DCUM Weblog

When it was announced early yesterday morning that WNBA basketball star Britney Griner had been exchanged for Russian arms merchant Viktor Bout, a poster quickly started a thread in the "Off-Topic" forum titled, "Brittney Griner Coming Home!". Undoubtedly, this thread would have been the most active of the day yesterday. However, the thread quickly turned political and, because there was an existing thread about Griner in the "Political Discussion" forum, I locked the new thread and directed posters to the older one. That thread, titled, "Britney Griner deal", gained enough new pages yesterday that it could have topped the most active list itself. The two threads combined easily eclipsed all other topics in activity for the day. Unfortunately, rather than celebrate the release of an American who had been unjustly imprisoned in Russia, many posters immediately focused on the fact that another American held in Russia, Paul Whalen, was not being released. Indeed, the entire text of the original post in the Off-Topic thread was "Paul Whalen staying in jail." The poster did not bother providing any details about Griner who was the subject of the thread. Criticism that Whalen had not been freed continued even after the Biden Administration explained that Russia refused to release Whalen in exchange for Bout. The criticism continued even after Whalen's family expressed support for the exchange. Whalen supporters almost exclusively referred to him as a "marine" or a "former marine" despite the fact that he had been dishonorably discharged from the Corps over a decade ago. Generally, this was a very disheartening rush to unfairly disparage the exchange and, coupled with attacks on Griner herself, present Griner as undeserving and not worth the value of Bout. To be sure, Griner had her supporters who expressed joy at her release and who sought to combat the misinformation being spread about her. Most upsetting were the posts, thankfully few in number, that were blatantly racist or homophobic. I removed such posts as soon as they came to my attention.

The first thread I'll discuss today was titled, "I’m currently at a nude beach in Miami. AMA" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. I'm not sure how long this thread will be able to remain on the site before Google flags it as "adult content" and I have to remove it. So, if this thread interests you, read it quickly. The original poster says that she is posting from a nude beach and welcomes any questions from DCUM users. She says that everyone on the beach, like her, is using their phones because the water is too cold to get in. There is considerable interest among those posting questions in how well-equipped the men are, as well as the state of said equipment. The original poster admits to having similar interests. I assume that the observations she provides are disappointing to those asking, if not entirely surprising. Many posters are interested in her motivation for visting the beach which she explains as being a sort of personal challenge that she wanted to accomplish while she was still relatively attractive. The original poster repeatedly comments that the crowd appears to consist predominantly of gay men, something about which she comes across as being disappointed because they lack interest in her. Several posters describe their assumption that most of the beachgoers are fat and unattractive. The original poster confirms that this is largely the case, though there are both male and female exceptions, Some posters' questions were much more mundane, for instance asking about the use of sun screen. The original poster said that both she and her husband were able to avoid sunburn. A pleasant surprise for the original poster was the peacefulness of the beach which she attributes to the absense of children and teens. Ultimately, the original poster appears happy to have had this experience, but says she is unsure that she would do it again.

I am going to make a small change to my style for these posts beginning today. I will no longer routinely report where a thread is in the order of number of views and replies. I may mention those numbers from time to time, but I don't think they are very interesting in most cases so I'll leave them out.

That said, the first thread I'll discuss did lead both in number of views and replies, and by some measure. Titled, "So people will be taxed on venmo and zelle transactions?" and posted in the "Money and Finances" forum, the thread discusses recent changes to Internal Revenue Service reporting requirements. The title of the thread is erroneous with multiple errors. Due to requirements in the American Rescue Plan Act, third party payment systems are required to send 1099-K to users who receive over $600 in payments during a year. However, contrary to what the title of the thread implies, Zelle is not affected by the changes. Moreover, it is also wrong to suggest, as the title does, that funds transfered through these systems will be taxed. As is explained thoroughly in replies within the thread, the rule changes are aimed at businesses that receive payments through payment systems such as Venmo or PayPal. Businesses should have been paying taxes on this income all along and, as such, the rule changes should have no impact on their taxable income. What concerns many posters in the thread is what this means for transactions that are not income, for instance, reimbursements for meals or event tickets. Posters who appear knowledgable on the topic explain that since these transactions are not income, they are not taxable. This may present a record-keeping challenge so that in the event of an audit you can document that these are reimbursements. However, since most people don't get audited, this will not be much of an issue. In addition, several posters pointed out that transactions labeled as "Friends and Family" are not included in the reporting requirement. Many posters asked how they could report to the IRS that money transfers were reimbursements and the answer appears to be that there is no need to report. This is a fairly informative thread which really gets into the weeds of the topic at some points.

