Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Once again, the thread about school snow days that I discussed on Monday was the most active thread yesterday. Skipping that one doesn't really change things much because the next most active thread was also about a school snow day. Just as the first thread I discussed yesterday was about the potential for Montgomery County Public Schools to have a delayed opening yesterday, today's thread is about the same school system possibly having a delayed opening today. Titled, "MCPS delayed Thursday?" and, of course, posted in "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)", this is a 37-page thread that is basically a more intense version of the earlier thread. MCPS was closed yesterday, and posters immediately turned their attention to what would happen today. Up bright and early, the original poster started this thread yesterday at 7:17 a.m., predicting that schools would have a delayed opening today. As in all the other snow day discussions, this one is roughly divided between posters who think schools should open and open on time and those who are happy to keep them closed. In the middle are those who see a delayed opening as a sort of compromise. In the view of the "open schools" crowd, only the gross incompetence of MCPS administrators who are acting at the behest of lazy teachers are keeping kids home. They argue that plenty of time has passed, both school parking lots and county streets are clear of snow, and kids should get back to school. On the other hand are posters who say that their streets are still not clear, that freezing temperatures create a likelihood of icy streets in the morning, and, despite the anecdotal reports, nobody can be sure that all 211 schools and offices have been cleared of snow. There is a debate about virtual school, which some posters believe should have been implemented this week. For many posters, "virtual school" is a phrase that they hope to never hear again, and they react very disdainfully to that suggestion. Those who are content to have schools remain closed accused those who want schools to open of being bad parents who don't want to spend time parenting their children. Those supporting reopening argue that they have jobs to which they must attend. One poster actually claimed that the only real solution was to return to a time when one parent stayed at home so that a parent would be available to cover childcare on snow days. That seems a bit extreme to me. At any rate, these arguments went on for 35 pages. At that point, a poster copy-and-pasted an update from MCPS saying that schools would open two hours late. One poster's immediate reaction was to claim that there would be lots of bitter teachers. It was not clear to me that teachers actually wanted schools to stay closed. Rather, this seemed like nothing more than a gratuitous swipe. Moreover, I always marvel at the contradictory expressions of contempt for teachers while simultaneously wanting them to care for children for several hours a day. If teachers were really as bad as some posters would have it, I would think that they wouldn't want their kids anywhere near a teacher. They should support every day being a snow day.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Titled, "Palisades Fire - Los Angeles", the thread started off discussing the Palisades fire that struck Los Angeles but grew to include discussion of several other fires that have broken out in the area. At issue is that, after a lengthy period of drought, Los Angeles experienced extremely heaving winds. These are ideal conditions for fires and, indeed, multiple fires broke out. While California is no stranger to fires, these fires are unusual in that they are occurring in densely populated areas. As a result, they are affecting a large number of people and causing a tremendous loss of homes. Given the fast-developing events, several of extraordinary magnitude, it is normal that many posters are hungry for information and interested in discussing news as it becomes available. Unfortunately, a significant number of posters see the situation simply as something that they can exploit for partisan, mostly political, reasons. False claims spread almost as rapidly as the fires themselves. The first target of criticism was the state of California itself. Within the first few posts, there were suggestions that California had brought the fires on itself and should have been more proactive about trimming trees. There are accusations that, because of environmentalists, controlled burns are prohibited. As other posters point out, California does, in fact, have controlled burns. However, it is unlikely that anyone would want controlled burns in residential areas such as where the current fires are occurring. When firefighters ran out of water, this was blamed on state and local officials for mismanaging water resources. In fact, reservoirs were at their normal level. The water problems were caused by the overwhelming demand that reduced water pressure and prevented water from reaching the hydrants. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass was out of the country to attend the inauguration of Ghana's President on behalf of President Joe Biden. She was criticized for her absence, but also for cuts to the fire department's budget. While funding for the fire department was cut in the city's budget, that was due to technical reasons. A separate bill funding the fire department actually increased the department's budget over the previous year's. It is sad, though expected these days, that disasters such as this are so often exploited to score political points rather than uniting our country in support of the victims. In the most recent pages, the thread has reached the "blame the victims" stage where wealthy homeowners whose houses have burnt are said to be experiencing karma because they contributed to climate change and others blamed for not having sold their homes and moved elsewhere. If we have learned anything in recent years, it is that natural disasters can strike almost anywhere. Whether it is tornadoes destroying towns in the plain states and parts of the South, hurricanes causing damage well away from the coasts — even in the mountains of North Carolina — or flooding in the Northeast, no place is really safe anymore. Those pointing fingers today may well be the ones calling for help tomorrow.

