DCUM Weblog

The most active thread over the weekend probably comes as no surprise. Titled, "Joe is out", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, this thread was created minutes after President Joe Biden posted a letter on X (formerly known as Twitter) announcing that he would stand down as a candidate for President. The thread has already reached 133 pages, making it among the fastest-growing threads in DCUM history. Because Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris within minutes of announcing that he would no longer run for President, most of the thread is about Harris rather than Biden. With regard to Biden, posters mostly praised him for putting the interests of the country above his personal interests. For the most part, posters had only good things to say about Biden's record as President. There were a number of complaints that Biden was being pushed out in an anti-Democratic manner. This concern extended to Harris' likely selection as Biden's replacement. I think that this is a situation in which two things are both simultaneously true. Clearly there was a group of wealthy donors whose interest in removing Biden from the top of the ticket was in good faith. Several of these individuals have their own agendas and the best interests of the Democratic Party and not necessarily part of those. The New York Times also played a particularly active role that often went well beyond it's mission as a provider of news. On the other hand, polling data, along with simple anecdotal evidence, shows that there has been significant grassroots support for replacing Biden. Democratic Members of Congress have reported strong constituent pressure to find an alternative to Biden. As such, I don't think Biden stepping down can accurately be described as solely the work of the rich and powerful or as only the result of an upswell of grassroots activity. It is a combination of both. With regard to Harris, the primary function of a vice president is to serve in the case that the President is unable. In this case, Biden appears to be unable to continue the campaign and, hence, the Vice President should rightfully step in. Those who voted for Biden in the primary elections were voting for a ticket that included Harris. As such, it can be argued that voters have cast ballots for her. The reaction to Harris, of course, included both support and opposition. I want to focus on the opposition because it is likely indicative of what we will see in the future from Harris' opponents. While a few posters based their opposition on policy grounds such as Harris' performance on border issues, it was much more common for criticism to be based on sexism and racism. I think that it is undeniable that the next several months will be filled with sexist and racist attacks on Harris. In terms of sexism, the most common attacks were lewd, often explicit sexual references. There is a sizable contingent of — I assume men — who cannot stop themselves from sexualizing women. The same posters who excuse former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's sexual escapades with a porn star while his wife was home caring for their newborn child are quick to condemn a relationship that a young Kamala Harris had with Willie Brown. "Slut shaming" will clearly be a mainstay of conservative opposition to Harris. Racism in the thread was demonstrated most often by claims that Harris is a "DEI" candidate and with questions regarding her legitimacy as a candidate due to the fact that her parents were immigrants. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion has become one of the lastest conservative bugaboos, apparently replacing "CRT" in the conservative lexicon of evils. Obviously, Harris' race and gender played a role in her selection because Biden promised to selected a Black woman. But Harris was, and is, a qualified Black woman. Indeed, at the time she was chosen by Biden, her qualifications were far stronger than those of the current Republican nominee for Vice President. Given that being a White male was almost certainly a requirement of his selection, J. D. Vance is as much of a DEI candidate as Harris. Attacks on citizenship only seem to be made against people of color. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, for instance, was born in Canada, yet his eligibility for president is not questioned. Some posters seem to fear that sexist and racist attacks on Harris are a reason to choose someone else. That rewards misogynists and racists. It is better to simply prepare for such attacks and defeat them as they arise.

