DCUM Weblog

Today we have released a slight redesign for the DCUM Forums. For years, posters have been asking for a design that was optimized for mobile users. An attempt to deploy such a design a few years ago ended amidst a host of user complaints and performance issues. I hope that this design has resolved both of those problems. There will not be a lot of differences for those using desktop devices. Mobile users, however, will find a completely redesigned interface. The top navigation bar and the left side menu (where "Recent Topic" is located), can now be found in two "hamburger" buttons in the top corners. The default font size for all devices has been increased. So, if you suddenly find the fonts to be too large, adjust the zoom level of your browser. I found that I have been running my browser with the pages zoom 120 percent so in this design I made that size the default and now have my browser at 100 percent zoom level. For those of you who simply cannot abide change, there is a link at the very bottom of the page to the legacy design.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "DC shut out from all but one, now wants a gap year" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. As the title explains, the original poster's son, who had applied to a range of colleges, was shut out of all but his least favorite schools. Now, her son has lost interest in that college and no longer wants to attend. Instead, he wants to take a year off and work on his grandparents farm. Due to labor shortages, his grandparents are thrilled to have his help. However, the original poster and her husband not happy with this idea. They are concerned that next year will be even harder for their son to get accepted to his desired colleges and fear that he might not want even want to go to college next year. As you can expect, posters are divided about what to do. A considerable number support the son, thinking that he will have a year to mature and have a better idea about what he wants to do. They also argue that it is a bad idea to force a kid to attend a college against his wishes. Others believe gap years are a waste of time and that the son is reacting emotionally to a set-back. Some warn that his admissions options might even be worse next year and that he will be left with no choice beyond community college. Several posters focus on making the best of the gap year with suggestions such as taking online classes that can be transferred later and deferring his current acceptance so he will still have that opportunity. Another suggestion is to encourage him to attend the college to which he was admitted, but consider transferring to another school that he might like better. There is general agreement among those responding that a year spent helping his grandparents on their farm is a significantly more understandable use of a gap year than backpacking across Europe. Some posters think that an application essay based on that experience would write itself.

I woke up this morning feeling really good, sort of had an extra spring in my step, and thought to myself, "I'm going to kill it today". Then I sat down at my computer, pulled up the list of yesterday's most active threads and there, right at the top, was a thread about Meghan Markle. More specifically, a thread titled, "Meghan Markle Pink Short Suit at Lakers Game" and posted in the "Beauty and Fashion" forum. So, this is why I got out of bed this morning? To write about Meghan's clothes? What is there to say? Meghan wore a suit. It was pink. She was at a basketball game and the suit got wrinkled. She also rolled up her sleeves. Apparently having wrinkled clothes and rolled up sleeves are major fashion faux pas (I say as I look at my wrinkled shirt and rolled up sleeves). I know nothing of fashion, but my intuition suggests that Washington, DC is not on the cutting edge of fashion trends. Similarly, I suspect that Los Angeles is light years ahead of us. So, when posters started complaining that Meghan's outfit was out-of-date and more fitting for the 90s, I remembered the one rule of fashion that I ever learned. "Keep your old clothes because they will eventually be in fashion again". Sure enough, it turns out that our future is going to look a lot like Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman". Surprisingly, this thread stayed pretty much on topic. Only toward the end did it start to diverge into the sort of Royal Family in-fighting that characterizes most of these threads. Of course, Meghan and her outfit had both their fans and their detractors. To her credit, the original poster was definitely a fan. But, other than the wrinkles and rolled-up sleeves, most of what posters thought was wrong with the outfit turned out to have been choices made by the designer. Perhaps Meghan didn't wear it well, but she wore it correctly. Given the number of posters insisting that the suit represents the current style, I suspect that a year from now DC will be filled with women dressed in colorful boxy shorts with blazers draped over them like a towel hanging from a bed post. There will be one group that will conspicuously stand out by not adhering to the trend: the Meghan haters for whom the look as been forever ruined.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Biden will run again" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread follows President Joe Biden's announcement by video that he will run for reelection. This thread exemplifies much of what is wrong with the DCUM political forum and, indeed, the entire US political system. First, the initial post is lazy, simply complaining that the country is incapable of nominating anyone less than 70 years old. Hopefully that poster realizes that an announcement of a candidacy is not a nomination. A nomination is still to come. Moreover, the country has previously nominated a number of candidates younger than 70, so this statement is actually untrue. Finally, this topic could have done with a bit more substance. If the original poster is not happy with the current candidates, who does he propose take their place? Which person younger than 70 does the original poster prefer, and why? Most of those replying share the original poster's concern that Biden is too old and another candidate would be better. However, there a few ideas about who that candidate might be and those that are proposed are also met with criticism. Democratic-leaning posters seem to be frustrated with their inability to identify a perfect candidate who lacks even a single flaw. This is a problem because many posters demonstrate that even the slightest flaw is a dealbreaker. Probably the clearest example of this is a poster who says she would not vote for California Governor Gavin Newsome because his ex-wife is in a relationship with Donald Trump, Jr. Has anyone checked on the relationship status of Marla Maples to see if that would disqualify former President Trump? Biden enter the presidential race last time because he believed defeating Trump was essential and he believed that he had the best chance to do it. Enough Americans agreed with him to put him into the White House. Biden seems to believe the same thing continues to be true. Democrats don't seem happy about it, but few have presented much of a case to show that Biden is wrong. To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, you go into the campaign with the candidate you have, not the candidate that you wished you had. As things stand now, the election appears that it will be little more than a referendum on Trump. Biden's main campaign issue will be Trump and all the dangers he presents. Trump's main campaign issue will also be Trump because nothing else matters to Trump other than Trump.