DCUM Weblog

Yesterday was another day in which many of the most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. I've mentioned this before, but a fairly new phenomenon on DCUM is that older threads frequently stay active for a long time. As a result, threads show up repeatedly on the most active list. Just as was the case with yesterday's post, the top three most active threads yesterday were ones about which I've already written. As a result, I will start today with the fourth most active thread. That thread was titled, "Ton of sit down interviews this week for Harris", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As the original poster of the thread notes, there have been weeks of hang-wringing by posters concerned that Vice President Kamala Harris has not been doing one-on-one media appearances. A cottage industry has developed to either criticize Harris as being unable to speak in unscripted situations or defend her reluctance to spend time with the press. This week, however, Harris has scheduled a number of one-on-one interviews with a variety of media outlets. Of course, her detractors are still not satisfied. They seem to believe that only an appearance on Fox News or maybe even Newsmax would be convincing. While one of Harris' appearances was on CBS's "60 Minutes", a traditional interview for presidential candidates, most of her schedule consisted of non-traditional media. For instance, one of the first was an appearance on the "Call Her Daddy" podcast. I confess that I had previously not heard of this podcast, despite being a podcast enthusiast. But the show is apparently the most-listened-to podcast among women and the second-most-listened-to podcast overall. So Harris' media advisors seem to have known what they were doing. By all appearances, many of Harris' critics were also unfamiliar with the podcast because they had to quickly Google for information with which to bash her. Other planned appearances for Harris included "The View", "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert", and "The Howard Stern Show". Harris will also do a Univision town hall. Harris detractors complained that these are "lovefests" in which no hard-hitting questions will be asked. They want Harris to be grilled on her past relationship with Willy Brown and her husband's past relationships. Harris and her campaign are not interested in playing the conservatives' games and serious reporters would ignore those topics in any case due to their irrelevance to the presidency. Instead, as many posters noted, the wisdom of Harris' media strategy is that she is using platforms that allow her to delve into topics and discuss nuances rather than being focused on talking points and soundbites. More importantly, she is reaching voters who generally ignore the traditional media. The vast majority of those tuning into MSNBC or Fox News have long ago made up their minds about for whom they will vote in this election. The non-traditional outlets allow Harris to talk directly to those who rarely vote, who may not pay attention to politics, and who may still be persuaded to support Harris. In addition, the longer formats and specialized interests of these shows allows Harris to delve into issues that traditional media — often focused on the horse race and conventional topics — tends to ignore.

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.

The most active thread yesterday was the vice presidential debate thread that I discussed yesterday and will skip today. After that was a thread titled, "the Atlantic: The Elite College Students Who Can't Read Books", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article in "The Atlantic" and provided a brief summary of the article's main points. According to the article, students are showing up at elite colleges such as Columbia University unable to read an entire book. The reason for this is that they were never assigned complete books in their previous schooling. Rather, they have only read excerpts previously. As a result, professors have been forced to water down the curriculum. In response, several posters discuss their children's experience in high school, detailing the number of books that they were required to read. In most cases, the number was quite small, frequently only one or two through their entire high school experience. Posters offer a number of explanations for this situation. One theory is that students who are selected by elite universities such as Columbia are singularly focused on checking boxes needed for college applications. If there is not a box saying "read an entire book", then they don't devote time to doing that. Others blame the spread of technologies such as mobile phones and social media that encourage shorter attention spans and distract students from reading for long stretches. Some posters argue that schools have traditionally assigned books that students find boring and that if more interesting books were chosen, there would be more interest in reading them. A poster who graduated from Columbia pointed out that Columbia's curriculum is particularly heavy in reading and, even when the poster attended decades ago, it involved way more reading than to what she was accustomed. A lot of the traditional forum arguments came up in this thread. Private school parents told of huge numbers of books their kids were expected to read, citing that as an advantage of private over public schools. Some posters blamed test optional admissions, a topic with which some posters are obsessed and blame for almost every problem with colleges today. Of course, grade inflation was also blamed. Several posters argue that this is a parenting issue and that parents should be ensuring that their kids read books. In response, several posters recount struggles they've had trying to get their children to read more. A number of posters suggested that the inability of today's kids to read entire books is due to the easily accessible alternatives they have to fake reading in order to pass an assignment such as Internet summaries. However, others pointed out that while the specifics might be new, the idea is not. Older generations might not have had Internet summaries, but they had Cliff's Notes.

