DCUM Weblog

The Taylor Swift thread that I discussed on Monday continued as the most active thread yesterday. After that were mostly political threads. The first of those was titled, "A message from PA relatives: Stop sending your political canvassers from Maryland", and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that he has relatives in York County, Pennsylvania who are registered as independents but have been leaning toward voting for Trump. Recently they have been visited by three different groups of vote canvassers who they believe came from Maryland and who knew nothing of local politics. They were offended by Marylanders telling them how to vote. The original poster then advises those who want "left progressive policies and crime and immigration" to stay in the "Baltimore/PG/Silver Spring echo chamber". Most of those replying are not particularly sympathetic to either the original poster or his relatives. Several posters suggest that if the original poster's relatives are going to vote for Trump anyway, nothing is to be gained by stopping the canvassing. They ask if stopping canvassing will cause the relatives to change their vote. Personally, I am sympathetic to people not wanting to be disturbed by strangers coming to their door. But the original poster's relatives have the option of not answering the door or quickly telling the canvassers that they are not interested and ending the conversation. Moreover, if the original poster is representing his relatives' views that anyone from Maryland is a "left progressive" who is in favor of crime, they probably could benefit by being further informed about Democratic policies. The number one motivating issue among Democrats is abortion rights, followed by preserving democracy and affordable healthcare. These are mainstream issues on which Democrats have broad support. You don't have to live in Silver Spring or Baltimore to agree with the Democrats' positions on these issues which are probably even popular in York County. A poster who said that he lives in Maryland said that he took his kids to canvas in Pennsylvania this weekend. Based on his experience, the encounters with local residents were very brief and didn't involve much more than asking if the residents were registered to vote and wanted any information about the election. Nobody asked about local issues and those who they visited would have had no way of knowing the poster and his kids were from Maryland. It doesn't appear that the original poster made any additional contributions to this thread. The thread itself mostly devolved to a simple debate about various unrelated topics such as whether former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump is a threat to democracy or a popular figure who deserves to win the presidency. Most of the posts could easily have been posted in other threads and many of them probably were duplicates.

The two most active threads yesterday were the thread about the apparent assassination attempt of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and the thread about Taylor Swift. Because I discussed both of these threads yesterday, I'll skip them today. The next most active thread was titled, "Overweight boys- constructive help only, please" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster says that she has 8 and 10 year old sons who are both overweight. She says the boys are active and that the family eats healthy foods and has no junk food in the house. But the boys just eat a lot. The original poster is seeking advice about how to help her sons control their weight while not causing "some disordered eating craziness". Most of those responding feel that the original poster is already doing most of the right things. Therefore, several posters suggest that this might be a phase in which the boys are "growing out" instead of "growing up", meaning that they have gained weight quicker than they have gained height and that this will likely change when the boys hit spurts of growth in height. Posters also question whether any family members, even extended ones, have larger body types which could mean that the boys' weight is simply genetic. The original poster does have a brother who went through a chubby phase and has a larger build then she does. Anything involving weight is of course controversial on DCUM. One reason for this is that many posters have very strong opinions which conflict with the equally strong opinions of other posters. One common division involves limiting eating as a means to control weight. For some posters, the sole answer to every question about how to lose weight is "eat less". No surprise then that several posters immediately began advising the original poster to limit her sons' eating. The original poster has cut back snacks based on advice from the kids' pediatrician. However, other posters argue almost the exact opposite. They suggest providing more, but different, types of snacks and food. They contend that if the boys are hungry, they will eat more when the opportunity presents itself. They suggest that a better strategy is to provide healthy snacks, especially those high in protein, more frequently so that the boys don't feel starved when they sit down for a meal. Some posters believe that since the original poster seems to have diet and exercise covered, the problem might be hormonal. They suggest that the original poster have blood panels done to see if anything is affecting the boys' metabolism. Some posters argue the boys weight should not be much of a concern if they are active and eating good diets. Being healthy is more important than their weight, these posters suggest.

