DCUM Weblog

The thread about the photo of Kate Middleton and her kids again led as the most active thread yesterday. If you thought that thread could not get even more crazy, you were wrong. If you thought that it could, it probably even exceeded your expectations. The next most active thread was titled, "37 single, want a baby, make about 95k a year", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster repeats what was written in the title, adding that she has never married, and asks what advice others might have for her. For some posters, this is mostly a question of finances. On that basis, many posters are concerned that the original poster might not have the financial means for raising a child on her own. Other posters are less concerned about finances but, rather, what they consider the "proper" environment for raising a child. These posters are adamant that a child needs both a mother and a father. As such, they suggest finding a man to marry. Others warn against this due to the likelihood of ending up with a poor choice of man. This warning is provided by several posters who say that they made exactly that mistake. But, by far, the most emphasis was on the need for a support network. If the original poster has friends or family who can pitch in and provide assistance, most posters encourage her to have a baby on her own. Some posters suggest that the original poster find single mom by choice groups which offer mutual support to single mothers. Almost by accident I stumbled across an odd situation involving the original poster. It appears that she only posted three times in this thread and, in the third post, claimed to have two children who share a bedroom in her $2.5 million home. I then checked what the original poster had posted in other threads and it appears that she alternates between two personalities. One is a late-thirties, single, childless women and the other is a mom of two grade school-aged boys. I'm not sure what to make of that. As if a split personality original poster was not enough to discount this thread, a troll also disrupted much of it. The moment that I saw the title of this thread I suspected that a frequent troll would gravitate to the thread. The troll whose posts I listed a couple of days ago is particularly opposed to single mothers and I fully expected that the length of the thread was likely due to her involvement. This turned out to be the case. She posted time after time about the importance of having a father involved. She followed her modus operandi of frequently identifying herself as a new poster when she was not. She also started posts by saying things like "I am not the pp", meaning she is not the previous poster though she was indeed the previous poster. It would be unfortunate that this poster destroyed the thread, but the original poster was long gone by then and her mom-of-two-children persona probably didn't need advice about single motherhood in any case.

Yesterday's most active thread was obviously the thread about the Princess of Wales's photo, receiving nearly 1,400 new posts. I covered that thread yesterday and, therefore, will go on to the next most active thread. That one was titled, "Can’t face friends" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that her husband accidentally revealed that his longtime best friend has been having an affair with a college classmate for the last eight years. The original poster, her husband, and their children regularly socialize together with the other family and she is friends with the friend's wife. Knowing this information has made the original poster so uncomfortable about being around the other family that she canceled a planned get together this weekend. She believes that the friend's wife deserves to know about the affair but her husband is loyal to his friend. She asks what others would do. As could be expected, responses are all over the map. Several posters urge the original poster to simply forget what her husband told her and do whatever it takes to let it go. These posters argued that nothing good would come out of telling the friend's wife about his affair. Others argued that the wife deserves to know. They are concerned that if the wife learns of the affair and finds out that the original poster knew about it, she might blame the original poster. Another angle was to focus anger on the original poster's husband who has been hiding this secret and allowing his family to grow close to the other family despite knowing that things could blow up anytime. Some suggested that the original poster's husband should have a discussion with his friend, either to convince him to stop the affair or to let him know that the original poster now knows and is struggling with the information. Basically, put the ball into the friend's court. There was disagreement about how the friend's wife might react to being told about the affair. Many posters thought that she might already know or prefer not to know. They saw many