The most active thread yesterday was, predictably, the thread titled, "Walz vs. Vance: VP Debate Oct 1 2024". Posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread is obviously about last night's vice presidential debate between Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Ohio Senator J. D. Vance. The thread is currently 84 pages long and well outside my ability to summarize. Therefore, I'll just give my own reaction to the debate which reflects many of the comments in the thread. The debate was between two very different candidates. On one side was Walz, folksy, rough-edged, earnest, and generally unwilling to offend. On the other was Vance, who was polished and mostly inoffensive, but dramatically transformed from the figure who has been on the campaign trail. Throughout the campaign Vance has mostly acted like little more than a Twitter troll, fixated on childless cat ladies and Haitians eating pets. In the debate, however, Vance did his best to appear reasonable, if not downright moderate. He did this mostly through obfuscation, deftly shifting the discussion to topics more advantageous to him and a lack of inhibition to lying. For instance, on the question of abortion, Vance almost appeared to be pro-choice, mentioning a friend who had an abortion. But he never really clarified his current position on abortion, only saying that Republicans need to earn trust from the public on the topic and stressing his support for families. He outright lied about his previous positions regarding abortion. The Vance who showed up at the debate is so different from the Vance who has been campaigning, that the public could rightly ask which is the real Vance? This is where I think Walz errored. Generally, vice presidential debates have little impact on the election and I believe Walz, realizing that he was up against a practiced and skilled debater, was simply playing for a draw and hoping for an evening that would be mostly forgettable. Still, I think Walz missed the opportunity to remind the public that the moderate-sounding Vance has another side. When discussion of Springfield came up, Walz passed on the opportunity to explicitly mention Vance's lies about Haitians eating pet cats and dogs. Walze let Vance get away with repeatedly praising the economy during the administration of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. He could easily have reminded the public that during the Trump administration, Americans struggled to obtain toilet paper. Walz never brought up Vance's fixation on childless cat ladies or challenged Vance's denigration of women who haven't given birth to children. On the discussion of the bipartisan immigration bill that Trump tanked, Walz should have pointed out that Vance himself voted against the bill. Instead, Walz mostly tolerated Vance's technique of ignoring tough questions and pivoting to lies that sounded reasonable. Vance personifies the expression that "if you act like you know what you are talking about, most people will think that you do". His strength is saying something that sounds like it says exactly the opposite of what it really means. But he says it confidently and without shame. Vance lied about Trump going along with a peaceful transfer of power. That is true only in that Trump did this after his attempted insurrection failed. Vance lied by claiming that Trump saved Obamacare when, in reality, Trump spent his entire administration attempting to get rid of Obamacare and would have succeeded were it not for the late Senator John McCain. Vance even lied about solar panels from China. One frequent pivot by Vance was to bring up alleged censorship by big technology companies. Nevermind that X, formerly Twitter, is owned by a Trump supporter and right-wing troll, Vance himself is currently being protected by both Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg who are censoring a leaked Trump campaign background document about Vance. Walz' best moment came near the end of the debate when he attempted to pin down Vance about whether Trump had lost the 2020 election. Vance ignored the question and, as was his tendency all night, tried to change the subject. Then Walz pointed out that there is a reason that former Vice President Mike Pence was not on the stage, reminding viewers of the chants to "Hang Mike Pence".

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Why isn't the aftermath of Helene bigger news?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was actually created on Sunday but was particularly active yesterday. The original poster asks why the aftermath of Hurricane Helene is not getting more media attention. The original poster admits that both the Washington Post and the New York Times have covered the disaster, but he complains that the coverage is below that of the Middle East and the election. The supposed lack of media coverage was a common complaint among the MAGA crowd following the hurricane. While there are stories that the mainstream media miss, more frequently when posters complain that something is not getting coverage they are really complaining that the media sources on which they rely are not providing such coverage. Often, as in this case, mainstream outlets are covering the event. Moreover, as posters in the thread note, the destruction wrought by Helene presented a number of challenges to reporters. The media had been prepared for the hurricane to land in Florida and were positioned to cover events there. However, the deluge of rain dumped on Tennessee and North Carolina was, for the most part, a surprise. With roads closed, electricity out, and both land lines and cell phones unavailable, getting news out was difficult. Moreover, as in many parts of the country, private equity investors have purchased several local news outlets and purged many of the reporters. As a result, there was a scramble to get coverage in many areas. Nevertheless, there was significant reporting on events. Despite this, many posters insisted that due to specific agendas, the media was ignoring the situation. A common complaint was that the disaster was being ignored because it impacted conservative areas. As was again pointed out in the thread, this ignores that one of the worst hit cities, Asheville, NC, is one of the most liberal parts of the state. After it became clear that media coverage was not in short supply, the focus of the thread shifted to relief efforts. Again, conservative posters made unfounded accusations. They accused the Biden/Harris administration of not doing enough and not providing assistance because the victims were conservatives. In fact, the Republican governors of Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia all praised President Joe Biden for the performance of FEMA and other federal agencies. There was also considerable debate about whether residents of the affected areas were properly warned about the potential destruction. Somewhat ironically, the MAGA posters most responsible for such complaints had little interest in former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's history of cutting funds from the agencies tasked with providing such warnings or the Project 2025 plan to get break up NOAA and commercialize the National Weather Service. Left-leaning posters also noticed that the Republican-led House of Representatives left town rather than staying in session to consider supplemental expenditures that may be needed to fund the recovery.

