DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday continued to be the presidential debate thread that has been among the most active threads since Monday. The most active thread after that was somewhat related. Titled, "Taylor Swift has announced that she is voting for Harris after watching the debate.", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster simply linked to pop star Taylor Swift's Instagram page where she urged her fans to research the presidential candidates. Swift went on to say that she would be voting for Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. She signed her post, "Childless Cat Lady" and was pictured holding her cat, an obvious reference to statements by Republican Vice Presidential candidate J. D. Vance. As those responding in the thread pointed out, Swift had been expected to endorse Harris after previously endorsing President Joe Biden. However, there had been some concerns about Swift lately due to her close relationship with Britany Mahomes, wife of Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes, and a supporter of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. In addition, Trump recently posted a fake video produced using artificial intelligence showing Swift endorsing Trump, something that Swift mentioned in her Instagram post. Supporters of the billionaire celebrity Trump, including his running mate Vance, immediately began suggesting that nobody cares about the opinion of billionaire celebrities. However, Swift seemed to have some impact because interest in voter registration surged as demonstrated by both search engine queries and traffic on vote.gov. There was also discussion about the timing of Swift's post. Her fans suggested that she had been smart to post after the debate because that showed that she had made an informed decision. Critics, however, argued that she was trying to draw attention away from Harris' poor debate performance. This was particularly deluded because Harris was almost universally seen to have had a great debate performance. If anything, the Harris campaign would have preferred the endorsement to have come at another time since they clearly wanted the limelight on Harris and the debate. Like Vance, many of those responding proved to be obsessed with the fertility and marital status of women. Despite Swift's clear ownership of the "childless cat lady" label that Vance has popularized, several posters criticized not only Swift, but Oprah, and Harris herself for not having children. Misogyny from anonymous posters on DCUM may not be important, but then the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, weighed in on X offering to give Swift a child. While Swift is encouraging millions of fans to support Harris, Musk is cementing the Republican Party as the home of misogynist weirdos.

As I predicted yesterday when I wrote about the thread about the presidential debate, that thread was the most active yesterday, exploding from 15 pages prior to the debate to 129 pages as I write this. But as I wrote yesterday, since I have already discussed the thread I'll skip it today. The next most active thread was titled, "Dave Grohl, sooo disappointed (had a baby outside of his marriage)" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. As the title says, it was revealed yesterday that Dave Grohl, former drummer for Nirvana and frontman for the Foo Fighters, has fathered a baby outside his marriage. In an Instagram post, Grohl promised to take responsibility for the baby and maintain a loving relationship with her. He also said that he would now work to regain the trust of his wife and daughters. The original poster establishes what will be a major theme of responses in this thread, saying that she had a huge crush on Grohl and believed that he was a feminist with a strong relationship with the women in his life including his mother and daughters. As such, she is very disappointed. The original poster is joined in these feelings by a number of other posters who had held Grohl in high esteme and now feel that he let them down, if not outright betrayed them. Some posters who are also disappointed by Grohl at least respect that he is taking responsibility and planning to maintain a relationship with the child. They say that this is more than what many men in this situation would do. But others suggest that Grohl's statement was a creation of his public relations team and probably should not be taken too seriously. They predict little in the way of a true relationship between Grohl and his new daughter. A number of posters commented on the future of Grohl's marriage with some saying that if they were his wife they would immediately divorce him. Some guessed that this was likely not the first time that Grohl had cheated and they blamed him for putting his wife at risk of STDs in addition to being unfaithful. Others suggested that his wife may have been willing to look the other way in the past, but this public incident could not be ignored. Posters were divided between whether forgiving him would encourage Grohl to continue cheating or whether it was the right thing to do in this situation. Some posters argued that it was in her interest to remain married. Many posters were utterly disgusted by Grohl with some being particularly worried about the impact on his daughters, suggesting this showed a very negative attitude towards women. For other posters, however, this was no big deal. As a rock star, eager and willing women were probably a fact of life for Grohl and a rock star having sex outside of marriage is hardly news. For some, this was less an issue of morals and more of one of judgement and practicality. Sex is one thing, but unprotected sex is quite another and, at least, Grohl should have had a vasectomy they say.

