DCUM Weblog

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Bill Maher explains the Middle East to Gen Z: Can anyone really dispute the facts?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a segment of "Real Time with Bill Maher" in which Maher directly addressed singer Chappell Roan, and by extension the entire Gen-Z, and provided what Maher and the original poster apparently believe to be an accurate history lesson about the Israel-Palestine conflict. According to both Maher and the original poster, Gen-Z is wildly uninformed about Israel due to relying on TikTok for information. The original poster finds Maher's version of history to be indisputable. I was an active participant in this thread and found several fundamental errors in Maher's version of history. One issue is less about historical fact and more about interpretations. Maher argues that Israeli Jews cannot be colonizers because Jews have a historic connection to the land of Israel. This ignores that the Jews who created Israel largely came from Europe which had been their home for hundreds, if not thousands of years. There is a legitimate debate over what rights are really construed by such a tenuous connection, especially when Palestinians with much more recent claims on the land are denied any similar rights. Maher also claimed that for 2,000 years, nobody was interested in the land that is today's Israel. This is so fundamentally wrong that it really undermines everything else Maher has to say. Multiple crusades were fought over the land. That hardly signifies a lack of interest. Moreover, Maher erases the thriving Palestinian cities, towns, and villages that existed there for hundreds of years. Maher implied that Zionism was a reaction to the Holocaust and Jews didn't begin migrating to today's Israel until after World War II. Factually, Zionism had its roots in the late 1800s and Jews were emigrating as early as 1882, the time of the First Aliyah. Maher also suggested that anyone opposed to Israel's killing of Palestinian civilians is a supporter of Hamas or Hezbollah. This is a logical fallacy often employed to delegitimize critics of Israel's policies. The irony of Maher's version of history and the original poster's praise for it is that Maher's rendition is more fundamentally flawed that any TikTok video could hope to be. Maher is really in no position to be criticizing anyone else's knowledge given his own apparent ignorance. As several posters pointed out, those like Maher and the original poster criticize young folks for allegedly relying on biased sources of information but Maher and the original poster also have generally only been exposed to equally biased sources. In the Middle East, history is more often used to obscure facts than to clarify them. When people say that the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is complicated, they generally mean that they are confused by history. But history really has little meaning to the current conflict. Jews and Arabs have not been fighting for thousands of years as many would have it. Instead, the conflict is relatively new and quite simple. Two different groups want to live on the same land. It is really not any more complicated than that. Maher's resort to distorted history is really an acknowledgement that Gen-Z is closer to the truth than he would like.

While many of the most active threads yesterday were ones about which I have already written, that was not the case with the most active thread overall. That thread was titled, "Are you offended when someone says they ‘didnt [sic] want someone else to raise my kids’?" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster asked if the expression, "I didn't want someone else to raise my kids" is an appropriate response to questions about why one spouse chose to not to work out of the house or to work part time. This is a classic "work out of the house moms" vs "stay at home moms" debate. DCUM doesn't have these arguments as much as we used to, but — as this thread shows — they have not gone away completely. The fact that this thread generated 30 pages of discussion in just one day shows that this topic can still animate posters. After 20 years of reading variations of this dispute, I really have no interest in reading 30 pages, or even 3 pages about it. The fundamentals of the argument are well known. Some moms want to stay home and raise their children and they have the luxury of being able to make that choice. For these moms, being a stay at home mom is fulfilling and they enjoy it. If they are asked why they made that choice, responding by saying that this was something they wanted to do would be perfectly honest. I am not sure why anyone would object to such a response, but I expect that someone would anyway. Problems arise, however, if the responses is phrased some what differently. For instance, if they say that they wanted to be the one to raise their children or that they didn't want someone else to raise their children, it implies some amount of judgement that women who didn't make that choice didn't raise their children. Women who didn't stay home often find this implication rude or insensitive. Predictably, therefore, many posters respond to the original poster by saying that they are not necessarily offended by this expression, but that they do find it inappropriate. Moreover, these posters often go a step further and explain that they believe saying such a thing is revealing about the person who said it. For instance, it might indicate that the person has a myopic view of things or might be trying too hard to justify her own choice. A number of posters who did not stay home argue that they still raised their kids. While a nanny or daycare might have cared for their children for a few hours a day, the most important parenting decisions and involvement still came from the parents. The other side of this coin is the negativity with which work-out-of-the-house moms often view stay-at-home-moms. Remarks about staying at home not being intellectually rewarding or wasting an education or career are not uncommon and are often hurtful to moms who stay home. As a poster on the first page pointed out, the tables are turned in this debate once elementary school starts. Nobody accuses moms of having someone else raise their children when the kids are going to school. However, criticism of moms who continue to stay home can rapidly increase with suggestions that they are sitting home doing nothing while their kids are in school. The bottom line is that neither group likes to have its choice criticized. The more that everyone can learn to respect the choices of others and understand that people are different and have different priorities, the sooner we can get past threads like this. Mothers, and fathers, may take different paths, but they almost all have the same goal and are doing their best.