The first thread that I will discuss today was actually the third most active over the weekend because the first and second most active were threads that I've previously covered. The thread was titled, "Can someone explain the mentality of never being proactive or organized to me?" and was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that her husband who has ADHD, which he has been treating with medicine, is never proactive and lacks basic administrative skills. As a result, the original poster is responsible for 95% of household administration and is also the main breadwinner. She essentially has to micromanager her husband, providing a recent example of her frustrations. While the original poster was out of town, her husband was supposed to help their son buy a birthday present and take him to an 8-year-old's birthday party. However, her husband overslept which meant their son was late to the party and they weren't able to buy a present. The husband put cash in a card instead. The original poster wonders whether her husband just expects her to do everything or is engaging in "weaponized incompetence". She doesn't understand what benefit there would be to her husband acting this way. This topic has repeatedly come up on DCUM over the years and I have read countless threads of a similar nature. This really has highlighted two things: 1) the significant number of husbands who suffer from ADHD, and; 2) the similarly large number of husbands who apparently expect their wives to treat them like their mothers probably did. It is the ADHD aspect that really catches other poster's attention in this thread and a lively debate breaks out on that topic. There are a number of posters who believe that ADHD not only explains the original poster's husband's behavior, but also provides an excuse. As such, the original poster is criticized for acting "superior" and not being sympathetic about her husband's condition. However, several posters who say that they have ADHD themselves, including the original poster, argue that ADHD, especially when medicated, is not an excuse. It may mean that individuals with such a condition need to work harder, but they should still be expected to be able to manage basic parenting tasks. Other posters argue that the husband is simply being lazy. He slept in and didn't get a present because he didn't think the party was important and didn't care about it. Had the event been something he prioritized, they content, his ADHD would not have gotten in the way. Some posters who have been in marriages like this have reconciled themselves to it and simply taken over most of the household management. One poster said that she has lowered the bar for her husband so low that it is on the floor and that she expects little more from him than basic childcare. But, of course, the DCUM relationship forum being the DCUM relationship forum, several posters recommended divorce. Some posters took an entirely different approach and argued that while oversleeping was not ideal, providing cash instead of a gift was perfectly fine and might even be preferred by some kids.