The most active thread yesterday was the one about the Republican National Convention which I've already discussed and will, therefore, skip today. After that was a thread titled, "NYT and WaPo report Biden is close to stepping down" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster overstated things in the thread's title. The two articles to which he linked were not as definitive. One, in the Washington Post, said that U.S. House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi had told members of the House that President Joe Biden can be persuaded fairly soon to leave the presidential race. The second, in the New York Times, reported that people close to Biden have said that he has begun to accept the idea that he may have to drop out. There have been multiple reports that Pelosi is now leading the effort to convince Biden that he cannot win the election and that he should leave the race. My assumption is that leaks that lead to articles such as these are part of the process. Going public with expectations that Biden will soon agree to drop out is probably aimed at creating an air of inevitability that will lead to a self-fulfilling prophesy. This effort has been mishandled from the beginning. In the aftermath of Biden's disappointing debate performance, Democrats were really faced with two choices: 1) accept that Biden had had a bad night but rally around him nevertheless; or 2) launch a full-court press to replace Biden. But Democrats split between the two option and some chose a third alternative of simply giving up altogether. What resulted was a continual trickle of Biden opponents calling for him to withdraw and, as I described it before, subjecting Biden to a death of a thousand cuts. That many of the first to publicly call for replacing Biden were wealthy and elite only made matters worse. Those statements got publicity, but only made Biden and his supporters even more determined to resist. This soon developed into a worst-case scenario for Democrats who face going into their convention completely divided. Pelosi, the adult in the room if you will, apparently decided it was time to step in. It may have been true the day after the debate that Biden still had a chance to defeat former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. The argument can be made that those calling for him to be replaced jumped the gun. Regardless, I am fairly confident that Biden has been so seriously wounded by the ongoing public efforts to convince him to step down that whatever chances he may have once had have evaporated. Regardless of whether those initially in favor of replacing Biden were prescient or have simply created enough damage to make their desire inevitable, we are at the point where a continued Biden candidacy is untenable. As the posts in this thread demonstrate, there is considerable frustration that we have arrived at this point and quite a few posters are clearly not pleased. Others, however reluctantly, accept that it is time for Biden to step down. Others are happy and predict that this will give the Democrats their best chance of defeating Trump. If the Band Aid could not have been pulled off quickly in the first place, let's hope that the process will not be drawn out very much longer.

Yesterday was another day in which politics dominated the most active topics. In fact, eight of the top ten most active threads were political. One of the two exceptions, however, was actually the most active thread of the day. That thread, titled, "Dad leaves toddler to die in hot car while he plays games on Play Station", was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster linked to an article about an Arizona man who was charged with murder after leaving his 2-year-old daughter in the car. After several hours in the hot Arizona sun, the child died. The father apparently had a habit of leaving his kids — he has three including the child that passed away — in the car. While he would leave the air conditioning running, it would stop after 30 minutes and he routinely got distracted and forgot about them. In this instance he is alleged to have been playing video games and putting away groceries. The original poster is critical of the father due to his irresponsibility, but also blames his wife who was aware that he frequently left the kids in the car but still allowed him to care for them. The original poster believes the mother had a duty to make alternative arrangements due to her husband's negligence. I'm a bit surprised that this thread — which is currently 22 pages long — has received so much engagement. Of course everyone is appalled by the father's behavior. Several posters say that they are generally sympathetic towards parents whose children die after being inadvertently left in the car. But they consider this instance to be different because the father purposely left the child behind and neglected her for so many hours. There is some difference of opinion about the mother's culpability. Many posters agree with the original poster that she should also be charged. A number of posters say that women like the mother in this incident who have irresponsible husbands are in a no-win situation. If the couple divorced, the father would likely have at least part time custody and the kids would be in even more danger of his neglect. Staying together allowed her to have more responsibility for the children, but she appears to be the family bread winner and, therefore, needs to work. As such, the mother was left with no good choices. However, because the mother has strongly defended her husband in court, several posters are unsympathetic to her and more willing to see her punished. A lot of the discussion in this thread approaches the story as if it were a soap opera. Posters dig into court documents to learn that the father has children with a previous wife and has apparently stopped paying child support. They speculate that he is a "stay at home dad" only for purposes of avoiding child support payments. Posters explore the couple's lifestyle, determining that they appear to have plenty of money. Other posters discuss how technology might help to prevent children from being left in cars. But others argue that since in this case the child was left intentionally, such systems would have been overriden.