The trend that I have mentioned every day this week in which many of the most active threads are older threads that I've already discussed not only continued yesterday, but actually became more pronounced. Fully eight of the top 10 most active threads were ones about which I've already written. As a result, the first thread that I will discuss today was actually yesterday's seventh most active. Titled, "I’m so sick of dogs everywhere" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, the original poster describes two recent incidents in which she was in public places and encountered pet dogs. One was a restaurant with patio seating where another customer's dog kept lunging at another dog and brushing against the original poster's husband's leg. The other encounter was with two dogs in a grocery store. The original poster wants to know why some people feel the need to bring their dogs with them everywhere. The first thing I did when I saw this thread today was move it to the "Pets" forum. So that is where you will find it now. Debates over where dogs do and do not belong are pretty legendary on DCUM and, as such, I expected this thread get heated. What I was not prepared for was exactly the way in which it got heated. If someone wanted to satirize a DCUM thread, this thread is a good example of how it might turn out. The first poster to respond berated the original poster, not because she was not tolerant of dogs, but because she had been too passive in response to her encounters. The poster was angry that the original poster didn't complain to the manager of the restaurant and didn't contact the Health Department about the dogs in the grocery store. When another poster told a cute story about a dog on a high speed train in France, another poster accused her of liking dogs more than people. But that poster was silent when a poster complained that some restaurants are more hospitable to dogs than children and was told that is because kids are worse than dogs. Other posters agreed with that last poster and expressed happiness that dogs are more welcome than children in some places. As in most things, opinions on this topic exist on a spectrum. Yet it is the extreme opinions that get the most attention, which, of course, is not unusual. Those extreme positions, in turn, caused extreme reactions. In response to anti-dog posts, some dog owners promised to begin bringing their dogs to public places more often. In response to intransigent dog owners, other posters say they will begin complaining to management and other authorities more frequently. For much of the thread I wondered why those who bring their dogs everywhere didn't provide explanations for that behavior. But then explanations were provided and I almost felt that made things worse. For instance, some posters bring their dogs inside stores and restaurants because they are afraid that if they tied them up outside they would be stolen. Maybe not an unreasonable fear, but why bring the dog in the first place then? The answer in one case was because the dog is uncomfortable when left at home alone.

Once again several of the most active threads yesterday were threads that I've already discussed and will skip today. As a result, just as was the case over the past two days, I am starting with what was actually yesterday's fourth most active thread. That thread was titled, "HoCo dresses- Could they be any shorter" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. At first I assumed that residents of Howard County have been wearing especially short dresses for some reason. Later I deduced that the thread's title actually referred to homecoming dresses. I am used to DCUM's annual tradition of bashing girls' high school prom fashion choices, but I guess that this is now going to be a twice a year event. The original poster writes that the dresses "literally couldn't be any shorter or tighter". But that was said last year and will be said again next year. Therefore, I can comfortably predict that they can, in fact, get shorter and tighter. I find this sort of thread to be especially tedious. There is no better way to make yourself sound old and out of touch than by complaining about what "the kids today" are wearing. Making some old foggy clutch her pearls is basically a rite of passage for high school kids. As one poster wrote, "It is the God-given duty of teenagers to wear/do/say things that are shocking to their elders. I’m sure the prehistoric cave parents stood around and clucked about the appalling trends in mastodon skins." There is rarely anything new in these threads. This one, just as all the others before it, has posters who agree with the original poster that nobody should be allowed out of the house dressed in such a manner. Others tell the original poster to mind her own business. Still others defend the dress choices. Some posters cloak their disapproval in notions of practicality, arguing that the dresses are uncomfortable and make bending over difficult. Others suggest that regardless of the propriety of wearing such clothing, many of the girls don't have the body type necessary for the dresses. A number of posters complained about being "forced" to look at girls' private parts. In response, a poster says, "I have no idea what those posters talking about private parts are on about. They sound like internet perverts." A popular tactic was to compare the attire to that worn by prostitutes. This seems to especially raise the hackles of those supportive of the girls. Parents of girls who dress in such styles argue that this is not a battle worth fighting and question why others care about it so much. One poster asks, "why do the choices of unrelated teen girls get people so furious?" Another issue that posters bring up is that only girls' clothing is policed in such a manner while the boys are ignored. This is excused by a poster who suggests that it is because boys aren't the ones showing up "mostly naked". Some of the anti-short-dress crowd suggest that girls dress in such a manner because they lack self-esteem. In response, some posters who support allowing girls to dress however they want suggest that it is actually those posters who are offended by the dresses who have issues. As one poster responded to them, "You also have serious hang ups with sexuality. Yours and, weirdly, other peoples. And you’re beyond strange [because] of it".