Yesterday's most active thread led the day in number of replies and was third in number of views. Posted in the "Family Relationships" forum, the thread was titled, "I never want to plan to see my SIL again". At its root, the topic of this thread is pretty simple. The original poster has a sister-in-law (her husband's brother's wife) who lives 1,000 miles away. Both families have young children who are a year apart in age, but the two have never met. The original poster finds it difficult to coordinate get-togethers with her sister-in-law, apparently because the sister-in-law is not much of a planner. As a result, the original poster wants to stop attempting to plan visits and only see her in-laws if they coincidentally cross paths at her husband's parents home. Understanding that this means that the two cousins may never have a relationship, the original poster asks if this is realistic. What complicates this topic is that the original poster didn't keep things this simple in her original post. Instead, she started off complaining that her sister-in-law constantly tries to one-up her and that she — the original poster — cuts off friends who do that. The original poster doesn't give any examples or further explanation of this "one-upping". As such, many of those responding ask for further details and a lot of discussion gets devoted to this issue with is really extraneous to the basic point that the original poster and her sister-in-law are simply unable to coordinate trips. Some posters suggest that the original poster should just leave any planning to her husband and his brother, but apparently they don't get along either. A few posters do express sympathy for the original poster, but several also target the original poster for criticism. I received at least one report asking if the original poster was a troll and there are a couple of troll accusations within the thread. I don't belive the original poster is trolling, but she certainly made the thread a lot more dramatic than was necessary.

Today I'll look at the most active threads over the weekend. A thread titled, "Can we talk Covid? What we did right and wrong" that was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum was first in number of views and second in number of replies for the weekend. I have only read a few posts in this thread and I have no interest in reading more of it. In fact, I've just locked it. Covid threads are frustrating because they all end up simply repeating what countless other threads have said and posters don't discuss so much as divert the thread to their own parochial obsessions. These threads remind me of the parable of the blind men and an elephant. If you are not familiar with this, a group of blind men encounter an elephant for the first time and attempt to describe it to each other. One, who feels the trunk believes that elephants are like snakes, one who touches the ear describes elephants as being like fans, a third who examines a leg believes that elephants are shaped like trees. This is how I see Covid discussions. For instance, those who had young children in school are often fixated on school closures and repeatedly stress any negative outcomes of the closures. While those without children who struggled during the closures are more willing to excuse or justify the action. It's like one group finding the elephant's trunk and the other its leg. Both versions of Covid are equally correct and equally wrong. On top of this, there are posters whose reactions are formed less by their experience with Covid, but more by prior political or other partisan biases. Anti-vax posters obsess over real or invented (mostly invented) negative effects of the Covid vaccine. Anti-immigration posters blame immigration. Pro-Trump posters credit him with the vaccine's rapid development, but warn that the vaccine will kill you. Everyone misuses statistics to prove whatever point they wish to confirm. I am convinced that the only way a constructive Covid discussion could be held is if it were heavily structured and closely moderated. The exact opposite of the wild west DCUM environment.

Today I'll look at the most active threads during the past week, but skip any that were covered in the daily posts. The thread with the most replies and the second highest number of views was a bit of a repeat. Titled, "Daughter ruining career prospects" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum, the original poster begins the post by saying that she had previously posted a similar thread in the College forum. Indeed she did, and that thread was the most active over the weekend not long ago. The original poster explains that while she and her husband advised their daughter to study economics, math, or statistics, the daughter chose to major in history instead. The parents then stressed the importance of internships, but their daughter is now planning to work as a summer camp counselor despite having corporate internship opportunities. The original poster asks for advice to convince her daughter to change her mind. If this all sounds vaguely familiar, it is likely because you remember the thread titled, "In tears about my daughter" that I wrote about almost a month ago. However, in that thread, the original poster's daughter chose to study English instead of history. As I mentioned in my summary of the "tears" thread, I received many reports asking if the original poster was a troll. At the time of my writing, I had not come to such a conclusion, but subsequently locked the thread because that turned out to be the case. I did not receive reports about this thread, but early this morning someone started a thread in the "Website Feedback" forum asking that I assure them that the poster was a troll. In this thread, the original poster engaged in considerable sock puppeting, often authoring posts in the guise of a third party and then replying to them identifying herself as the original poster. I am not sure what the original poster gets out of these threads, but she has now accounted for 60 pages of posts between the two. There are a lot of strange people out there, and a good number of them find their way to DCUM. I can't say that this poster is as bad as the poster who is obsessed with people's feet, but I also can't say that she is any better.