scenarios in which revealing the affair could hurt the original poster's relationship with the woman. However, a poster who herself had been in the friend's wife situation says that she is very grateful to the friend who revealed her husband's affair. The poster says that friend was the only one who put the poster's interests first. In a follow-up post, the original poster says that she has settled on the "put the ball in the friend's court" strategy. She agrees with others that she and her husband need to be on the same page in order to protect their own relationship. The original poster is also compelled to end her friendship with both her husband's friend and the friend's wife. In the first case because she abhors what the friend is doing and in the second because she doesn't want to face the wife while keeping a secret from her.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Kate's New Picture" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. As best that I can tell, all the world's insane asylums opened their doors yesterday and the inmates all rushed out and immediately began posting in this thread. The thread was off the rails from the very first post in which the original poster linked to an article about a recently-released photo of Kate, the Princess of Wales, and her children. The original poster complained that "we only see her from the neck down?" and asked "Any conspiracy theories here?" The first problem is that the photo actually showed Kate from the neck up, not down. Second, the original poster was referring to a cropped version of a larger photo that appeared on the same page to which the original poster had linked. The original poster appears to have not bothered scrolling down. As for conspiracy theories? Of course there are conspiracy theories. Any thread on DCUM involving the British Royal Family has conspiracy theories. Poster after poster was apparently spending their day zooming in on the photo and doing a pixel-by-pixel analysis. Problems were found with the foliage, one of the boy's fingers, and the lighting on Kate's face. Posters questioned why Kate wasn't wearing a wedding ring. There was a discussion about the children's teeth and whether they have had braces. The thread would easily have been the most active of the weekend on this basis alone. But then several major wire services issued "kill notices" ordering publications to withdraw the photo due to "manipulation". This was like blowing up a nuclear bomb with an even bigger nuclear bomb. The crazies had been proven right. Never mind that despite the long list of irregularities that posters claimed to have found in the photo, I don't think any of them found the issue with Charlotte's sleeve that actually provoked the photo's withdrawal. But that was of little matter. For once their wild speculation had been proven correct. This completely opened the floodgates of conspiracy theories. Kate is in a coma some said, the couple is divorcing others suggested, Kate has been forcibly separated from her kids some claimed, a few posters even worried that Kate is actually dead. Personally, I'd suggest that she has been abducted by aliens but that theory is a little too mundane for this thread. When a vague statement admitting to the photo having been edited was published on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media platforms, posters could not even agree who authored it. Some said it was William while others argued that it was Kate. At any rate, the statement did nothing to calm speculation. Rather, it had the opposite effect. Several posters said that they were previously uninterested in the Royal drama but this controversy had caused them to become keenly engrossed. Others were just along for the ride. As one poster put it, "You guys are nuts. I love it!!"

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Biden's SOTU" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread is obviously about the State of the Union address delivered last night by President Joe Biden. Interest in this thread was surprisingly intense, pushing the thread to 44 pages already. Obviously, I haven't read all of those pages, but I have read many pages throughout the thread. Right from the beginning, Republican-leaning posters set the bar for Biden incredibly low. Based on Republican expectations, it would be surprising if Biden were even able to walk to the podium successfully. Doubts about Biden's cognitive abilities spread to more moderate and even some Democratic-leaning posters. When Biden immediately launched into a combative and forceful speech, the thread turned into a combination of straw-grasping and outright denial. "He’s literally reading from teleprompter" one poster wrote, as if any president in the modern era would attempt such a speech without a teleprompter. "The man is literally drugged" wrote another poster. "He’s slurring his words", complained a poster with what would be a repeated criticism throughout the evening. But