2024

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

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

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

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

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "It's official: Gen Z are not delaying marriage til 30s anymore, young weddings are cool again" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster embedded several photos of the wedding of actress Millie Bobby Brown and singer Bon Jovi's son (who the original poster didn't bother to name and I don't care enough to look up). The original poster also mentioned the recent marriage of Sofia Richie, the daughter of singer Lionel Richie. Brown is 22 years old and Richie was 24 when she married. The original poster asserts that this is evidence that "Gen Z" is now getting married in their 20s rather than waiting until their 30s. This thread is 24 pages long and I simply don't have the interest to read much of it. But, from what I can tell by a brief look, the original post basically set the tone. Most of the discusion is based on anecdotes and focused on celebrities. There has been a proliferation of threads on topics similar to this, often similarly discussing celebrities. The heavy inclusion of glamorous wedding photos suggests that the original poster's interest may be driven by fascination rather than a sociological interest in current trends. Other posters respond to say that they have also noticed more people marrying at a younger age recently. Posters have a number of theories for what might be driving this trend, if it is indeed a trend. A number of posters attribute it to social media, a medium which prizes the imagery that weddings produce. "These kids just want to have nice photos to share on social media," says one poster. Some posters suggest that couples have tended to wait until they have stable jobs and can afford a house before getting married. Today, however, few jobs are stable and houses are unaffordable for many. Therefore, young people are seeing waiting as futile and choosing to marry without stable jobs or hope of buying a home. Conversely, however, several posters say that in their experience the young couples getting married are from wealthy or upper middle class families. This is exactly the group that is likely to have stable employment and the finances to purchase a house. So perhaps things haven't actually changed much. The same posters say that they don't see many poor or lower middle class individuals marrying young. Other posters dispute whether marrying young is even a trend. Instead, they argue that the real trend these days is not to marry at all. I have written about several threads discussing women choosing not to get married or marrying later in life. Many of these women are not waiting for marriage to have babies and have fulfilling lives as single mothers. Other posters argue that posters pushing for younger marriages are fans of the "tradwife" movement, a largely social-media driven movement that encourages traditional gender roles. What this thread appears to be missing, though it may be there and I missed it, is actual data. Certainly there must be statistics regarding the age of those getting married. Such data would certainly be more useful than anecdotes involving a handful of wealthy celebrities.

Yesterday was another day in which politics dominated discussion. Over half of the ten most active topics were political, including the top four that I will discuss toda. The first of those was titled, "2024 Democratic National Convention" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started Saturday in advance of yesterday's opening day of the Democratic National Convention. The original poster appears to be a Republican who asked if anyone was planning to attend the convention and then quickly turned to expectation setting by suggesting that the DNC might get a bigger audience than the Republican National Convention because the RNC was held while everyone was on vacation. It is clear to anyone that enthusiasm and momentum have clearly switched to the Democrats since Vice President Kamala Harris replaced President Joe Biden as the presidential nominee. That even Republicans understand this is evident from the preemptive excuse-making of the original poster and the apocalyptic tone of many of the Republican posts. For instance, one MAGA poster claimed that the DNC would be "watched for decades to come as the death of democracy in America". The thread was 10 pages long before the convention even got started as posters debated whatever political issue crossed their minds. I have long since given up that any thread in the political forum will stay on topic for longer than a few posts. In this thread, posters were debating Harris' anti-price gouging position and Doritos, both of which have their own threads. Once things finally got started, the thread settled into a routine of each side trying to spin events as much as possible. There have been expectations of large, possibly violent, protests against Israel's war in Gaza. As it turned out, the number of protesters was smaller than expected. Police had erected several rows of fences to contain the protesters and, while protesters broke through one row at one point, things remained under control and there was no real violence. That didn't stop some posters from fixating on the protests and doing their best to blow them out of proportion. On the other hand were posters who attempted to minimize the authentic anger aroused by Biden's complete and total support for Israel while it kills tens of thousands of Palestinians, blaming the protests on Iran. With regard to the speeches, things were much the same. Conservative posters found many things about which to complain while liberals were full of praise. Much of the discussion revolved around Biden and his stepping down from the race. Many posters, most of whom were probably Republicans, claimed that there was something irregular about Harris replacing Biden at the top of the ticket. Former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump has been referring to this as a coup and some of his supporters in this thread followed suit. Several posters asserted that nobody had voted for Harris and, therefore, her accession to presidential nominee was anti-Democratic. Factually, due to the peculiarities of the American political system, voters in the primary elections actually select delegates rather than an actual candidate. The majority of the delegates elected were pledged to Biden. When he stepped down, however, Biden asked his delegates to support Harris. Those delegates were free to support any candidate of their choice, but most chose to support Harris. There is nothing anti-Democratic about this, particularly since Harris was Biden's running mate in the first place.