The most active thread yesterday was, unfortunately, about the British Royal Family. Titled, "New Princess Catherine video", and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum, the original poster made about as little effort as possible starting this thread. She simply wrote that a "stunning" video involving Catherine, The Princess of Wales, was available on Youtube, not even bothering to link to the video. Yet, this was enough to create the most active thread of the day. In the video, which I must stress I have not watched, Catherine apparently announces that she has completed her chemotherapy treatment. Immediately posters reacted critically, complaining that the video was overproduced and boring. The few posters who were glad to see Kate seeming to be in good health and who wished her well were mostly drowned out by those who claimed not to care about her or the Royal Family in general. In fact, those posters cared so little that they posted about how little they cared. That, of course, is the ultimate sign of not caring. Beyond that, a large portion of the thread was devoted to Catherine's hair, or more specifically, why she still has hair. Many posters expect that the chemo treatments would have caused the Princess to lose her hair, which based on this video, she hasn't. Posters had plenty of theories explaining this apparent discrepancy. There was also considerable discussion of Kate's specific medical condition. Many posters questioned how accurate of a story the public has been provided. They pointed out what they believe to be discrepancies or holes in the story. Getting back to the video itself, posters were unrelenting in their criticism. There were constant complaints that it was fake and simply a public relations effort. Posters described scene after scene as being "set up" and not natural. Not a single frame was safe from nitpicking. Fans of Kate posted every now and again, but their posts tended to be lost in the sea of criticism. As a result, many of fans resorted to reporting posts that they considered inappropriate. I received at least 10 reports about posts in this thread. Eventually it seemed that this thread would go nowhere and simply continue a cycle of critical posts and reports to me. As a result, I locked the thread which is the normal fate of most Royal Family threads.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Why do men still believe that divorce laws favour women?", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster notes that child custody and assets of spouses are split 50/50 during divorce and asks why men still believe that divorce favors women. She says that some men claim that occasionally she reads about men who claim to have lost custody of their children and their house and this is confusing to her. I know next to nothing about divorce laws and, to be honest, that seems to be true of a significant number of posters in this thread as well. Responses seem to reflect anecdotes that posters have heard, in some cases many years ago, partial knowledge, pure speculation, and a limited amount of personal experience. As a result, many of the replies directly contradict each other and, not personally knowing fact from fiction in this case, I have no idea which responses are accurate. Many posters, presumably women, argue that men believe that 50/50 is unfair to them. Others argue that men only lose custody of children in extreme circumstance and, when this happens, they are reluctant to admit their own failures and, therefore, blame unfair courts. Several other posters, presumably men, claim that the presumption of 50/50 division is not true everywhere and, in many cases, women end up with considerably more. Where a big difference of opinion exists, and ironically reinforces both main narratives, is over the issue of who earned the family's income. Several posters note that men often earn more money than women, this is especially the case when the women is a stay at home spouse. Some male posters argue that men work extra hours and make sacrifices to provide for their family and allow their wives to stay home and when those women turn out to be "losers" men are expected to continue working just as hard to provide the women the same lifestyle after divorce. They feel that these women should be required to get jobs and support themselves. Women posters contend that what is missing from such scenarios is the value stay at home wives contribute to their families and the sacrifices that they often make to further their husbands' careers. Other posters list a number of areas in which women are frequently treated unfairly, including wage disparities and professional advancement. But this sort of divisiveness doesn't characterize the entire thread. There are several posts from those who have divorced, split their assets and custody of their children 50/50 and are quite content about the situation.