A year ago on October 8 I wrote about the Hamas attack on Israel that had occurred the previous day. When I was writing, the full scale of the horror that Hamas had visited upon Israel was not yet known. Had I written that post a week later, I probably would have taken a different approach. In particular, I would have paid more attention to the brutality of the attack and the murder of many innocent and undeserving Israelis. In addition, I probably wasn't clear enough that I hold Hamas solely responsible for the attack. However, Hamas didn't act in a vacuum and what I was writing about were the conditions that made the Hamas attack possible. That continues to be an interest of mine. Re-reading the post today, I continue to feel that its analysis was solid. More importantly, I think the the main point of my writing — that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, due to personal interests, was responsible for creating an opening that Hamas exploited — remains true today. Netanyahu was pursuing a personal agenda that led to a national disaster. Netanyahu's motivation has not changed, which explains his willingness to sacrifice the remaining hostages held by Hamas and to expand Israel's wars rather than seeking a ceasefire.

Yesterday was another day in which many of the most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. I've mentioned this before, but a fairly new phenomenon on DCUM is that older threads frequently stay active for a long time. As a result, threads show up repeatedly on the most active list. Just as was the case with yesterday's post, the top three most active threads yesterday were ones about which I've already written. As a result, I will start today with the fourth most active thread. That thread was titled, "Ton of sit down interviews this week for Harris", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As the original poster of the thread notes, there have been weeks of hang-wringing by posters concerned that Vice President Kamala Harris has not been doing one-on-one media appearances. A cottage industry has developed to either criticize Harris as being unable to speak in unscripted situations or defend her reluctance to spend time with the press. This week, however, Harris has scheduled a number of one-on-one interviews with a variety of media outlets. Of course, her detractors are still not satisfied. They seem to believe that only an appearance on Fox News or maybe even Newsmax would be convincing. While one of Harris' appearances was on CBS's "60 Minutes", a traditional interview for presidential candidates, most of her schedule consisted of non-traditional media. For instance, one of the first was an appearance on the "Call Her Daddy" podcast. I confess that I had previously not heard of this podcast, despite being a podcast enthusiast. But the show is apparently the most-listened-to podcast among women and the second-most-listened-to podcast overall. So Harris' media advisors seem to have known what they were doing. By all appearances, many of Harris' critics were also unfamiliar with the podcast because they had to quickly Google for information with which to bash her. Other planned appearances for Harris included "The View", "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert", and "The Howard Stern Show". Harris will also do a Univision town hall. Harris detractors complained that these are "lovefests" in which no hard-hitting questions will be asked. They want Harris to be grilled on her past relationship with Willy Brown and her husband's past relationships. Harris and her campaign are not interested in playing the conservatives' games and serious reporters would ignore those topics in any case due to their irrelevance to the presidency. Instead, as many posters noted, the wisdom of Harris' media strategy is that she is using platforms that allow her to delve into topics and discuss nuances rather than being focused on talking points and soundbites. More importantly, she is reaching voters who generally ignore the traditional media. The vast majority of those tuning into MSNBC or Fox News have long ago made up their minds about for whom they will vote in this election. The non-traditional outlets allow Harris to talk directly to those who rarely vote, who may not pay attention to politics, and who may still be persuaded to support Harris. In addition, the longer formats and specialized interests of these shows allows Harris to delve into issues that traditional media — often focused on the horse race and conventional topics — tends to ignore.