The first thread that I will discuss today was actually the fourth most popular because the three more active than it are ones that I've already discussed. The thread was titled, "Official RNC convention thread" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread started with the original poster noting that among the first night's speakers at the Republican National Convention was Amber Rose, an OnlyFans creator. The original poster finished by sarcastically saying that she can't wait to see what else is in store. The second post of the thread complained about the presence of Dana White, CEO and President of Ultimate Fighting Championship, who in 2022 was filmed hitting his wife after she slapped him. This led to jibes about a stripper and a wife beater starting off the conference. More seriously, it provoked one poster to launch a strident defense of White and claiming that he had the right ot hit his wife because it was self-defense. What has occurred since then is basically a running commentary about the various speakers. Democrats generally pan them while Republicans praise them. This thread also demonstrated the speech restrictions that Republicans are hoping to assert over Democrats. When a poster embedded a video showing several trucks apparently deployed by Democrats that had the message "Dictator Day One" on their sides, Republicans criticized Democrats for "having no shame". Apparently the message, which directly quotes former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, is considered unacceptable in the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Trump. Meanwhile, within in the convention hall, Republican speakers were free to be as inflammatory toward Democrats as they wished. One speaker who the was subject of considerable discussion was Sean O’Brien, President of the Teamsters union. O'Brien had asked to be speak at both party conventions and has been granted the opportunity. Speaking at the RNC, O'Brien did not endorse Trump and he made a number of statements that were very much out of place in a gathering of Republicans. Within the thread, his speech was quite divisive. Republicans interpreted it as shift by labor towards Republicans. Democrats, generally seeing it similarly, saw O'Brien as betraying the Democrats who had supported his union. O'Brien's presence highlighted a reality of the Republican party that is often ignored. The Party's agenda clearly favors the wealthy, promising tax cuts to corporations, reduced regulations, and — despite the invitation to O'Brien — opposition to labor unions. But the voters to whom Trump and, even more so his pick for Vice President J. D. Vance, attempt to appeal are the working class. Whether O'Brien's speech will cause workers to wrongly believe that the the Republican Party is friendly to their interests or, instead, highlight the fact that Republicans represent owners and management rather than labor, will be interesting to see.

The most active thread yesterday was once again the thread about the attempted assassination of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. But I'll skip that thread today because I have already discussed it. After that was a thread that was also Trump-related. Titled, "Official Trump VP thread", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread was created back in January to discuss potential candidates to be Trump's vice president. The original poster provided a list of frontrunners for the position and third on that list was J. D. Vance, the junior Senator from Ohio. Yesterday Trump announced that he had picked Vance to be the Republican candidate for Vice President. Nearly 40 pages were added to the thread after that, consisting of sometimes heated back and forth about Vance. Vance first gained public stature due to his book, "Hillbilly Elegy". When the book was first published, my Twitter feed was filled with praise making it sound like one of the most enlightening analysis of recent times. When I read it myself, I found the book to be severely lacking and was confused that so many who I believed to be more knowledgeable than me were impressed by it. I wrote a very cautious review of the book on DCUM in which I outlined some of my criticisms. Now, years later, I believe that I was correct in my judgement and that I was far too tempered in my review. My criticism, in short, is that Vance took an ideological framework and fit the facts of his life — sometimes with a bit of artistic license — into it. In other words, he made the facts fit his conclusion rather than the other way around. In doing so, he put far too much blame on individuals while ignoring the external influences that impact their lives. I think that it is somewhat ironic that Vance's thesis in the book, that hillbillies suffer because they make poor choices, is at odds with the MAGA ethos that the plight of the White working class is caused by immigrants, coastal elites, the government, and "globalization", or almost exactly the opposite of Vance's earlier position. To the extent that Vance may have values and beliefs, they are far from rock solid and extremely flexible. Also of concern with Vance is his relationship with billionaire Peter Thiel. Thiel contributed $15 million to Vance's Ohio senate campaign, a record contribution at the time. Thiel has been unabashed about his political leanings, once writing that "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." Vance appears to be quite sympathetic to this viewpoint and is an admirer of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Russian President Vladimir Putin, both of whom represent this "freedom through dictatorship" style of governing. Vance appears to be primarily focused on self-promotion and willing to contort himself as necessary for personal advancement. Having once suggested that Trump might be an "American Hitler", it is really no surprise that Vance would seize the opportunity to serve as Trump's vice president. Vance's ambition is such that advice I read saying that, if Trump wins the presidency, Vance should not be allowed to have sharp instruments in Trump's vicinity is not much of an exaggeration.