The most active thread yesterday was the school shooting thread that I already discussed and, therefore, will skip today. The most active thread after that was titled, "WSJ Rankings 2025" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Apparently this is the college ranking season and we will probably have as many threads as there are different rankings. Based on what we've seen so far, every one of them will be controversial. This list was developed by the Wall Street Journal and College Pulse. The rankings in the list was determined by how well colleges set students up for financial success. That makes this list a bit different than others. What is not different is that the list is topped by Princeton, something that seems to be fairly common. However, in second place is Babson College, a school that I don't recall have ever heard of previously. Though that may well say more about me than the school. Many posters expressed surprise about Bentley University which was ranked 11th and is another school of which I have never heard. While some posters expressed appreciation for the list, many more were critical of it. If anything, reaction was very polarized with posters either hating the list or loving it with not many in between. There were, of course, lots of reactions to the placement of specific schools. Virginia Tech at 19th surprised and, in many cases, excited posters. The same was true of Towson University which was ranked 40th. One thing this list does is draw attention to a topic on which I have commented several times and which is really starting to become my pet issue with regard college education. Is the purpose of college to educate in the broadest sense of that term or to simply be an on-ramp to a high salary? I have tended to personally land somewhere between the middle and the eduction end of the spectrum. I don't think college should be a glorified vocational school but I also think that it is important to be able to command a living wage upon graduation. This list is clearly weighted toward the opposite end of the spectrum, prioritizing high salaries. However, I have difficulty believing that Princeton is not providing a broad education so it's place at the top may be somewhat redeeming. Many posters praised the rankings because they were based on actual data and, therefore, believed to be more objective. But posters may be familiar with the saying that there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics." Several posters criticized the methodology which they viewed as fundamentally flawed. As one poster colorfully put it, "it's like measuring your schwantz from the floor up. Does not give an accurate measurement of what it claims to. It's data, not information."

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Are all the good guys taken by early 30s", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster didn't have much more to say beyond the thread's title, writing nothing more than "Please give me hope" in the body of her post. However, the original poster did have a lot to say in her follow-up posts. Sadly, most of those posts were sock puppeted. The original poster's first response to herself was to offer assurance that not all was lost in DC, writing, "I would say 30-33 is the perfect age for dating in DC.". She then followed that by saying, "Every big law guy I ever dated (which is to say a lot, sadly) was at least 30." In another post, she wrote, "I know a lot of late 30s/early 40s guys who are catches." In fact, the original poster did such a great job of offering herself encouragement, I am not sure why a thread was needed. She could have handled this whole thing in her personal diary. Or maybe she could just give herself daily affirmations like Stuart Smalley. She could simply stand in front of her mirror and intone, "I'm considered pretty attractive and the two times I've been on dating apps I got a boyfriend within like 3 weeks." One would assume from the first post that the original poster is a single woman who is looking for a guy. But a later post by the original poster suggested that might not be the case. In that post she wrote,"My boyfriend and I are both in our 30s and work for nonprofits." I doubt that the original poster is actually seeking greener pastures at the moment, though I guess I wouldn't rule it out completely. I suspect that she is just trolling for entertainment. But the most hilarious post by the original poster was the one complaining that, "As always, this thread does nothing to help OP." Not true, the original poster gae herself plenty of help. The original poster clearly took to heart the advice that "if you want something done right, do it yourself." When the going got tough, the original poster even started quoting her own posts and providing responses to them. It looks like the original poster's goal was to trigger incels so that she could then complain about incels. Or, maybe she wanted to trigger single women in their 30s and beyond? I didn't read every reply in the thread, but from what I did see, posters were pretty untriggered. One male poster who might have been off-putting mostly embarrassed himself rather than upsetting the women. If the thread had been serious it would have been a pretty depressing read. Perhaps it still is, but the original poster's dialogue with herself is amusing. It would be interesting to know which parts are true.