I prepare to write these posts by reviewing lists of the threads with the most views and the most replies. When I did that this morning, many of the top spots in both lists were held by topics that were sexual in nature. I've had a long-running issue with Google flagging posts as "Adult: Sexual content" even when there is nothing explicit in the thread. Too many such warnings can lead to our advertising being cut off, so I am obligated to remove these threads even though I disagree with the categorization most of the time. Therefore, this morning I decided to check which threads Google had flagged overnight and remove them before writing this post. Sure enough, this resulted in my deleting several of the most active threads. This is disappointing and frustrating because I didn't think any of the threads were inappropriate. So, while I will describe the threads I discuss as being the most active, that is not entirely true.

Leading in number of views and second in number of replies yesterday was a thread titled, "$8.50 for a loaf of bread" that was posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. When I saw this title, I assumed that this was going to be another thread complaining about "Brandon" and the economy. Instead, it turned out that the original poster had gone to Whole Foods with the intention of buying a loaf of brioche. However, the original poster passed on the bread when she saw the price was $8.50, up from the $4 or $5 that she used to pay. She attributed this increase to price gouging and asked how rich do you have to be to not notice or not care about such a rise in price. Because the original poster's experience involved both Whole Foods and brioche, she didn't get a lot of sympathy from those who responded. Most replies were variations on "what do you expect from Whole Paycheck?" Many posters reported brioche was much more affordable at other grocery stores. Others recommended bread machines and home baking. I did learn something new in this thread. The oft-quoted Marie Antoinette is said to have declared, "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" or "Let them eat brioche" in the original French rather than "cake" as it usually reported. Several posters attributed the high price to attitudes that would be right at home in the House of Bourbon. Based on these posters' telling, which I have no reason to dispute, Whole Foods markets to a demographic that doesn't notice or doesn't care about price increases or happily pays higher prices in order to demonstrate status and liberal values. Possibly true, but sometimes a brioche is just a brioche and, as the original poster demonstrates, can be passed over easily enough.

Yesterday's top thread in both number of posts and number of views was posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. Titled, "Boy moms, you happy with your choice?", the original poster asks whether the mothers of boys are happy with their decision to have or not have their sons circumcised. Circumcision is traditionally one of the hot button issues on DCUM so it is no surprise that a thread on the topic generated so much interest. Having seen so many similar threads over the years, they've become very predictable. If there is any surprise at all, it's that the debate has not advanced in the slightest over the years. The same arguments being made 15 years ago are still being made today. While proponents of circumcision point to medical benefits to the practice, opponents argue that any such benefits, if they exist at all, are marginal at best. As such, this debate is much more often lodged in tradition than in science. Many of the moms who replied said that they left the decision to their husbands who they considered better equipped (pun intended) to make the decision. Those with religious traditions involving circumcision generally followed their religious practice. Europeans, for whom the practice is not part of their culture, declared circumcision to be barbaric and Americans to be out of touch. At least one poster compared male circumcision to female genital mutilation, but encountered significant pushback. All in all, this thread is fairly tame relative to the level of discourse we normally see on the topic. But, if/when the intactivist crowd discovers the thread, I suspect that will change.

It was a little hard to determine which threads were yesterday's top threads because there was not much consistency between those with the highest number of views and those with the highest number of replies. So, I'll somewhat arbitrarily start with a thread that was first in number of views and fourth in number of replies. The thread was titled, "For Fun: How You Know You've Become a Washingtonian" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster lists ten things that demonstrate that you have become a Washingtonian. As the title says, the thread was meant to be fun and it was mostly taken in that spirit. The thread quickly transitioned to posters reminiscing about Washington, DC in "the old days" — a topic that is fairly common on DCUM. Some posters argued that the only true way to become a Washingtonian was to be born here while transplants from New York declared that they would never be anything other than New Yorkers. That reminds me that the original poster's list might have included "you learn to smile kindly and nod gently when New Yorkers tell you that everything is better in New York". At any rate, if you are interested in arguing "Riggs" vs "PNC", "People's" vs "CVS", or "National" vs "Reagan", you will enjoy this thread.