaching 3rd grade along with Toth at Beauvoir at the time of the Beauvoir scandal. That is an eerie coincidence to say the least. Carroll later joined the Beauvoir administration before leaving to become the head of school at Concord Hill School for two years. He has been head of school at NCRC since July 2018. The criminal complaint provided in this case is pretty tough to read and definitely not for the faint of heart. According to that document, Carroll came to the attention of an administrator of the Discord social media network when he uploaded a photo of "two naked prepubescent boys". The Discord employee contacted the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children about the photo, and NCMEC alerted the FBI. The FBI was able to trace the Discord account used to upload the photo to IP addresses associated with NCRC and Carroll's home. A review of Carroll's Discord account showed that he "had engaged in conversations with other Discord users about child sexual exploitation, circumcision of teenage boys, urinating on teenage boys and adults, and had discussed the removal of adult male’s penises." In addition, the FBI discovered several "selfies" picturing Carroll. An FBI undercover law enforcement officer using an undercover Discord account established contact with Carroll and engaged in conversation about child sexual exploitation. The undercover officer posed as a father of a nine-year-old boy who was interested in sexually exploiting his child. Carroll provided suggestions for acts the "father" might commit. Reaction in this thread is, as you would expect, a mix of shock and anger. Many posters have children who were exposed to Carroll over the years and are desperately trying to ensure that their children were safe. Many are outraged at the continual flow of scandals involving private schools, not just Carroll and Toth but a number of others as well.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "What are the ways you'll resist?", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster asks how others will "resist the current administration". I assume that the original poster is actually referring to the incoming administration of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, which won't begin until early next year. The current administration is still that of President Joe Biden, and I don't think anyone would be making plans to resist Biden at this late date. When Trump was elected the first time, he was immediately met by the giant women's march. Protests soon became a feature of the early days of his administration. The later years of Trump's first term were characterized by Black Lives Matter protests, especially following the killing of George Floyd and ANTIFA-led protests in places like Seattle and Portland. The protests became a sort of wedge issue, with many who might otherwise support the causes growing tired of the disruption the protests caused and Trump using them as an excuse for increased militarization of the police. Add to this the slew of protests against Israel's war in Gaza, and mainstream Democrats are sick and tired of protests. As such, there is little interest in what many now see as an ineffectual tactic. In fact, while Democrats have been told, and many believe, that Trump is a unique threat to democracy, very little has been done to prepare to resist him. More common is a sense of resignation, often coupled with an expectation that Trump's administration will be a series of failures that often harm his supporters the most. MAGA posters are taking great pleasure in trash-talking Trump opponents and gloating over their victory. They search for any signs of "liberal tears" and make wild claims over what they expect to happen to the vanquished Democrats. The lack of any notable resistance actually is a disappointment to them. MAGAs want to point and laugh at the futile struggles of Democrats, but can't find anything worth the effort. As one poster wrote, referring to MAGA posters, "This board has been four years of them [MAGAs] whining about everything. And when they don't get the big freakout they've been waiting for, they whine about that." Some posters actually accused the original poster of being a MAGA troll trying to stir up drama that hasn't developed organically. As for the Democrats, they seem more interested in participating in a circular firing squad than resisting Trump. Centrist Democrats don't appear likely to be satisfied until every progressive has publicly renounced any use of pronouns and agreed that the subject of gender will henceforth never be mentioned again. As for progressives, they are too busy resisting other Democrats to worry about Trump. There actually seems to be more interest in resisting First Lady Elon Musk than there is in resisting Trump. People are cancelling X accounts left and right and refusing to allow Teslas to merge in front of them. Unrelated to the thread, but the saddest people on Earth right now must be liberal Tesla owners who bought the cars in order to help the environment and are now being tagged as Trump supporters.

Over the weekend, the most active threads were, once again, all related to the election. The most active of the bunch was the one about Democrats engaging in self-reflection that I discussed last week. After that was a thread titled, "Did you really think Kamala would win? Deep down inside, did you?", and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she had doubts about whether Vice President Kamala Harris would win the election. I think we should stipulate that, by nature, nearly every Democrat is predisposed to pessimism. Harris could have had a poll lead of 40 points, and the majority of Democrats would still be having sleepless nights and imagining scenarios for an upset. In this case, the polls always showed a very tight race that was never anything more than a toss-up. Therefore, a certain amount of doubt was justified. But now with the benefit of hindsight, you would get the impression that nobody thought that she could win. Some posters say that they always feared that what they believe to be the innate sexism and racism of American society would be too strong for a Black woman to overcome. Others claimed that race and gender were not issues but rather Harris' own shortcomings. The same criticisms that were made during the campaign — such as complaints about her media interviews — were repeated. I often felt during the campaign that many people were looking for an excuse not to support Harris instead of reasons to support her. Votes for President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump would be justified by the smallest fault that could be found in the Vice President. This impression is strengthened by responses in this thread. There is a general feeling of, "Well, Harris has this or that flaw, so I had no choice other than to vote for Trump". Never mind Trump's innumerable more and worse flaws. For my part, I believed that Harris would win the election, but I also had reasons for concern. One, that I voiced here repeatedly, was the impact of her position regarding Israel's wars in Gaza and Lebanon. This did turn out to hurt her in Michigan and likely had a negative impact elsewhere. My other worry also appears to have turned out to be true. Harris clearly predicated her campaign on the assumption that moderate Republicans, particularly women, could be persuaded to vote for her. My belief is that these Republicans may not like Trump, but were prepared to vote for him minus a compelling enough alternative. Late in the campaign, I became convinced that Harris was not successfully providing that alternative and, therefore, moderate Republicans would return to form and vote Republican. I still thought, or perhaps hoped, that Harris could pull out a victory, so I am not retroactively claiming that I didn't think Harris would win. The other thing happening in this thread — and I know I am paddling upstream trying to change anyone's mind about this — is that Harris' defeat is being exaggerated. With the exception of Arizona, her losses in swing states were by less than 2%. All the geniuses in this thread who claim that it has been obvious all along that Harris would lose should realize that it wouldn't have taken much to swing 2% of the voters in those states a different direction.