The most active thread over the weekend was one that was just created yesterday. Titled, "Shooting at Trump’s FL golf course while he was there" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread was created just after reports that there had been a shooting in the vicinity of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. The first news of this shooting came from a report by Trump's communications director who simply said that there had been shooting near Trump but that Trump was safe and unhurt. A New York Post tweet soon circulated saying that the shooting occurred outside Trump's Florida golf course and involved two individuals shooting at each other and was unrelated to Trump. This caused a number of the early posters to suggest that Trump was attempting to milk an unrelated situation to generate sympathy and redirect attention from his anti-immigrant remarks involving Haitians in Springfield, Ohio. However, officials soon held a press conference in which they described what had happened as a planned assassination of Trump. A U.S. secret service agent had discovered an individual hiding in bushes with a rifle aimed toward the golf course at which Trump was golfing and opened fire. An individual had later been arrested and a semi-automatic rifle had been found at the scene. Once the name of the individual arrested was publicized, posters engaged in a desparate contest to determine his political leanings and blame the opposite political party. In the case of the earlier shooting of Trump, the shooter had unclear political leanings and had researched the whereabouts of political figures across the political spectrum. Trump appears to have been nothing more than a target of opportunity with no particular partisan political significance to the shooter. The individual involved in this incident has a similarly confusing political identity, though one that was much more public. The attempted assassin previously tweeted that he had voted for Trump but then become disenchanted with him. He also tweeted support for former Republican presidential candidates Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley. But, reports showed that he is a registered Democrat. The earlier shooter was a registered Republican but posters devoted pages of posts insisting that party registration was meaningless and that, in fact, people register for a party they don't support all the time. However, in this case, posters insisted that party registration was definitive. The individual in the lastest incident clearly is obsessed with Ukraine, having traveled there and attempted to recruit foreign volunteers to fight against Russia. If he has any political motivation to shoot Trump, it is probably related to Ukraine and its conflict with Russia. However, it is most likely that the man who was arrested suffers from mental health issues. As such, it may be difficult to find logic in his actions. Regardless, posters of all political persuasions in this thread seem entirely uninterested in facts other than using them to support their personal political arguments, even if that meant twisting them or ignoring unwanted information. Very few posters are willing to wait to see what the facts reveal but, instead, simply want to score political points. The result is the thread getting bogged down in disputes over meaningless minutiae such as whether liberals or conservatives are more likely to build sheds for the homeless.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Svelte teen girls -- being the ugly duckling in a school of swans" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster says that her daughter just started as a freshman at a new private high school. The family is towards the lower end of the economic spectrum of the school's students, something that is apparent due to the family's older cars and the fact that both parents work. But what really appears to be bothering the original poster's daughter is her weight. Most of the girls in the school, according to the original poster, are uniformly thin and athletic. The original poster's daughter, on the other hand, has a body mass index of 25 and is not interested in sports. The original poster asks for advice about how to encourage her daughter to be more active and eat healthier. I am not sure what to make of this thread because almost immediately the original poster, without mentioning that she was the original poster, posted a message saying that the daughter shouldn't try to complete with the other girls. In another follow-up post, again without identifying herself, the original poster blamed weight gain on "endocrine disruptors" rather than over-eating. Even in posts in which she indicated that she was the original poster, the original poster didn't seen particularly receptive to advice. So this thread may have been a waste of everyone's time. The advice that was offered was mainly to convince her daughter to participate in at least one sport. Some posters suggested that if the girl didn't want to participate in school sports, she might pick up an activity after school such as dance. Other posters questioned whether this school is the right environment for the original poster's daughter. They suggested that the issue is not her daughter's weight, but how she fits in. The original poster had cited a number of issues that might cause fitting in to be difficult beyond weight. As a result, posters had advice concerning how to help her daughter fit in better. Others suggested changing schools. Some posters were suspicious of how the other girls were all remaining so thin, suggesting that it might be attributed to eating disorders, ADHD medicine, or controlling mothers. The topic of weight is always controversial on DCUM, especially when involving children and even more when involving girls. As such, posters had strong disagreements about what to do about the girl's weight. Some argued that she was not overweight and, therefore, this didn't need to be addressed. Others, as is common, attributed weight gain purely to eating and suggested that the original poster's daughter should simply eat less. Other posters had complex theories about diet and what should or shouldn't be eaten. Some posters strongly urged the original poster to do all that she can to avoid having her daughter becoming obsessed with her image, her size, or her eating. Instead they suggested keeping her busy with various activities and off the Internet.

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.