The three most active threads over the weekend were ones that I've previously discussed. Therefore, I am starting with the thread that was fourth most active over the weekend. That thread was titled, "UVA info session today said ‘most rigorous in ALL 5 core subjects.’" and was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster apparently attended an information session for the University of Virginia. During the session, the UVA representative stated that admissions officers expect applicants to have taken the "most rigorous" classes in all 5 core subjects. The original poster asked whether this meant advanced placement classes or dual enrollment classes in all core subjects including world language and was answered in the affirmative. When the original poster tried to further pin the representative down on the meaning of "most rigorous", the representative explained that Common App has a box that an applicant's high school counselor checks to indicate that the student took the high school's most rigorous classes. The original poster concluded by complaining that the UVA representative would not give direct answers and, instead, kept emphasizing the "holistic" nature of of how applications are reviewed. As described by the original poster, the UVA representative's answers seem contradictory. On the one hand, either APs or DEs are required. On the other, only the counselor's certification that the student had taken the "most rigorous" classes was needed. I assumed that this was the root of the original poster's frustration. In a follow-up post, the original poster said that she had asked whether it would be looked down upon if an applicant had not taken an AP foreign language class and was told that it would be, but that the applicant could try to explain this choice. Further posts by the original poster suggested that her child did not want to take an AP foreign language class but didn't want to be eliminated from consideration by UVA as a result. I saw this as a bit ironic given the original poster's complaint about holistic admissions because a holistic review would allow for the absence of an AP foreign language class to be explained and perhaps excused. But I think it was the lack of certainty that bothered the original poster. Unfortunately for the original poster, and many others who have kids applying to UVA, uncertainty is part of the process. Given the competitiveness of UVA's admissions, many qualified students are going to be disappointed. The original poster doesn't get a lot of sympathy from those responding. There is some debate about whether a foreign language should be a requirement and why playing a musical instrument is not considered equally important. But, for the most part, posters don't think the "most rigorous" requirement is inappropriate. To the contrary, they think that it should be expected. Many posters are not particularly put off by the "holistic" admissions policy either. As one poster says, "And it seems to work. Rankings are high. Demand is high. Graduates are very accomplished."

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "It's official: Gen Z are not delaying marriage til 30s anymore, young weddings are cool again" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster embedded several photos of the wedding of actress Millie Bobby Brown and singer Bon Jovi's son (who the original poster didn't bother to name and I don't care enough to look up). The original poster also mentioned the recent marriage of Sofia Richie, the daughter of singer Lionel Richie. Brown is 22 years old and Richie was 24 when she married. The original poster asserts that this is evidence that "Gen Z" is now getting married in their 20s rather than waiting until their 30s. This thread is 24 pages long and I simply don't have the interest to read much of it. But, from what I can tell by a brief look, the original post basically set the tone. Most of the discusion is based on anecdotes and focused on celebrities. There has been a proliferation of threads on topics similar to this, often similarly discussing celebrities. The heavy inclusion of glamorous wedding photos suggests that the original poster's interest may be driven by fascination rather than a sociological interest in current trends. Other posters respond to say that they have also noticed more people marrying at a younger age recently. Posters have a number of theories for what might be driving this trend, if it is indeed a trend. A number of posters attribute it to social media, a medium which prizes the imagery that weddings produce. "These kids just want to have nice photos to share on social media," says one poster. Some posters suggest that couples have tended to wait until they have stable jobs and can afford a house before getting married. Today, however, few jobs are stable and houses are unaffordable for many. Therefore, young people are seeing waiting as futile and choosing to marry without stable jobs or hope of buying a home. Conversely, however, several posters say that in their experience the young couples getting married are from wealthy or upper middle class families. This is exactly the group that is likely to have stable employment and the finances to purchase a house. So perhaps things haven't actually changed much. The same posters say that they don't see many poor or lower middle class individuals marrying young. Other posters dispute whether marrying young is even a trend. Instead, they argue that the real trend these days is not to marry at all. I have written about several threads discussing women choosing not to get married or marrying later in life. Many of these women are not waiting for marriage to have babies and have fulfilling lives as single mothers. Other posters argue that posters pushing for younger marriages are fans of the "tradwife" movement, a largely social-media driven movement that encourages traditional gender roles. What this thread appears to be missing, though it may be there and I missed it, is actual data. Certainly there must be statistics regarding the age of those getting married. Such data would certainly be more useful than anecdotes involving a handful of wealthy celebrities.