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Helicopter parents and their presence out of control?", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster describes three cousins that attended large southern universities. One of the cousin's parents purchased an apartment in the town so that they could attend football games. The other two cousins' parents bought houses where the universities are located so that they could attend games as well. The original poster asks whether this type of clingy parenting is common these days, saying that it was unheard of when she went to college. As the first poster to respond says, "This seems to be more of an SEC football thing than a helicopter thing." Several posters agree that this sounds more like well-to-do parents who are dedicated to football rather than traditional helicopter parents. Moreover, several justifications for purchasing real estate in college towns that didn't involve helicopter parenting were suggested. Other posters, however, do have stories that describe what would be expected from helicopter parents. One poster told of parents sitting in on Zoom interviews for graduating students applying for jobs. Several of those responding mentioned Facebook groups for parents in which all sorts of helicopter behavior is on display. Another poster said that at her son's college, parents of freshmen had to be told that they could not attend "student only" bonding events. On the other hand, one poster — later supported by several others — defended helicopter parents, saying that being a close-knit family is not inherently bad. These posters argued that parents were all trying to do their best and should not be criticized. They argued that helicopter parenting was not hurting those who opposed it and, therefore, they shouldn't care about it. However, other posters contended that helicopter parenting does have negative effects. They describe kids who have been coddled their entire lives failing to develop resiliency. When such students are hired, they crumble instantly when things get rough. Some posters say that this phenomenon significantly increased when the cost of colleges grew. Because college is now often one of a family's biggest expenses, they want to make sure they are getting their investment's worth. Several posters defend this attitude, saying they have paid for services and want to make sure those services are being provided. Other posters don't disagree that getting what is paid for is important, but they argue that it is the role of the students to advocate on their own behalf and that parents shouldn't intervene.

Yesterday was Labor Day and it appears that many DCUM users were offline celebrating rather than posting on DCUM because the active threads were not all that active yesterday. The most active thread was titled, "High schoolers can’t write", and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. The original poster says that her kids go to Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, are native English speakers, and get all As in school. Nevertheless, their writing is "awful". They have poor grammer and punctuation and can't correctly form an argument. The original poster says that she is in shock and wants to know if others have noticed this issue with their kids. Almost all of those responding have noticed this. They blame it on Montgomery County Public Schools not teaching grammer, spelling, or writing skills anymore. Some posters allege that the problem begins in early grades so that by high school the teachers have given up. Others say that kids don't read enough these days and that reading is important to gaining writing skills. Another poster, however, says that reading doesn't build writing skills but rather practice does. A teacher says that in public school she had too many students and not enough time for reviewing their writing, implying that she didn't provide writing assignments as a result. However, after switching to private school, she had greater support and fewer students and the school placed more emphasis on writing. Therefore, she was much more involved in teaching writing. Because of the shortcomings posters see in MCPS with regard to reading and writing, many posters say that they have either supplemented with tutors or writing classes, or moved their children to private or parochial schools. In their search for whom to blame for the current state of writing education, some posters focus on kids with special needs who, in these posters' view, require too much support and take away resources – especially the teachers' attention — from the other students. According to these posters, teachers are spending their time assisting students with special needs and, therefore, don't have time to teach writing. The second target is the "social justice, social emotional learning, anti-racism" initiatives that some posters believe have replaced traditional teaching in MCPS. Several posters would like to see MCPS return to focusing on the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Other posters blame the parents who are complaining, asking why they didn't read to their kids and teach them writing themselves. These might be valid questions for the average DCUM poster, but it ignores that some MCPS parents may lack proper English reading and writing skills themselves and, therefore, are not in a position to assist their children. Much of this thread is devoted to debating the pros and cons of private or parochial education compared to public. Catholic schools are especially debated with several posters praising their traditional teaching while others decry them as "archaic" or unappealing to non-Catholics.