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Tucker out at Fox News????" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread is obviously about Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson leaving the network. While Fox's announcement said that the network and Carlson had "agreed to part ways", it is pretty clear that this was a decision taken by Fox management and came as a complete surprise to Carlson. Both Carlson fans and detractors were similarly surprised and the early responses in the thread were a mixture of surprise and joy. The general sentiment was that this was a much deserved outcome to Carlson's years of lying and provocation. A number of posters wondered what Carlson would do next with many speculating that he would simply join another network. Some speculated that he might run for president or vice president. There was quite a bit of discussion about why Carlson was suddenly removed from his position. He had concluded his Friday night broadcast by saying, "We'll be back on Monday" but his unceremonious removal on Monday morning prevented that. Many posters, including myself, guessed that Carlson's departure had something to do with the Dominion lawsuit that just cost Fox $787.5 million in a settlement fee. The Washington Post reported that it was due to private comments Carlson made about colleagues and Fox executives that were revealed as part of the Dominion lawsuit. Yet a third explanation that was widely circulated claimed Carlson's firing was related to a lawsuit by Abby Grossberg, a former booker for his show, that alleged sexual discrimination and a hostile workplace. Carlson fans were in short supply in this thread. A few showed up to defend his intelligence or to predict great things for him in the future, but, in general, they were surprisingly quite. One thing I noticed from reading this thread is the stature given Carlson, not just as a Fox News personality, but as an informal leader of the Republican Party. In many ways, former President Donald Trump has sucked the oxygen out of the party with the leading elected Republican, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, often viewed as a "Republican in name only" or RINO who doesn't command the loyalty of many grass root party members. Only Carlson, with his Fox megaphone, has been able to break through the Trump distortion field. It is unlikely that whoever replaces Carlson at Fox will have near the politcal impact.

As is my habit now, I skipped blogging for the weekend. Therefore, today I'll review the most active threads since Friday. During that period, the most active thread was titled, "Why don’t U.S. hospitals let women sleep quietly for the night in the hospital after giving birth?" and posted in the "Expectant and Postpartum Moms" forum. The original poster argues that hospitals should allow postpartum mothers to sleep through the night while the baby is put in a nursery. The poster says that recovery should be treated like recovery from a surgery with no interrupted sleep. A nurse immediately corrects the original poster to say that patients recovering from surgery are also awaken several times per night to take vitals, administer medicine, and draw blood. Nevertheless, several posters agree with the original poster that new moms should be allowed to sleep. Multiple posters explain that this is what is known as "baby-friendly" care aimed at encouraging breastfeeding and bonding. The majority of those responding clearly consider it "mother unfriendly". This is a 21 page thread so I can't read it all, or even very much of it. But, from what I see, posters have strong opinions about the best way to treat mothers who have just given birth. Most, like the original poster, would be happy to get a good night's sleep after hours of labor. A few don't want to give up their babies for even a minute and prefer the baby be left with them. While the original poster was addressing the immediate aftermath of giving birth, quite a few of the responders looked at the topic more broadly. Several described checking out of the hospital within 24 hours and recovering at home. There are clear socio-economic and cultural factors at play. Posters with means were able to hire postpartum doulas and other homecare professionals. Obviously, not every woman could afford to do this. There is considerable discussion of birth and recovery practices in other cultures and countries. The US healthcare system is subjected to considerable criticism. Much of the discussion stems from the fact that medical care in the US is largely treated as a business. Therefore, hospitals strive for efficiency and cost-savings and adequate staffing is often an issue. In other countries, healthcare is viewed as a service and emphasis is placed on its quality and efficacy, resulting in what many posters view as more appropriate practices. One of the biggest differences of opinion concerns whether the baby should be treated as a patient with staff dedicated to its care or whether care of the baby should be primarily left to the mother and whatever support she can muster (the father being the most common suggestion). Advocates of both viewpoints weigh-in vociferously.