Next was a thread titled, "Would you be resentful if your partner worked only 3-4 hours a day?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that five years ago she started a business and now makes about 50% more than her husband. However, she only has to put in about 3-4 hours of work a day. After that, she goes to the gym or watches Netflix. The original poster says that her husband doesn't know how little she works, and she worries that if he did, he would want her to take over more of the domestic chores — right now they split 50/50 — or to work more so that she could make more money. She doesn't want to do either. She asks if anyone else is in this situation and, if so, how they handle it. Many posters are concerned that the original poster is hiding the amount of work she does from her husband. They consider this to be "lying" and they suggest that this means that she knows what she is doing is wrong. They think that her lying is a larger problem than her light work schedule. Many posters suggest that she should either take over more of the domestic chores or use her higher income to outsource some duties. For instance, her husband currently cleans half of the house. She could hire a housekeeper and relieve him of that responsibility (and herself for her half as well). A fairly common view is that it is not fair to her husband that he must work full time and still do half of the household chores while she spends her time watching Netflix. In extreme cases, posters suggest that the original poster is selfish and doesn't care about her husband's happiness. A few posters do support the original poster keeping things as they are now. Some suggest that, in reality, the original poster probably does more than 50 percent of the household chores now. A few posters go so far as to say that by earning most of the family's money and still doing half the household chores, the original poster is actually doing more than she should be expected to do. Others suggest that the original poster has earned her free time through her work starting the business. In a follow-up post, the original poster says that she talked to her husband, and he was not upset about the situation. To the contrary, he said that he was happy for her and that he would do the same if he could. So, for the time being, the original poster intends to carry on with the current arrangement. She does harbor some concern because her husband can get upset when he perceives that things aren't equal. She is worried that regardless of what he said, this might become a problem.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Question for Trumpers", the original poster is surprised that President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump still has supporters after the Access Hollywood tape in which Trump admitted grabbing women by their private parts. The original poster wants to know why Trump supporters still support him and what was the turning point that caused them to support him. The most common response from Trump supporters is that the Access Hollywood tape simply demonstrated "locker room talk" and that it was not a big deal. More generally, posters said that they supported Trump's policies or at least supported them more than they supported the Democrats' policies. Therefore, they were willing to overlook Trump's flaws for the sake of policies they preferred. In other words, for many, Trump was the lesser evil. Democrats were not really the intended audience of this thread. But, true to DCUM form, that didn't stop them. Some took issue with the "locker room talk" explanation. For instance, what Trump claimed on the tape to do to women was exactly what E. Jean Carroll accused him of doing to her. While the original poster had asked that posters not engage in "whataboutism", the DCUM MAGA posters are, for the most part, constitutionally incapable of not using that tactic. It is instinctual and endemic to their discourse. As such, their reaction to E. Jean Carroll was to bring up Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. It is not surprising that the MAGA posters are not able to differentiate between consensual and non-consensual acts, but it is disappointing nonetheless. When posters brought up the January 6 insurrection attempt, MAGA posters tried to turn the discussion toward the Black Lives Matter protests. Again, MAGAs miss, probably intentionally, the difference. Condemn the BLM protests if you must, but they were not aimed at overturning a presidential election. The January 6 perpetrators are not being charged with simply vandalizing a federal building, but rather because of their attempt to stop official government action. I have read a great many threads on topics very similar to this one. Indeed, this thread was immediately reported by a Republican poster who resents the frequent threads of this nature. What I have noticed is that MAGA posters normally have a very difficult time acknowledging Trump's flaws. There was a limited willingness to do this regarding the Access Hollywood tape, but that is about as far as it goes. MAGAs are much more comfortable changing the subject, denying the flaws despite the amount of available evidence, or their favorite tactic of "whataboutism". If you believe the posters in this thread, they voted for Trump because they support his policies regarding immigration, the economy, and his Supreme Court appointments. Hopefully, they are enjoying his threats to Mexico, Canada, and Denmark, as well as his war on wind turbines. Because that is what we are getting.