The most active threads yesterday continued to be related to the election. The most active thread of the day was titled, "Time for reflection as a dem?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster asks whether, as a result of the resounding Republican victory in the election, Democrats should have a moment of reflection and stop pushing so hard to the left. This thread is 37 pages long, and I don't have time to read much of it, so I am just going to give my own thoughts on this topic. From what I've seen in DCUM discussions, "The Left" normally refers to those who have certain views on social issues rather than economic policies. Those on the left are identified by a commitment to "woke" issues and, especially, support for the rights of trans people. From what I've read in this thread, this is how the term is used in the discussion. In this thread, as well as many other recent threads, posters are eager to attack support for transgender people and blame "the left's" support of trans rights for the election loss. Let me be as clear as possible with regard to this point. For me, trans rights is a moral issue and, as such, not something that I will abandon for political expediency. Moreover, I have no plans to open DCUM to additional anti-trans discussion. If not being able to attack trans rights is a deal-breaker for you, my only response is, "see you". I am sure you will find a website more accommodating to your views elsewhere. The millions of dollars that President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump spent demonizing trans people during the campaign is really the epitome of bullying. He went after a small, marginalized community that is basically harmless. Let's accept the anti-trans narrative for a second and assume that occasionally a trans girl or woman competing in sports deprives a non-trans woman of an award or maybe a scholarship. That is concerning, true, but do you know what is worse? Trump's party's support for anti-abortion laws that are literally killing women. If you are withholding your support for the Democratic Party because your opposition to trans rights is stronger than your concern about women dying, I am skeptical that your true concern is women's rights. Beyond social issues of this sort, Democrats may want to reflect, but could logically come to the opposite conclusion of the original poster. Almost all analysis of voting behavior in this election suggests that inflation was the number one concern. If that is true, Vice President Kamala Harris should have spent more time addressing that issue rather than campaigning with Liz Cheney and Mark Cuban. Harris clearly moved her campaign to the right and ran as a centrist. Perhaps she would have been better served by running on a message closer to what Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders might propose? Imagine that she had spent the bulk of the campaign criticizing the high price of groceries and promising to punish corporate price gouging? Imagine her standing in front of the headquarters of State Farm and demanding that they get car insurance rates under control? Maybe she could have said that one issue on which she differed from President Joe Biden was his deference to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, who kept interest rates too high and waited too long to lower them? Wouldn't this have appealed more to the blue-collar workers who abandoned her for Trump than the billionaire Cuban criticizing Harris' own proposal to tax unrealized capital gains? Yes, Democrats should have some self-reflection. Do they want to be nothing more than a warmed-over version of the Republican Party, or do they want to fight for the votes of those they lost in this election? Or, do they simply want to scapegoat transgender people and call it a day?

