The Most Active Threads Since Friday

The most active thread over the weekend was the Blake Lively thread that continues to explore sophisticated legal and social issues such as whether Lively is too old or fat. After that was a thread titled, "Super Bowl 59" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The original poster explained that she was posting in the entertainment forum rather than the sports forum because the Super Bowl is entertainment. She did not, however, explain why she chose Arabic numerals over the more conventional Roman numerals used for numbering Super Bowls. Because the thread was started more than 8 hours before kick-off time, the first pages of posts were devoted to what posters hoped to see during the game. For instance, one poster hoped that Travis Kelce would propose to Taylor Swift. That didn't happen and, given how he played, Kelce probably would have dropped the ring anyway. Considerable attention was paid to the fact that cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump would be attending the game. True to MAGA mentality, Trump supporters were looking forward to Trump's appearance upsetting liberals. Trump, for his part, spent the hours before the game attending to some of the most crucial issues of his presidency, renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and canceling production of the penny. More than 20 years have passed since we created the DCUM website (and the mailing list existed before that), and our aging user base became very apparent when the topic of Kendrick Lamar's halftime show came up. While a number of posters were very familiar with Lamar and particularly his feud with Drake, others had no idea who he was. I found myself firmly planted in the "too old to appreciate" group as I could not understand Lamar's lyrics, let alone enjoy the music. Lamar was easily the most controversial topic of this thread. Not only was there the generational divide, but the fact that the Super Bowl was being played in a city known mostly for its Black entertainers and with a mostly Black halftime show created its own issues. Trump has made the elimination of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) one of the main components of his presidency and, to many of his supporters, anyone who is not a White male is a DEI selection. Therefore, Trump supporters quickly labeled Lamar a "DEI" entertainer. Several posters explained the considerable symbolism that I had missed. Thanks to them, I realized that there was a lot more going on than I had understood, and now I would like to watch the show again in light of my new awareness. It is kind of ironic that a thread that began with Trump supporters looking forward to liberals being angered by Trump's presence ended with MAGA heads exploding thanks to Kendrick Lamar. All of this on a night when the National Football League was doing everything within its power to stress unity.

The weekend's next most active thread was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and titled, "DOGE tells banks goal is to eliminate federal agencies and 75% of fed workforce". The original poster linked to a Reuters article reporting on a conference hosted by JPMorgan Chase at which Shadow President Elon Musk spoke. According to the article, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has "goals of eliminating entire federal agencies and cutting three-quarters of federal government jobs." However, Musk is not quoted in the article, and it is not clear whether Musk actually said this or from where the author obtained the information. However, the statement does seem consistent with the actions Musk has been taking. The original poster goes on to ask a very good question, "Why is JP Morgan getting briefings from Musk about DOGE but Congress can't?" Musk has avoided any Congressional oversight and, despite repeatedly tweeting about the need for government transparency, has kept his actions — as well as those of the DOGE staff — secret. There are two distinct views of Musk's goals. One is that he is simply trying to make government more efficient. Posters may not agree on his methods and may even reject his objectives, but they accept that this is his goal. The second view is that Musk is actually taking over the government and removing it from accountability to Congress and the American people. This view holds that Musk is turning the government into a tool of a small group of Silicon Valley elites who reject democracy and favor autocratic rule through their technological and financial dominance. This thread debates the first view with very little attention paid to the second. Most posters seem willing to concede that the government has plenty of fat that can be trimmed. However, they are concerned that Musk is employing a meat cleaver where a scalpel is required. There are many easily foreseen as well as unintended consequences that can be quite damaging. One obvious issue is that neither Musk nor his minions actually know much about how the government functions. Even Republicans who have supported Musk have been surprised at the impact of some cuts. For instance, when Musk attempted to close down the U.S. Agency for International Development and halted its activities, grain from Kansas was left sitting on docks where it began to rot rather than being shipped to feed the world's hungry. Kansas Republicans began lobbying Musk to lift the ban. Similarly, when Musk's restrictions on National Institutes of Health grants impacted universities in Alabama, one of which is the state's largest employer, Republican Senator Katie Britt vowed to intervene. It will be interesting to see whether Republican politicians are successful in having programs they favor restored while Democrats remain stymied. If so, we could end up with a government that only serves Republicans.