among Democrats, many of whom had clearly not been optimistic about the speech, there was a slow realization that Biden was clearly exceeding expectations. "He sounds great. Strong and confident", wrote one poster. Another opined, "Joe came out swinging. I'm actually feeling bad for Mike Johnson", referring to the Republican Speaker of the House who spent the evening seated behind Biden making various expressions of disappointment. "Johnson does NOT look happy and I'm loving it", noted another poster. Biden is a not skilled orator of the caliber of Barack Obama or Ronald Reagan. But, if his decades of political experience have done nothing else, they have prepared him for the rough and tumble that has characterized the most recent SOTU addresses during which Republicans routinely interrupt to heckle Democratic presidents. Last year, Biden successfully maneuvered Republicans into opposing social security and Medicaid cuts. At least one DCUM poster correctly predicted that Biden would repeat this tactic. "Last year was great in part because he went off script responding to the RWNJs yelling at him. So their Speaker is telling them to shut it but they won’t", wrote this poster. Not only did the Republican heckling not get under Biden's skin or throw him off kilter, he seemed to thrive on it. Biden taunted the Republicans, ridiculed them, and challenged them to stand up for their professed values. "I think he is doing an amazing job. He's so strong. He should have been getting this message out every single day. But I really hope that people are listening to this!" wrote a poster. The bottom line is that many expected "Sleepy Joe" but they got "Dark Brandon". This caused a notable change in the Republican spin. As one poster noted, "The GOP narrative pivots from ‘President Biden is too feeble’ to ‘President Biden is too aggressive.’" There is no denying that it was a good night for Biden, summed up by one poster as "This is a campaign speech." Indeed it was, and one that, if nothing else, probably calmed a lot of Democratic nerves.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Trans Non Binary - minority?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she has toured at least six colleges in the last 2 1/2 months and on every tour at least one guide has used "they/them" pronouns. This prevalence of non-binary gender is much higher than the original poster has been told exists in the population at-large and she wonders if being non-binary is simply more common among college students. Anything related to transgender or non-binary gender is a hot button issue these days, but even I was surprised that this thread grew to 18 pages in just a few hours, at which point I locked it. The immediate issue I saw with this thread was that it appeared that many posters were significantly more interested in writing than reading. This resulted in many posters talking past each other. One poster repeatedly insisted that other posters did not know the difference between sex, gender, and sexual orientation despite almost every poster appearing to have a fairly solid understanding of those concepts. In response to the original poster's question about the prevalence of being non-binary, posters suggested that the numbers were actually higher than the original poster had been told and that numbers were higher yet among young people. Other posters pointed out that even individuals who are not non-binary often choose to use "they/them" pronouns for a variety of reasons. Therefore, the tour guides the original poster encountered might not necessarily identify as non-binary. The thread was soon bogged down in the normal tedious debates surrounding transgender and non-binary topics. One poster made an ill-conceived comparison of non-binary individuals to tomboys. This provoked nearly every tomboy who has ever set foot on DCUM to weigh in claiming that they never once considered themselves to be non-binary. Most of the thread is simply unreadable and, hence, I didn't read much of it. I think the only relevance to colleges or universities was some petty bickering about which posters would do better on their SAT exams. Given the inability of so many posters to communicate successfully, I wouldn't hold out much hope for any of them. The one conclusion that was easily discernible is that a number of posters hate when other people use pronouns such as "they/them". They view this as forcing them to categorize themselves in ways in which they don't identify and they resent it. They hate the idea of having a label forced on them so much that they demand that those individuals who choose to identify as "they/them" be forced to use one of two acceptable labels instead. Another irony that I noted is that many posters reacted to "they/them" pronouns by complaining about there being too many categories of gender. One of the main characteristics of identifying as non-binary is that it erases gender. So, if fewer categories is better, this would seem ideal.