For the first time in a long time, yesterday's top 4 most active threads did not include any threads that I've already discussed. However, the top threads were heavily weighted towards the political forum, with 3 of the top 4 being posted there. The first of those was titled, "Who do you think is going to win and why?" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As you would expect, this thread mostly consists of posters responding with the name of the candidate they expect to win and, in most cases, some commentary supporting their answer. I've only skimmed this thread, but what I noticed is the very different attitudes generally reflected by Democrats and Republicans. For reasons that I've never understood, nearly the entire Democratic Party turns into Woody Allen during campaigns. Democrats in this thread are anxiety-ridden, pessimistic, and practically ready to concede before a single vote has been counted. Republicans, on the other hand, are euphoric and, opposite the Democrats, prepared to claim victory before a single vote has been counted. I suspect that both parties are being affected by the same Republican-led efforts. For weeks, Republican-leaning "polling firms" — I put that in quotes because these firms are really activist organizations pursing political agendas rather than authentic polling companies — have flooded the zone with garbage polls that show former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump easily winning the election. These polls have been used to convince Trump's cult followers that he is leading. One impact of this manufactured expectation is increased enthusiasm among MAGAs, but I suspect that the more important goal is to make eventual claims that the election was stolen more believable. If Trump loses, which I expect, he will say that the Democrats cheated and the proof is that he has been leading the polls. The near total conviction with which MAGAs have been predicting Trump's victory has rubbed off on others, including some Democrats. Democrats, predisposed to being disappointed in the first place, have generally been timid in pushing back on the Republican irrational exuberance. I've long understood that I could hardly act with the authority and alleged subject matter expertise that I do here in many places outside the DCUM sandbox. But that phenomenon is often even more extreme for our anonymous posters who are free to represent themselves any way that they would like. Based on some of the responses in this thread, our forum is filled with a number of Nate Silver and Nate Cohn wannabes. They crunch some numbers, provide some intelligent sounding analysis, and make their predictions. They sound like they know what they are talking about, but do they? Time will tell. I recently saw a warning on one of my social media feeds that professional campaigns have a lot of detailed data about voters and voting trends, going down to the block level. As such, they can make sense of information such as early voting numbers in ways that us mere mortals can't. Therefore, it is probably not wise to put too much emphasis on the data that is coming out now about early voting, mail-in ballots and such. Those who really know are probably not telling. My own prediction, based on little more than my gut and the analysis of pundits that I trust, is that Vice President Kamala Harris will edge out a comfortable victory. I have one caveat, however, which I will discuss later in this post.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Al Smith Dinner" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump was "hilarious" during his appearance at the "Al Smith Dinner", formally named the "Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner". The dinner is an annual white tie event that raises funds for Catholic charities in the Archdiocese of New York during which politicians exchange lighthearted jokes and are supposed to set aside differences for the night. While Trump attended the dinner this year, Vice President Harris chose to skip the event in order to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan. Harris did provide a video in which she spoke while being repeatedly interrupted by Molly Shannon in a reprise of her “Saturday Night Live” character Mary Katherine Gallagher, a Catholic schoolgirl. Trump's speech was quite pointed and, in several instances. off-color. Many of the posters responding in the thread agreed with the original poster that Trump was very funny. They did not seem concerned about whether or not Trump's jokes were appropriate for a ceremony hosted and attended by Catholic leaders. What this thread really demonstrates is the insatiable urge by conservatives to turn everything into a controversy. They immediately criticized Harris' absence, describing it as an insult to all Catholics and a personal snub of Cardinal Timothy Dolan. They also panned Harris' video which many seemed not to understand. Conservative posters made predictions that missing the dinner would harm Harris' election prospects and portrayed her absence as a huge political miscalculation. Trump's opponents were either critical of the former President or simply didn't care, even if they agreed that he was funny at times. It is doubtful that anyone attending the dinner or watching it remotely would change their vote as a result. Most voters have already made up their minds and the few who remain undecided have failed to have been swayed by a lot more important things than a fundraising dinner. Several critics of the Catholic Church in the thread were happy that Harris missed the dinner. One pointed out that just days earlier the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had agreed to a payment of $880 Million to settle sex abuse cases. These posters didn't think Harris should be doing anything to honor the Catholic Church. Moreover, many posters were not particularly impressed with Trump's speech. One poster described it as, "Poor delivery. Looking down and mumbling a bunch of someone else's dumb jokes." One of Trump's jokes that seemed to get lots of good reviews was based on a falsehood that appears to have been accepted as fact by many Trump supporters. Trump said that he didn't know men could get periods until he met Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. This seemed to allude to an accusation — subsequently proven to be false — that Walz was responsible for a law requiring that tampons be placed in high school boys bathrooms. In fact, Minnesota's schools did not do such a thing though Republicans widely believe that they did.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. That means that the first thread for today's post was actually the third most active yesterday. That thread was titled, "Do younger teens really do nothing all summer?" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster says that her 14-year-old son thinks the original poster and her spouse are being unfair because they require him to participate as a counselor-in-training at a half day summer camp and volunteer one evening a week. He claims that most of his friends are either doing nothing or only a 2-hour crew activity and, therefore, have more free time than him. The original poster thinks that her son has plenty of free time as it is and he wastes that playing video games. She asks whether what her son says about his friends is really true of most kids. Most of those responding say that their kids are involved in some structured activities. Counselor-in-training positions are popular as is volunteering. Many are involved in some sort of sport and quite a few other posters say that their kids are attending summer camps. A few even have jobs. But some posters prioritize allowing their children to have free time. Just about the only controversy in this thread involves a poster who accused parents who arrange structured activities for their kids of not wanting to parent and not wanting their kids to simply "exist". "Just let them be kids for awhile", she argues. Posters such as this one seem to have an idealized view of childhood in which carefree children spend their summers playing with friends, having their own adventures, and keeping themselves entertained. While there may be a few examples of this sort among the posters' kids, for the most part any free time kids have these days is filled by screens. In contrast to the oft-stated concern that kids spend too much time playing video games, the anti-structured activities poster didn't seem to be concerned about that, saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with playing video games. Moreover, while that poster suggested that parents force their kids into the structured activities, a number of posters argued that their kids want to do those activities and that don't need to be forced. None of the posters expect their kids to be busy every minute of every day for the entire summer. But, they also don't want their kids to be sitting around bored or doing nothing but playing video games all summer. What is clear is that some kids are able to take the initiative to find activities with which to keep themselves busy while others need a bit more engagement from parents.