The most active thread over the weekend will probably come as no surprise to anyone. Titled, "Shots fired at Trump rally", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, this thread reached nearly 200 pages and well over 2600 posts since the attempted assassination of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump on Saturday evening. The first few pages were devoted to simply posting details — a few of them vaguely correct — about what had happened. But soon the thread devolved to little more than finger-pointing. Trump supporters in the thread were sure that the shooter was a liberal motivated by Democratic rhetoric. Their posts were filled with anger with many insinuating that any DCUMer who didn't share their rage was essentially personally responsible for the attempt on Trump's life. For their part, many of the liberals insisted that Trump's own often violent words that consistently inflamed his supporters had come home to roost. When the the shooter was identified and records showed that at 17 years of age he had made a $15 donation to a progressive organization and then, months later, had registered as a Republican, both sides were given ammunition to claim he belonged to the other side. The debate about this was interminable with posters intent on making the most of his party affiliation and others determined that no mention of his registration would go unanswered. The responses pointing out the shooter's $15 contribution were often accompanied by a graphic that was posted so many times that I fear it may be permanently burned into my retinas. A similar never-ending dispute was over whether Trump had been wounded by a bullet or fragments of glass. It is not clear to me why this is even an important distinction, let alone one worth arguing about for two days. Trump-supporting posters kept returning to their allegation that the shooter had been inspired by accusations and claims made by Democrats, including President Joe Biden. It is interesting that a party that once rallied around a profane statement concerning what liberals should do with their feelings has transformed into a fragile collection of snowflakes. Calling Trump a threat to democracy had put his life in danger, posters claimed. While Trump often promotes violence from the stage of his rallies, MAGA posters had to dig deep to find words with which to implicate Biden. The best that they could do was a statement that Biden had made privately during a phone conversation with party financial donors. He said that he was done talking about the debate that that Trump should be put in the bullseye. He then went on to discuss Trump policies that he planned to criticize more forcefully. The context of this clearly has nothing to do with violence, but that didn't stop Trump supporters who interpreted this as a direct order to shoot Trump. The shooting has created an uneven balance in the rhetoric battle. Trump's MAGA cult, built on resentment and anger, will hardly be satisfied with a new humbled and emphatic Trump who is interested in lowering the temperature and creating unity — if such a thing were even a possibility. Therefore, Trump's inflammatory words will likely continue. Democrats, on the other hand, have been brow-beaten to the point where they will have to be practically apologetic with any criticism of Trump. As one poster in the thread asked, "what if you think that Trump is a threat to democracy?". MAGAs have never considered that to be legitimate criticism and now they claim that it is a provocation to murder. Therefore, while the violent rhetoric that is common among Trump and his supporters will likely continue, Democrats will only be allowed to respond with expressions of respect and desires of unity with Trump.