Next was a thread titled, "Is this clip really demonstrative of how Trump voters feel about the trans community?", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a video published by CNN that shows part of a Congressional hearing during which Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace used the term "tranny" when referring to people who are transgender. When Democratic Member of Congress Gerry Connolly objected, Mace repeated "tranny, tranny, tranny". The original poster asked whether this video accurately shows how those who voted for cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump really feel about transgender people. Broadly speaking, most posters — including me — don't think that most Trump supporters actually feel the way that Mace portrays. Certainly, Trump himself does not. He recently hosted two transgender women at Mar-a-Lago, where both made a point of using the women's bathroom — a direct refute of Mace, who sponsored a bill prohibiting transgender women from using women's bathrooms on Capitol Hill. Mace herself was once a champion of trans rights. As a poster points out, Mace has previously called for “transgender equality” while asserting herself as a pro-LGBTQ+ rights lawmaker. However, Mace — who once portrayed herself as a moderate — has found that the secret to success in the Trump era is to be as offensive as possible. She now appears to be competing with Marjorie Taylor Greene to be the most extreme Republican Member of Congress. In many ways, Mace and her transition (no pun intended) on trans rights is similar to those of many DCUM posters. I have repeatedly witnessed over the years posters insist that they are fully supportive of trans rights with the exception of sports and, in some cases, bathrooms. They argue that these are women's rights issues. But soon enough, these same individuals, often in the course of a single thread, show that their issues with the trans community are much deeper. Soon enough, they, like Mace, are engaged in full-blown transphobia. Mace is a political opportunist. She has repeatedly portrayed herself as a victim and then used that victimhood for fundraising purposes. Mace was creditably accused of having vandalized her own home with anarchist graffiti (the handwriting of the graffiti matched her own). Her anti-trans taunting will certainly provoke pushback, which she will again use to portray herself as a victim and use it for fundraising. In recent years, it has become common for White men to portray themselves as the real victims of racial prejudice. There is a similar phenomenon in this thread in which women claim that it is not the trans community that suffers from prejudice and bigotry, but rather so-called cis women. Indeed, some posters argue that "cis" itself is a slur. What relevance that has to the topic of the thread is left as an exercise for the reader.

The last thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Schools most harmed and those most benefiting once NIH, DHS funding resumes?", the original poster says that once federal funding for university research is restarted, social science will not be as well-funded as STEM research. The original poster asks, therefore, which universities will benefit and which will be harmed. Since the second term of cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump began and Shadow President Elon Musk started disrupting the federal government, there has been an issue of seemingly political threats being posted in other forums. In many cases, there is clear overlap. For instance, topics about federal jobs being eliminated clearly are relevant for the "Jobs and Careers" forum. Similarly, the halt of federal support for university research has an obvious connection to the college forum. However, I've been running DCUM long enough to become fairly cynical. I frequently suspect that posters are creating new twists on a topic solely to justify a new thread rather than being forced to post in an existing thread. In this case, the original poster immediately responded to his own post to argue that the University of Michigan would be among those harmed by a drop in social science funding. As such, I wonder if this entire thread was simply created in order to take a swipe at the University of Michigan. Many of those replying question the original poster's assumptions. They argue that it is not at all clear that STEM research would be less affected. The original poster is fairly single-minded in his assertion that funding will resume but in favor of STEM research and repeatedly posts this argument, essentially sock puppeting, throughout the thread. Other posters point out that things are not so simple. Many "hard science" research projects have what might be described as "DEI" components. As such, those projects will likely not be funded despite involving STEM research. In addition, the nominee for Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has opposed research into some STEM topics. Frankly, I think any discussions of this sort are way too premature. We don't really know Musk's full intentions. Maybe none of this funding will be restored. On the other hand, maybe court rulings will require all of it to be restored, at least for the short term. What role will influence from Governors and Members of Congress play? Many seem to be under the illusion that a significant amount of money can be cut from the federal budget without any of their own cows being gored. That is simply unrealistic. I have repeatedly expressed concern about unexpected consequences, and this is another case in point. Musk and his band of recent high school graduates probably have no clue about the impact of their cuts. The suggestion that they will carefully distinguish between STEM and social science research is probably hopelessly naive. Some universities will likely be hurt more than others, but I doubt that any will actually benefit from Musk's plans.