The most active thread yesterday was, somewhat inexplicably, the thread from some time ago about the merger of two soccer clubs. But I've discussed that thread before and will skip it today. The next most active thread was titled, "The golden age of American Jews is ending" and posted in the "Religion" forum. The original poster linked to an article by Franklin Foer in "The Atlantic" that was titled the same as this thread. The original poster provided a one sentence summary saying that anti-Semitism on both the right and the left is threatening to end an unprecedented period of prosperity for American Jews. This thread really should have been posted in the political forum because this is more of a political discussion rather than a religious one. Jewish identity is a complex topic that is not solely based on religion. Moreover, the complicated relationship between Jews and Israel makes things even more convoluted. It is very clear that most, if not all, of the examples of anti-Semitism on the left that Foer provides are rooted in political divisions, not religious. Some of those examples can reasonably be argued to not be anti-Semitic at all, though they can equally reasonably be interpreted that way. This all makes for a very difficult discussion to have, particularly in a forum such as DCUM. This was clearly demonstrated when a poster alleged that some American Jewish groups have promoted extreme practices in Israel and responded to criticism of those actions by labeling it anti-Semitic. The poster suggested that the groups have gone too far and concludes, "If being against genocide makes me an antisemite, so be it." Indeed, another poster immediately accused that poster of being an anti-Semite. This provoked a tangent into history and disagreements about what Israel is actually doing. Or, perhaps "tangent" is not the right word because that discussion dominated the thread from that point on, leading to me locking the thread. On one side are posters who believe that criticizing Israel's actions is perfectly justified and has nothing to do with the Jewish religion but rather the acts of the state and government of Israel. They see charges of anti-Semitism as a method of shielding Israel from legitimate criticism. On the other side are posters who see anti-Semitism as a motivation for many of the attacks on Israel. What one side sees as legitimate criticism of Israel, the other side often views as inappropriate attacks on Jews. One side views accusations of anti-Semitism as cynical exploitation of a delegitimizing designation while the other side views "anti-Zionism" to be thinly-veiled anti-Semitism. It is clear that anti-Israel discourse has reached unprecedented levels in the US and most American Jews have probably never previously encountered, and perhaps maybe never even envisioned, such widespread opposition to Israel. But, whether this reflects a rise of anti-Semitism that threatens American Jews as Foer would have it or is simply the same type of political activity that has previously been focused on other countries such as apartheid South Africa, is probably more a question of perception than something that can be established with precise certainty.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The title refers to a decision by the US Supreme Court regarding a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that removed former President Donald Trump from Colorado's presidential primary ballot. As the original poster states, the decision to keep Trump on the ballot was unanimous, but that is only part of the story. As is so often the case with the US legal system, the details of this decision are important and not necessarily what one might think at first glance. While all justices agreed that Trump should remain on the ballot, four justices disagreed with the majority opinon that only Congress can remove a federal candidate. Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the three liberals on this issue. As the minority concurrence pointed out, the Fourteenth Amendment says that if a candidate is disqualified under that amendment, "Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." The suggestion here is not that Congress would be undoing its own action, as the Court majority would have it, but rather removing a disqualification enacted by another body. By ignoring this, the majority has created a contradictory and confusing situation. The three liberal justices went even further in their disagreement, arguing that the ruling was far too broad and effectively meant that no candidate would ever be disqualified from holding the presidency under the Fourteenth Amendment. Another point that should be emphasized is that the Court did not rule on the topic of whether Trump participated in or instigated an insurrection. The ruling was very much not an exoneration of the former President. As so often happens in the political forum, many posters were less interested in the facts and more interested in scoring political points. Several posters claimed that this ruling meant that Trump could no longer be accused of being an insurrectionist. In fact, as noted, the Court was silent on this issue. A number of posters criticized President Joe Biden for attempting to defeat Trump in the courts rather than the ballot box. However, this case was originally brought by Colorado Republicans and Biden had no involvement. Nevertheless, posters spent a considerable part of this thread trying to tie Biden to various legal actions involving Trump. It is clear that many have bought into Trump's allegations that Democrats have weaponized the court system. What really is apparent is how Republicans have attempted to neuter all avenues for holding Trump to account. Republicans stymied two impeachment efforts because they claimed the matters were better settled in court rather than by Congress. This ruling says that the issue lies with Congress rather than the courts. Basically, Trump is a hot potato that keeps getting passed back and forth.