Yesterday's most active threads were again dominated by political topics which filled three of the top four places. The first of those was titled, "Biden’s ‘Big Boy’ press conference" and, obviously, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster started this thread in anticipation of a press conference that would be held yesterday evening by President Joe Biden following the conclusion of the NATO summit held in Washington, DC. Following Biden's poor performance in the presidential debate with former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, he has been under tremendous pressure to participate in unscripted events that would allow the President to demonstrate his cognitive fitness. This press conference was such an opportunity. For reasons that I cannot begin to understand, the White House itself chose to refer to the event as the "Big Boy Press Conference". As has been the case in all recent Biden public events, this thread immediately started off with conspiracy theories. Posters predicted that Biden would be given the questions in advance, that everything would be rehearsed, and that Biden would be drugged to perform better. These same claims had been made prior to the debate and, obviously, did not turn out to be true. But a track record of being wrong has never stopped these posters. Many posters had very low expectations for Biden, assuming that the debate performance was an accurate indicator of his neurological state. The President did little to convince them otherwise when earlier in the day he introduced Ukrainian President Zelenskyy as "President Putin". Biden started the press conference off strongly with a prepared statement that was obviously read from a teleprompter. But, whatever hopes Biden might have had of changing minds about his fitness were almost immediately shattered when he referred to "Vice President Trump" when he obviously meant Vice President Kamala Harris. Of course posters in the thread immediately jumped on both of these gaffes which almost completely set the tone for the rest of the press conference. It cannot be denied that Biden is no longer a very good communicator. He has a stutter which causes him to speak slowly in order to avoid. His voice is gravely and he has a tendency to stumble over words. But as he showed throughout the rest of the press conference, he has a solid grasp of details of complex topics and can understand and explain the nuances of complicated issues. When it comes to being able to understand and articulate policies, Biden is far more able than Trump. Many posters in the thread recognized this, but others either could not or would not get past the gaffes. These misstatements are unfortunate, but which of us parents has not called our own children by the wrong name on occasion? That doesn't mean that we don't know who our children are or that we are suffering from dementia. But, in Biden's case, it reinforces a concerning perception that he has lost his mental sharpness. Biden's performance was almost the worst cases scenario. Had Biden entered the room unable to remember what day it was and promptly provided a recipe for banana bread in response to a question about his plans for the Middle East, the decision to replace him would have been easy. Alternatively, had he put in an error-free performance that included Obama-level oration skills, he probably would have quelled most of the criticism. However, he did neither. This press conference was neither fish nor fowl. As such, the fight over the Democratic presidential nominee will go on.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. That means that the first thread for today's post was actually the third most active yesterday. That thread was titled, "Do younger teens really do nothing all summer?" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster says that her 14-year-old son thinks the original poster and her spouse are being unfair because they require him to participate as a counselor-in-training at a half day summer camp and volunteer one evening a week. He claims that most of his friends are either doing nothing or only a 2-hour crew activity and, therefore, have more free time than him. The original poster thinks that her son has plenty of free time as it is and he wastes that playing video games. She asks whether what her son says about his friends is really true of most kids. Most of those responding say that their kids are involved in some structured activities. Counselor-in-training positions are popular as is volunteering. Many are involved in some sort of sport and quite a few other posters say that their kids are attending summer camps. A few even have jobs. But some posters prioritize allowing their children to have free time. Just about the only controversy in this thread involves a poster who accused parents who arrange structured activities for their kids of not wanting to parent and not wanting their kids to simply "exist". "Just let them be kids for awhile", she argues. Posters such as this one seem to have an idealized view of childhood in which carefree children spend their summers playing with friends, having their own adventures, and keeping themselves entertained. While there may be a few examples of this sort among the posters' kids, for the most part any free time kids have these days is filled by screens. In contrast to the oft-stated concern that kids spend too much time playing video games, the anti-structured activities poster didn't seem to be concerned about that, saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with playing video games. Moreover, while that poster suggested that parents force their kids into the structured activities, a number of posters argued that their kids want to do those activities and that don't need to be forced. None of the posters expect their kids to be busy every minute of every day for the entire summer. But, they also don't want their kids to be sitting around bored or doing nothing but playing video games all summer. What is clear is that some kids are able to take the initiative to find activities with which to keep themselves busy while others need a bit more engagement from parents.