I have had a busy few days, doing a bit of traveling and spending time with family. I was unable to write a blog post on Friday, so today I will discuss the most active threads since Thursday. The most active thread during that period that I have not already discussed was titled, "Harris Walz interview w CNN" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original title of this thread was actually, "Harris Walz interview w CNN – only 18 minutes", but after a number of requests I shortened the title because it misstated the actual length of the interview. The controversy over the length of the interview is a story in itself. Former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and his supporters devote a huge amount of time and effort to trying to convince the public that they are not being treated fairly. In this instance, soon after the announcement that Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz would be interviewed by CNN, Trump supporters began circulating on social media the claim that the interview would only be 18 minutes long and that a full transcript would not be released. This, they claimed, was evidence that the interview would be cleaned up to hide the fact that Harris is, according to them, unable to articulate a complete sentence or connect two thoughts together. The original poster apparently based this thread on those inaccurate claims, but attributed the misinformation to CNN. As it turned out, the interview was longer than 18 minutes and a full transcript was released. A recurring phenomenon that has really started to bug me is that right-wingers will post false information and left-wingers will accept those falsehoods as fact and defend them. In this instance, posters immediately began defending Harris for giving an 18 minute interview and not making a full transcript available. This only helped to spread and confirm inaccurate information. My rule of thumb is to assume by default that anything posted by conservatives is wrong, either intentionally or simply because they don't know any better. Instead of posting knee-jerk responses defending lies about Democrats, liberal posters should take a minute to check whether the information is true or not. As for posters' reactions to the interview, they were about what you would expect. Conservatives had plenty of criticisms. According to them, Harris looked down too much, did not speak coherently, and had lots of help from Walz and Dana Bash, the interviewer. Liberals, of course, thought that Harris had done great. There were a few posters who claimed that their vote had been influenced one way or another but most people simply had their previous opinions reinforced. There was almost as much discussion about Bash as there was about Harris and Walz with conservative posters trying desperately to demonstrate that she was biased in favor of Harris. Several liberal posters also believed that Bash was biased, but against Harris rather than in her favor. Another manufactured controversy involved the fact that Walz was included in the interview. Right-wingers argued that this was unusual and showed that Harris could not be trusted on her own and needed Walz to babysit. In fact, interviews including both the presidential and vice presidential nominees are common and have been conducted by all recent nominees.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Breakfast drama", and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she has a 5 year old child who is just starting kindergarten. She and her husband divide up parenting duties in the morning. While one parent is getting ready, the other serves breakfast to their daughter and then the first parent takes the child to school. Two days this week the original poster's husband was responsible for breakfast. The first day, he served the girl toast with peanut butter. When the original poster took over, her daughter had not eaten and wanted jelly with the peanut butter. They didn't have jelly and the girl refused to eat. The original poster, believing that eating before going to school was more important than a food struggle, quickly made her cereal. The next day, the original poster's husband attempted to serve the same leftover toast with peanut butter which, again, the child refused to eat. This time the original poster made oatmeal and an egg. The original poster is worried that her husband thinks that she is coddling the child but she is also frustrated with her husband for providing the leftover breakfast which the girl had already rejected. This post involves at least three very touchy issues: 1) child-parent relationships; 2) husband-wife relationships; and 3) food. DCUM posters have strong feelings about all three and even a single one of these topics could have provoked a long thread, let alone all three at once. Many posters focus on the first issue concerning how the parents are handling their child. While a few favor the "eat this or nothing" rule for meals, most prefer offering the child at least limited choices. Once the choice has been made, the child is expected to eat it. Because the original poster was not there when her husband provided the toast with peanut butter, she doesn't know whether the child initially requested it. However, she faults her husband, as do many other posters, for providing the day-old bread with peanut butter on the second day. Some posters say that at kindergarten age, their kids were already able to take care of their own breakfast. Regarding the original poster's relationship with her husband, a few posters believe that her husband is trying to fail so that he will be relieved of responsibility for breakfast due to incompetence. The original poster doesn't think this is the case because he wants to do it, but she says he is very stubborn. Some posters argue that the original poster should stay out of her husband's breakfast choices and let him deal with it, but that means that the original poster would end up taking a melting-down hungry child to school. Others say that the original poster should just have a conversation about the issue with her husband and work out ways to address this sort of thing. Finally, the issue of food. Posters have a range of opinions about what children should eat in the morning. From "anything" at one end of the spectrum to "must be protein" on the other. Probably the only thing those responding agreed about is that day-old toast with peanut butter is not appropriate.