The most active thread yesterday was the vice presidential debate thread that I discussed yesterday and will skip today. After that was a thread titled, "the Atlantic: The Elite College Students Who Can't Read Books", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article in "The Atlantic" and provided a brief summary of the article's main points. According to the article, students are showing up at elite colleges such as Columbia University unable to read an entire book. The reason for this is that they were never assigned complete books in their previous schooling. Rather, they have only read excerpts previously. As a result, professors have been forced to water down the curriculum. In response, several posters discuss their children's experience in high school, detailing the number of books that they were required to read. In most cases, the number was quite small, frequently only one or two through their entire high school experience. Posters offer a number of explanations for this situation. One theory is that students who are selected by elite universities such as Columbia are singularly focused on checking boxes needed for college applications. If there is not a box saying "read an entire book", then they don't devote time to doing that. Others blame the spread of technologies such as mobile phones and social media that encourage shorter attention spans and distract students from reading for long stretches. Some posters argue that schools have traditionally assigned books that students find boring and that if more interesting books were chosen, there would be more interest in reading them. A poster who graduated from Columbia pointed out that Columbia's curriculum is particularly heavy in reading and, even when the poster attended decades ago, it involved way more reading than to what she was accustomed. A lot of the traditional forum arguments came up in this thread. Private school parents told of huge numbers of books their kids were expected to read, citing that as an advantage of private over public schools. Some posters blamed test optional admissions, a topic with which some posters are obsessed and blame for almost every problem with colleges today. Of course, grade inflation was also blamed. Several posters argue that this is a parenting issue and that parents should be ensuring that their kids read books. In response, several posters recount struggles they've had trying to get their children to read more. A number of posters suggested that the inability of today's kids to read entire books is due to the easily accessible alternatives they have to fake reading in order to pass an assignment such as Internet summaries. However, others pointed out that while the specifics might be new, the idea is not. Older generations might not have had Internet summaries, but they had Cliff's Notes.

The most active thread yesterday was, predictably, the thread titled, "Walz vs. Vance: VP Debate Oct 1 2024". Posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread is obviously about last night's vice presidential debate between Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Ohio Senator J. D. Vance. The thread is currently 84 pages long and well outside my ability to summarize. Therefore, I'll just give my own reaction to the debate which reflects many of the comments in the thread. The debate was between two very different candidates. On one side was Walz, folksy, rough-edged, earnest, and generally unwilling to offend. On the other was Vance, who was polished and mostly inoffensive, but dramatically transformed from the figure who has been on the campaign trail. Throughout the campaign Vance has mostly acted like little more than a Twitter troll, fixated on childless cat ladies and Haitians eating pets. In the debate, however, Vance did his best to appear reasonable, if not downright moderate. He did this mostly through obfuscation, deftly shifting the discussion to topics more advantageous to him and a lack of inhibition to lying. For instance, on the question of abortion, Vance almost appeared to be pro-choice, mentioning a friend who had an abortion. But he never really clarified his current position on abortion, only saying that Republicans need to earn trust from the public on the topic and stressing his support for families. He outright lied about his previous positions regarding abortion. The Vance who showed up at the debate is so different from the Vance who has been campaigning, that the public could rightly ask which is the real Vance? This is where I think Walz errored. Generally, vice presidential debates have little impact on the election and I believe Walz, realizing that he was up against a practiced and skilled debater, was simply playing for a draw and hoping for an evening that would be mostly forgettable. Still, I think Walz missed the opportunity to remind the public that the moderate-sounding Vance has another side. When discussion of Springfield came up, Walz passed on the opportunity to explicitly mention Vance's lies about Haitians eating pet cats and dogs. Walze let Vance get away with repeatedly praising the economy during the administration of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. He could easily have reminded the public that during the Trump administration, Americans struggled to obtain toilet paper. Walz never brought up Vance's fixation on childless cat ladies or challenged Vance's denigration of women who haven't given birth to children. On the discussion of the bipartisan immigration bill that Trump tanked, Walz should have pointed out that Vance himself voted against the bill. Instead, Walz mostly tolerated Vance's technique of ignoring tough questions and pivoting to lies that sounded reasonable. Vance personifies the expression that "if you act like you know what you are talking about, most people will think that you do". His strength is saying something that sounds like it says exactly the opposite of what it really means. But he says it confidently and without shame. Vance lied about Trump going along with a peaceful transfer of power. That is true only in that Trump did this after his attempted insurrection failed. Vance lied by claiming that Trump saved Obamacare when, in reality, Trump spent his entire administration attempting to get rid of Obamacare and would have succeeded were it not for the late Senator John McCain. Vance even lied about solar panels from China. One frequent pivot by Vance was to bring up alleged censorship by big technology companies. Nevermind that X, formerly Twitter, is owned by a Trump supporter and right-wing troll, Vance himself is currently being protected by both Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg who are censoring a leaked Trump campaign background document about Vance. Walz' best moment came near the end of the debate when he attempted to pin down Vance about whether Trump had lost the 2020 election. Vance ignored the question and, as was his tendency all night, tried to change the subject. Then Walz pointed out that there is a reason that former Vice President Mike Pence was not on the stage, reminding viewers of the chants to "Hang Mike Pence".