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "pit bull on a plane" and posted in the "Pets" forum. The original poster says that as she was debarking from a regional airplane, she noticed that a pit bull had been in the seat behind her. This caused her to wonder what would happen if the dog had "snapped" in the confines of a small airplane. She asked for advice about what to do if that happened again in the future. This thread was reported a number of times with the accusation that the original poster is a troll. So, let me commment on that first. I can't say whether the poster is a troll or not. What I can say is that she has been creating a large number of threads, mostly on fairly mundane topics. She was also the author of the thread that I discussed yesterday about hiding a trip from a friend. Whether the poster is a troll or just has a knack for provoking engagement I can't say. While I have not read every post in this thread, I am fairly comfortable saying that it is unlikely that the original poster received any useful advice about what to do about a pit bull that suddenly goes bersek in an airplane. The most common reaction was to ask the original poster why she was concerned about a dog that she hadn't even noticed during the flight. In the original poster's defense, she was asking about what to do on future flights, not the one that she had just completed. The second most common reaction was to argue about put bulls. In the pets forum there are two topics that are guaranteed to launch flame wars. The first is whether pets should be adopted from shelters or purchased from breeders. Posters will fight like cats and dogs over that topic. The second is pit bulls,. There are posters who detest pit bulls, considering them to be unreasonably dangerous. In fact, one of the main arguments against adopting from a shelter is that many of the dogs are at least part pit bull. There was actually a thread in which a poster attempted to document attacks by pit bulls. The thread reached 23 pages before I locked it. I locked it because a pro-pit bull poster kept posting off-topic posts which the anti-pit bull poster would report. There was a constant cycle of anti-put bull post, off-topic post, and then a report to me resulting in my removing the post. This went on long enough that I got tired of it. In the case of this thread, posters on both sides of the pit bull debate showed up. The anti-pit bull position is, of course, that the dogs are dangerous and should be banned. None of these posters would want to be on an airplane with a pit bull and they don't think pit bulls should be allowed on airplanes. They would ask to move or leave the plane if they were seated near one. The pro-pit bull position is that it is not the dogs but the owners who are the problem. In the case of this dog — which most of the pro-pit bull posters don't believe even existed because they consider the original poster to be a troll — the dog was very well behaved and not a threat to anyone. The dog obviously had a good owner. Any behavioral issues with a pit bull are the fault of the owner rather than the breed, these posters say. In any case, they argue, dogs from other breeds also attack people. Personally, I believe that if you are on an airplane and suddenly attacked by a pit bull you should do exactly the same thing that you would do if you were attacked by a poodle or a great dane. I am not sure what that is, but I don't think that air travellers need to learn specific anti-pit bull defense responses.

Yesterday's most active thread was a bit of a surprise to me. Titled, "2024 AP Exams - Results", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum, the thread was literally about the results of the 2024 advanced placement exams. Started at 4:33 a.m., the thread was meant to alert posters that the scores had been released three minutes earlier at 4:30 a.m. I was a bit surprised that parents would be up at 4:30 to check their kids' test results, but then I noticed that the original poster was in California. Still, that would be 1:30 a.m. her time. Clearly, my dedication as a parent is not measuring up very favorably because I would be sound asleep at either 1:30 or 4:30 a.m. I would find out about my kids' test results if or when they got around to telling me about them. Because many of the parents posting in this thread were obviously learning about the results before their kids — who were likely still asleep — had had a chance to check them, there was some discussion about whether the parents should stay mum until the kids saw their scores themselves or go ahead and tell them. There were also concerns expressed that checking the scores was an invasion of the kids' privacy. But most of the thread was simply posters posting the results. Those whose kids received all 5s (the top score) were obviously thrilled. Some were pleased with a 4 but some were a bit let down. Some posters argued that the difference between a 4 and a 5 is minimal and doesn't indicate much about a student's abilities. Scores of 3 were a bit more controversial. Some colleges award credits for a 3 and, therefore, several posters were satisfied that their kids had received 3s. But others viewed 3s as disappointing. I didn't read the entire thread which is currently 18 pages long, but I did notice several posts saying that scores this year had improved over previous years. Some attributed this to better prepared students and pandemic set backs finally being overcome. But others argued that the tests are getting easier and that high scores should not be taken that seriously. AP scores are particularly important to those students who are applying to universities in the United Kingdom where ACT and SAT results are not accepted but AP exams are required. Therefore, in some cases, these results will determine where kids will be going to college next year. Despite the concentration on scores, there is quite a bit of additional discusion on the topic of AP exams. If you are not familiar with the exams or are interested in deepening your knowledge, this would be a good thread to peruse.