The most active thread over the weekend was the Gaza war thread which I've already discussed and will skip today. The second most active thread was titled, "Why do some women think it's acceptable to get engaged without a ring?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Before getting to a discussion of that that thread, my last post in which I changed the format to include more paragraph breaks was universally disliked. So, I am returning to the previous one paragraph per post format. The original poster of this thread says that both her sister and a friend recently got engaged and neither received a ring. The original poster believes that an engagement ring has important symbolic importance and thinks that getting engaged without a ring suggests that the guy is not taking the engagement seriously. Those responding suggest that the couples may be planning to purchase rings later which allows them to pick them out together and get the rings sized correctly. The original poster says that the couples in this case have no plans to purchase rings. Several posters say that they did not want engagement rings for various reasons and others who did receive rings don't wear them. Some of these posters do wear wedding bands. However, a number of posters don't wear engagement or wedding rings even if they have them, which several don't. They have decades or longer marriages and simply don't like rings or jewelry. These posters don't see any connection between a ring and commitment to marriage. A number of posters don't think it is really the original poster's business what other couples choose to do about rings and consider any concern that original poster has about it to be an issue with her rather than the others. To some extent, attitudes towards rings were related to ideas about feminism. Some posters believe that feminism is incompatible the the suggestion that a women deserves an engagement ring simply because of her gender. Others argued that they could be feminists while still following some traditional gender norms. Another reason cited for passing on engagement rings was some posters' dislike for the diamond industry. Much of this thread was sidetracked to off-topic discussions such living together rather than getting married, what women get out of marriage in exchange for what they give up, and the aforementioned debates about feminism.

As has been the case lately, the first two threads are ones that I've already discussed and, therefore, will start with what was actually the third most active thread yesterday. That thread was titled, "Marriage is hard" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Before getting to the thread, after complaints about the lack of paragraphs in my formatting, I've decided to try things a little differently today. So, let's see how that goes.

Back to the thread, the original poster simply stated that the phrase in the thread's title is common and would like to know what makes marriage hard for others. The first and most common answer is "communication", though it is not clear to me whether these posters mean that communication is difficult or that a lack of communication makes marriage hard. Other posters say that as long as you marry the right person, marriage is not hard.

The most active thread yesterday was the one about women continuing to pursue careers even though their husbands can support them. But I've already discussed that thread and will skip it today. The next most active thread was titled, "Not welcome on vacation" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster, in an extremely long post, describes how her fiancé's mother frequently excludes her, most recently not inviting her on a trip on which the mother had invited the original poster's fiancé. But, I am not really going to talk about this thread. Rather, I am going to describe the original poster's repeated trolling over the last couple of days. First, the story of this thread. Early in the thread at least one poster suspected the original poster of being a troll and accused her of faking the thread. This started a lot of back and forth and, at some point, another poster defended the original poster. The poster who didn't believe the original poster immediately accused this new poster of being the original poster and hiding her identity. That was not true, though ironically the original poster had been posting defenses of herself and claiming to be a "new poster". At any rate, the troll-calling poster and the poster defending the original poster got into a heated exchange which led a report to me and a thread in the "Website Feedback" forum. When I looked into the thread, I saw the posts by the original poster in which she falsely identified herself as a new poster. That spurred me to check what other threads she had been posting. It turned out that two days earlier she had posted a thread titled, "Helping him" in which she claimed that she was divorcing her husband and his mother was paying for his lawyer. Yesterday, the same day that she started the thread complaining that her fiancé's mother left her out, she started a thread titled, "Doesn’t want that time with him" in which she says her mother-in-law doesn't want to spend time alone with her husband. I locked all three threads and exposed the original poster as a troll. But, that didn't stop her. This morning she started a new thread titled, "Feeling guilty about being ‘too’ sad" in which she describes being heartbroken by the death of her husband's grandmother. This one is a real tear jerker. Then, she followed that up a few minutes later with a thread titled, "Delicate DIL situation" in which she is suddenly a mother-in-law complaining about her daughter-in-law. But that post is so convoluted that I can't be bothered trying to figure out what it is supposed to say. To summarize, over the course of three days, the poster has had three different marital statuses, engaged, married, divorcing and has been both a daughter-in-law and a mother-in-law. I understand that sometimes posters fudge details to maintain their anonymity, but this poster also claimed to live in Georgia (something about which I also suspect is not true). Her anonymous posts on DCUM are unlikely to expose her back home. But, beyond that, two threads directly contradict each other with regard to her feelings about the relationship of her husband/fiancé and his mother. Who knows if any part of any of this is true. I suspect it is just a bored person with an overly-active imagination and too much time on her hands.