The most active thread over the weekend probably comes as no surprise. Titled, "Joe is out", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, this thread was created minutes after President Joe Biden posted a letter on X (formerly known as Twitter) announcing that he would stand down as a candidate for President. The thread has already reached 133 pages, making it among the fastest-growing threads in DCUM history. Because Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris within minutes of announcing that he would no longer run for President, most of the thread is about Harris rather than Biden. With regard to Biden, posters mostly praised him for putting the interests of the country above his personal interests. For the most part, posters had only good things to say about Biden's record as President. There were a number of complaints that Biden was being pushed out in an anti-Democratic manner. This concern extended to Harris' likely selection as Biden's replacement. I think that this is a situation in which two things are both simultaneously true. Clearly there was a group of wealthy donors whose interest in removing Biden from the top of the ticket was in good faith. Several of these individuals have their own agendas and the best interests of the Democratic Party and not necessarily part of those. The New York Times also played a particularly active role that often went well beyond it's mission as a provider of news. On the other hand, polling data, along with simple anecdotal evidence, shows that there has been significant grassroots support for replacing Biden. Democratic Members of Congress have reported strong constituent pressure to find an alternative to Biden. As such, I don't think Biden stepping down can accurately be described as solely the work of the rich and powerful or as only the result of an upswell of grassroots activity. It is a combination of both. With regard to Harris, the primary function of a vice president is to serve in the case that the President is unable. In this case, Biden appears to be unable to continue the campaign and, hence, the Vice President should rightfully step in. Those who voted for Biden in the primary elections were voting for a ticket that included Harris. As such, it can be argued that voters have cast ballots for her. The reaction to Harris, of course, included both support and opposition. I want to focus on the opposition because it is likely indicative of what we will see in the future from Harris' opponents. While a few posters based their opposition on policy grounds such as Harris' performance on border issues, it was much more common for criticism to be based on sexism and racism. I think that it is undeniable that the next several months will be filled with sexist and racist attacks on Harris. In terms of sexism, the most common attacks were lewd, often explicit sexual references. There is a sizable contingent of — I assume men — who cannot stop themselves from sexualizing women. The same posters who excuse former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's sexual escapades with a porn star while his wife was home caring for their newborn child are quick to condemn a relationship that a young Kamala Harris had with Willie Brown. "Slut shaming" will clearly be a mainstay of conservative opposition to Harris. Racism in the thread was demonstrated most often by claims that Harris is a "DEI" candidate and with questions regarding her legitimacy as a candidate due to the fact that her parents were immigrants. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion has become one of the lastest conservative bugaboos, apparently replacing "CRT" in the conservative lexicon of evils. Obviously, Harris' race and gender played a role in her selection because Biden promised to selected a Black woman. But Harris was, and is, a qualified Black woman. Indeed, at the time she was chosen by Biden, her qualifications were far stronger than those of the current Republican nominee for Vice President. Given that being a White male was almost certainly a requirement of his selection, J. D. Vance is as much of a DEI candidate as Harris. Attacks on citizenship only seem to be made against people of color. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, for instance, was born in Canada, yet his eligibility for president is not questioned. Some posters seem to fear that sexist and racist attacks on Harris are a reason to choose someone else. That rewards misogynists and racists. It is better to simply prepare for such attacks and defeat them as they arise.

Yesterday was another day in which politics dominated the most active topics. In fact, eight of the top ten most active threads were political. One of the two exceptions, however, was actually the most active thread of the day. That thread, titled, "Dad leaves toddler to die in hot car while he plays games on Play Station", was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster linked to an article about an Arizona man who was charged with murder after leaving his 2-year-old daughter in the car. After several hours in the hot Arizona sun, the child died. The father apparently had a habit of leaving his kids — he has three including the child that passed away — in the car. While he would leave the air conditioning running, it would stop after 30 minutes and he routinely got distracted and forgot about them. In this instance he is alleged to have been playing video games and putting away groceries. The original poster is critical of the father due to his irresponsibility, but also blames his wife who was aware that he frequently left the kids in the car but still allowed him to care for them. The original poster believes the mother had a duty to make alternative arrangements due to her husband's negligence. I'm a bit surprised that this thread — which is currently 22 pages long — has received so much engagement. Of course everyone is appalled by the father's behavior. Several posters say that they are generally sympathetic towards parents whose children die after being inadvertently left in the car. But they consider this instance to be different because the father purposely left the child behind and neglected her for so many hours. There is some difference of opinion about the mother's culpability. Many posters agree with the original poster that she should also be charged. A number of posters say that women like the mother in this incident who have irresponsible husbands are in a no-win situation. If the couple divorced, the father would likely have at least part time custody and the kids would be in even more danger of his neglect. Staying together allowed her to have more responsibility for the children, but she appears to be the family bread winner and, therefore, needs to work. As such, the mother was left with no good choices. However, because the mother has strongly defended her husband in court, several posters are unsympathetic to her and more willing to see her punished. A lot of the discussion in this thread approaches the story as if it were a soap opera. Posters dig into court documents to learn that the father has children with a previous wife and has apparently stopped paying child support. They speculate that he is a "stay at home dad" only for purposes of avoiding child support payments. Posters explore the couple's lifestyle, determining that they appear to have plenty of money. Other posters discuss how technology might help to prevent children from being left in cars. But others argue that since in this case the child was left intentionally, such systems would have been overriden.