The most active thread yesterday was the same thread about the election being close that was the most active thread on Wednesday as well. Since I discussed that thread in yesterday's blog post, I'll skip it and go on to the next. That thread was also related to the election. Titled, "Harris interview with MSNBC Sept 25 - 24minute video" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster embedded an interview that Vice President Kamala Harris gave to Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC. There are really two ways to evaluate Harris in circumstances like this. She can be judged in a vacuum, solely on her performance and the quality of her responses. Alternatively, she can be compared to her opponent in the election, former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Those responding in the thread do both. Posters are divided about her performance, some believing that she did a good job, was relatable, and seemed competent. Others found her answers lacking substance and had stylistic objections. Generally, these responses fell along partisan political lines. Compared to Trump, however, there is really no contest. While Harris may not have been 100% accurate in her responses, she was generally truthful. Trump, on the other hand, routinely spews a fountain of lies that overwhelms both those questioning him and fact-checkers who simply don't have enough hours in the day to correct them all. This creates a structural disadvantage for Harris because coverage of her speaking will often concentrate on the one or two missteps and ignore the rest. Trump, on the other hand, will start talking about sharks and electric boats or Hannibal Lector and will be covered as if he delivered the Gettysburg Address. It is pretty clear to me that Harris and her campaign have chosen to stick to broad strokes and avoid delving into details. They are running a campaign based on themes and ideas. In other words, similar to Obama's campaigns. Harris is not pretending to be Hillary Clinton and enumerating the 15 steps of the four phases of her 40 page plan. This is a good thing. Even with the minimal details Harris provided in this interview, posters found fodder for criticism. More details would simply generate more criticism. This is a big picture election. Voters care about abortion rights, the economy, foreign policy, the environment, crime, and yes, immigration. Harris and Trump have vastly different ideas on all of these topics. Harris' job is to convince voters that her stances are in their interest and that she can be trusted as a leader. She will do that by making them believe in her, not by boring them to death with a mountain of data. Trump is certainly not going to provide details of his plans. Of course, those details are provided in Project 2025 from which Trump is doing his best to run away.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "How is it a close race?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster points out a number of flaws in former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump such as his frequent failure to pay contractors, his cheating with a porn star, his modifying a weather map with a Sharpie, the way he kowtows to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and his lies about election fraud, and asks how Trump supporters cannot see all of this. The original poster compares the situation to the "Emperor's New Clothes" fairytale in which everyone realizes the truth but is afraid to say it. The original poster is perplexed that this is even a close election given the numerous problems with Trump. Many Trump supporters respond by saying that they recognize Trump's personal flaws and don't really like his personality. However, they claim that they are supporting him because of policy issues. Frequently these posters cite immigration and the economy as areas where they belive Trump has better policies than Vice President Kamala Harris. A number of Trump supporters look back at Trump's previous presidency and suggest that he did a laudable job. Trump opponents point out that Trump accomplished very little as President. His legislative accomplishments were mostly limited to passing tax cuts which caused the national debt to skyrocket. He mishandled the COVID pandemic and never reached even 50% popularity. Given that all the posters in this thread participate in DCUM's political forum, they must have some interest in politics. Yet, many of the Trump supporters demonstrate that they are very poorly informed. Almost universally these posters are acting on the basis of "vibes". They perceive that things were better under Trump than they were under President Joe Biden and Harris but they struggle to support that perception with actual data. Their primary basis for this perception is higher prices and increased immigration. The fact that prices are higher as a result of the pandemic and that Republicans have repeatedly prevented immigration reforms is lost to them. During the Trump administration, Americans suffered shortages of toilet paper and other everyday goods. Automakers could not obtain chips to manufacture cars. The economy was on the brink of disaster. Biden and Harris turned this around and did it without massive unemployment. But Republicans still "feel" that things are worse now. In the face of the January 6th insurrection, Trump's admission that he will be a dictator on the first day, the anti-democratic Project 2025, and Trump's obvious infatuation with dictators, MAGA supporters have convinced themselves that Harris is a bigger threat to democracy. This is absolutely delusional. As the original poster stated, and I repeat almost daily, MAGA really is a cult.

The biggest day of the year for participants in DCUM's college forum may be the day that U.S. News and World Report releases its college rankings list. That day was yesterday. Technically, it was the day before but so late in the day that most of the discussion didn't take place until yesterday. The result is that two threads on the topic are among the most active threads that I will discuss today. The most active thread overall yesterday was again the thread about Israel and Lebanon, which I've already discussed. Skipping that one, the next most active thread was titled, "US News best colleges 2025" and, of course, posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster wrote nothing more than, "The rankings are out now." which was enough to provoke what is currently a 21 page thread. The normal rule of threads such as this is that posters claim to hate rankings in general and this one in particular. However, if the ranking happens to place a poster's favorite university highly, or at least above a rival university, then the list is, of course, praised for its accuracy. The U.S. News rankings were subject to considerable criticism last year when the methodology was changed in ways that many posters considered to be "woke". This year U.S. News dropped the graduation rate of 1st generation students from its formula and continued its focus on outcomes such as student retention and post-graduate earnings. Many of the posts in this thread were complaints about the ranking or methodology. But those issues were the focus of a second thread that I will discuss today so I will save those points for later. A number of posters suggested that this ranking were reasonably accurate, though almost everyone had at least one nit to pick. For instance, the positioning of UCLA at 15th was the subject of considerable discussion. The University of Virginia was another college whose ranking — tied at 24 — inspired considerable criticism along with a significant amount of smugness. Much of the discussion in this thread is about the value of such rankings. Some posters want to be able to rank colleges based on their own criteria rather than a magazine's methodology. Others suggest that these lists are good screening tools and are reasonable starting points for further research. This thread, like so many threads before it, got bogged down in an unnecessary discussion about yield protection. The forum has one or more posters who are completely obsessed with yield protection to the exclusion of almost any other topic. The single-mindedness is remarkable and I have to think that it must be motivated by a very painful rejection that was rationalized as being due to yield protection. Then the thread turned to a big debate about Notre Dame with participants accusing each other of being insufferable. That actually is a good summary of this thread. Everyone claims the U.S. News rankings are meaningless and nobody cares about them, but they will also fight to the death about whether a school deserves to be in the top 20.