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "The Witch Trials of JK Rowling podcast" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. As can be expected from the title, the thread is about a podcast discussing JK Rowling and her views regarding the transgender community. The original poster says it is one of the best podcasts to which she has listened recently and she considered it to be balanced and rational. I haven't listened to this podcast, but it doesn't appear that many of those posting have either. Moreover, the discussion isn't so much about the podcast but rather Rowling and trans people. Topics on trans issues have become among the most controversial on DCUM and tend not to go well. As such, I generally end up locking or deleting them. In the case of this thread, I eventually locked it. Threads on transgender topics tend to have a familiar arc. They start out with posters demonstrating the best intentions, stressing that they are not anti-trans, indeed they are actively supportive, but they have questions or slight disagreements. In the case of this thread, Rowling is essentially used as a proxy to demonstrate this position rather than posters immediately attributing it to themselves. For instance, one of the first to respond writes, "Rowling is consistently measured in her speech and clearly has real compassion for transgender people...". But, as such threads continue, more and more responses are not only not "measured" but clearly anti-trans. The same poster claiming that Rowling has "compassion" for trans people goes on to imply that trans individuals are suffering from "delusion". Apparently the podcast compares support for the trans community to the Salem Witch Trials. Many of those responding point out that Rowling is succeeding brilliantly as a best-selling author and extremely wealthy person. Newly-passed laws are not limiting the rights of those like Rowling — who at worst risk being the target of mean tweets — but transgender people who are seeing restrictions on their most basic rights. On the other hand, a poster who describes herself as the "mother of a trans teen" who has listened to the podcast argues that Rowling is not exactly transphobic and that activists have overreacted to her. The real threat, this poster suggests, comes from right-wing politicians. As is common in such threads, posters complain that they can't engage in "respectful debate". The problem is that posts like those suggesting that trans people are "delusional" go unchecked or are even made by the folks who claim to be "measured". It is hard to have a respectful debate when one side's starting position is that the other side is delusional. In the case of this thread, it turned into a several page argument about whether criticizing Rowling meant support for rape and arguments that the trans community was motivated by misogyny. Rowling, and many of those posting, see advancement of trans rights as often resulting in set-backs for women's rights. Posters argue that they, and Rowling as well, only want to protect women's places. Because this necessitates restricting access by trans women to those places, this is viewed by supporters of trans people's rights as anti-trans. Repeated experience has proven that a nuanced discussion of that point is simply not possible on DCUM.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "I got an email telling me my daughter is a mean girl." and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster explains that she received an anonymous email saying that her teen daughter is a "mean girl" who gossips and excludes others. The original poster says that she knows that her daughter is popular and is sometimes frustrated by expectations that she be everyone's friend, but does not have a feeling that she is a mean girl. The original poster asks for advice about what to do. This is a 14 page thread and I've only read a few pages of it. Based on that limited exposure, I am inclined to say that the original poster is one of the most level-headed participants in the thread. She is neither ruling out nor completely accepting the accusations in the email. While she recognizes that her daughter has faults and is therefore willing to consider the possibility that she is a mean girl, the original poster doesn't feel like the email is sufficient evidence of this being true. Some posters were prepared to accept the email as fact and declare the child a certified mean girl and, by implication, her mother a bad parent. Others were more skeptical, suggesting nefarious explanations for the email in which the original poster's daughter was more a victim than a victimizer. Much of the discussion in this thread is less about how to react to the email and more about the appropriateness of anonymous emails. Quite a few posters view this as a completely valid means of communication while others are critical of both the practice and those who condone it. Personally, as a recipient of many generous, but unlikely to be true, proposals from random Nigerian governmental officials, I don't trust anything that comes in email these days.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Is this a legitimate reason for a divorce?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Given the tendency of posters in the relationship forum to recommend divorce for almost any reason, I would expect that the answer to the question posed in the thread's title would be "yes". The original poster's complaint in this instance is that her husband does not defend her from criticism (she calls it "attacks") by others. She describes two examples, which were apparently the only cases of this happening. Everything else in their marriage is good, but she considers her husband to be "wimpy" and doesn't want to stay married to him. For once, most posters seem to be opposed to divorce, especially because the couple has four kids. The original poster doesn't provide a lot of details about the "attacks", but what she does provide are not convincing to many posters. Quite a few believe she is greatly overreacting. Several posters advise the original poster that everyone has flaws and that she has to take the good with the bad. Even posters who sympathize with the original poster and think that her husband should have defended her don't believe this is divorce-worthy. Some posters are even able to find a bright side to a conflict-avoidant husband. To be sure, there are a few proponents of divorce — it wouldn't be the DCUM relationship forum if there weren't — but they are relatively sparse.

The most active thread yesterday was somewhat of a surprise to me. Titled, "Succession - Season 4" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum, the thread is obviously about the HBO Max television series chronicling the Roy family and their business empire. This thread was originally started back on March 26 but added slightly over 10 pages yesterday. I only just watched this episode yesterday, saving me from reading through pages of spoilers in order to write this post. But, in consideration for anyone who hasn't caught up yet, I'll try to avoid spoilers now. A moment in the episode that basically went over my head was caught by our mostly female user base and became the subject of much discussion. I'm still not sure of its significance and based on the pages of discussion it provoked, there is no consensus about its importance among our users. Several posters, however, have strong opinions about the matter, often drawing on personal experience to argue their points. Beyond that, the posts mostly recount fairly memorable scenes. There is a bit of a debate about whether the show should be watched as light entertainment or whether it has deeper meaning worthy of causing introspection among viewers.