The first thread that I will discuss today was actually the fourth most popular because the three more active than it are ones that I've already discussed. The thread was titled, "Official RNC convention thread" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread started with the original poster noting that among the first night's speakers at the Republican National Convention was Amber Rose, an OnlyFans creator. The original poster finished by sarcastically saying that she can't wait to see what else is in store. The second post of the thread complained about the presence of Dana White, CEO and President of Ultimate Fighting Championship, who in 2022 was filmed hitting his wife after she slapped him. This led to jibes about a stripper and a wife beater starting off the conference. More seriously, it provoked one poster to launch a strident defense of White and claiming that he had the right ot hit his wife because it was self-defense. What has occurred since then is basically a running commentary about the various speakers. Democrats generally pan them while Republicans praise them. This thread also demonstrated the speech restrictions that Republicans are hoping to assert over Democrats. When a poster embedded a video showing several trucks apparently deployed by Democrats that had the message "Dictator Day One" on their sides, Republicans criticized Democrats for "having no shame". Apparently the message, which directly quotes former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, is considered unacceptable in the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Trump. Meanwhile, within in the convention hall, Republican speakers were free to be as inflammatory toward Democrats as they wished. One speaker who the was subject of considerable discussion was Sean O’Brien, President of the Teamsters union. O'Brien had asked to be speak at both party conventions and has been granted the opportunity. Speaking at the RNC, O'Brien did not endorse Trump and he made a number of statements that were very much out of place in a gathering of Republicans. Within the thread, his speech was quite divisive. Republicans interpreted it as shift by labor towards Republicans. Democrats, generally seeing it similarly, saw O'Brien as betraying the Democrats who had supported his union. O'Brien's presence highlighted a reality of the Republican party that is often ignored. The Party's agenda clearly favors the wealthy, promising tax cuts to corporations, reduced regulations, and — despite the invitation to O'Brien — opposition to labor unions. But the voters to whom Trump and, even more so his pick for Vice President J. D. Vance, attempt to appeal are the working class. Whether O'Brien's speech will cause workers to wrongly believe that the the Republican Party is friendly to their interests or, instead, highlight the fact that Republicans represent owners and management rather than labor, will be interesting to see.

The most active thread over the weekend will probably come as no surprise to anyone. Titled, "Shots fired at Trump rally", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, this thread reached nearly 200 pages and well over 2600 posts since the attempted assassination of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump on Saturday evening. The first few pages were devoted to simply posting details — a few of them vaguely correct — about what had happened. But soon the thread devolved to little more than finger-pointing. Trump supporters in the thread were sure that the shooter was a liberal motivated by Democratic rhetoric. Their posts were filled with anger with many insinuating that any DCUMer who didn't share their rage was essentially personally responsible for the attempt on Trump's life. For their part, many of the liberals insisted that Trump's own often violent words that consistently inflamed his supporters had come home to roost. When the the shooter was identified and records showed that at 17 years of age he had made a $15 donation to a progressive organization and then, months later, had registered as a Republican, both sides were given ammunition to claim he belonged to the other side. The debate about this was interminable with posters intent on making the most of his party affiliation and others determined that no mention of his registration would go unanswered. The responses pointing out the shooter's $15 contribution were often accompanied by a graphic that was posted so many times that I fear it may be permanently burned into my retinas. A similar never-ending dispute was over whether Trump had been wounded by a bullet or fragments of glass. It is not clear to me why this is even an important distinction, let alone one worth arguing about for two days. Trump-supporting posters kept returning to their allegation that the shooter had been inspired by accusations and claims made by Democrats, including President Joe Biden. It is interesting that a party that once rallied around a profane statement concerning what liberals should do with their feelings has transformed into a fragile collection of snowflakes. Calling Trump a threat to democracy had put his life in danger, posters claimed. While Trump often promotes violence from the stage of his rallies, MAGA posters had to dig deep to find words with which to implicate Biden. The best that they could do was a statement that Biden had made privately during a phone conversation with party financial donors. He said that he was done talking about the debate that that Trump should be put in the bullseye. He then went on to discuss Trump policies that he planned to criticize more forcefully. The context of this clearly has nothing to do with violence, but that didn't stop Trump supporters who interpreted this as a direct order to shoot Trump. The shooting has created an uneven balance in the rhetoric battle. Trump's MAGA cult, built on resentment and anger, will hardly be satisfied with a new humbled and emphatic Trump who is interested in lowering the temperature and creating unity — if such a thing were even a possibility. Therefore, Trump's inflammatory words will likely continue. Democrats, on the other hand, have been brow-beaten to the point where they will have to be practically apologetic with any criticism of Trump. As one poster in the thread asked, "what if you think that Trump is a threat to democracy?". MAGAs have never considered that to be legitimate criticism and now they claim that it is a provocation to murder. Therefore, while the violent rhetoric that is common among Trump and his supporters will likely continue, Democrats will only be allowed to respond with expressions of respect and desires of unity with Trump.