The Most Active Threads Since Friday

The most active thread since my last blog post on Friday was the one about the court proceedings in Georgia that I've already discussed and will skip today. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Best way to keep kid from getting a tattoo while in college" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. When I first read the title of this thread, I thought this was a very esoteric concern given the full spectrum of things that can go wrong during college. But the original poster's explanation, that her son plays a sport in college that has a strong tattoo culture and he is feeling pressured to get one, made the concern understandable. Most of those responding seemed pretty pessimistic about the chances of preventing the child from getting a tattoo. Instead, they suggested offering advice about the placement and design of it instead of trying to prevent a tattoo altogether. Some posters suggested threatening to stop paying for college if he got a tattoo. Others took the opposition approach and suggesting offering a cash reward if he didn't get one. The most innovative idea, though not necessarily the best one, was for the original poster to get a tattoo herself, likely turning off her son from the ideas. This sort of reverse psychology was behind suggestions to praise tattoos and to declare them to be good ideas. I was a bit dismayed that almost none of those responding suggested simply having calm and mature discussions about the pros and cons of tattoos. They all seemed to prefer either control, manipulation, or resignation. One exception was a poster who suggested having a conversation about the opinion of the Maori people about specific tattoo trends and other pitfalls of tattoos. The poster also advised discussing non-permanent ways in which the original poster's son could decorate himself. The original poster explicitly stated that she was not intending to start a debate about tattoos themselves, but that was clearly wishful thinking. Before long, posters who support tattoos and posters who don't were not only arguing, but calling each other childish names. Over half the thread is probably substance-free bickering, none of which had much to do with the original poster's question.

The next most active thread was the Gaza war thread which I've already discuss end will, therefore, skip today. The most active thread following that one was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum and titled, "Is a business major for dumb kids?" I don't like the title of this thread because I don't think "dumb" kids are really going to college. Moreover, such blanket statements as this one are rarely accurate. Regardless, the original poster is convinced that "the not very bright types end up majoring in business". As would be expected, many posters disagree with the original poster, some appearing downright offended. One poster listed a number of universities whose business programs have more selective admissions than their regular admissions, suggesting that business majors at those schools are stronger than average students. But many posters seemed to share the original poster's belief that students majoring in business are of a lower caliber than students in STEM or economics majors. I was not able to identify any additional posts by the original poster after the first one, so that entire thread may have been a random troll. But another poster, who could possibly have been the original poster not revealing herself, filled the role of belittling business majors. In one post, that poster compared business majors to preschool students who are "house trained", which sounds more like something you would teach a dog rather than a person. In many cases, posters confused the degree with the students pursuing it. For instance, some posters made convincing arguments that, as an undergraduate degree, business is not particularly valuable. But it is a good step towards a MBA, which does carry some prestige. However, that says nothing about the students pursuing the major, especially if their intentions are to go on to obtain a MBA. While the thread is filled with inaccurate stereotypes of business majors, some posters' response was to engage in equally, if not more so, inaccurate stereotyping of other majors. Eventually, the thread deteriorated to posters disparaging various majors and arguing about which was worse than another. To put this thread into business terms, it is an impaired asset that has depreciated rapidly and probably should be liquidated.

Next was a thread titled, "Caught 13 YO DD drinking w/ friends, how to handle", and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster says, as stated in the title, that she found out that her 13-year-old daughter has been drinking and engaging in "inappropriate sexual activities". The original poster has grounded her daughter and taken away her phone. She thinks her daughter understands that the behavior was wrong and is sorry for it. The original poster is seeking advice for appropriate discipline and how to get back on the right track. This is an important topic and deserves to be taken seriously. Unfortunately, the thread was immediately taken over by a lunatic. This poster provided the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth replies. The poster would eventually post 77 times in this 13 page thread, mostly attacking the original poster as a bad parent and offering no useful advice. It is safe to say that this poster ruined the thread completely. This sort of behavior from a single poster is no longer unusual and is unfortunately becoming fairly common on DCUM. I, of course, have no psychological training and, even if I did, would hesitate to diagnose someone purely on the basis of their DCUM posts. But, nevertheless, I cannot believe that the folks who engage in this sort of thing are mentally healthy. Who really wants to spend their weekend writing post after post bashing someone you don't know and know nothing about? And, not just once, but 77 times. The poster didn't limit herself to just this thread either. In another thread, she posted 11 times, the first time calling the original poster a "pain in the ass". The poster posted nearly 150 times on Sunday alone. Obviously, this is a poster who needs to be blocked, but blocking in this day and age is easier said than done. I do what I can, but people with this kind of obsessiveness are hard to stop. They simply don't give up. DCUM has attracted a number of such posters. I imagine that they have been kicked off of other sites and DCUM is their last refuge. As a result, DCUM is literally becoming an insane asylum. While it can be difficult for normal users to notice these posters, if you suspect a poster of being one of these types, please report one of their posts so that I can take a look. It is much better to catch them early rather than after 77 posts.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" and titled, "My 39 y.o. gym trainer is looking for a husband, with no success on dating apps". The original poster says that her "relatively good-looking" 39-year-old trainer has been using dating apps and, while she goes on lots of dates, her relationships only last a few days. The original poster asks for advice with which to help the trainer. She also remarks on the "market value" of women, which she says decreases rapidly after 30. The issue I see with threads like this is that very few, if any, of the responses come from those with practical experience solving the problem the trainer faces. Instead, advice comes from those like the original poster who have been married for decades and lack firsthand experience with today's dating scene. They devote most of their replies to explaining what the trainer has done wrong to end up where she is now. Most of the other replies are from posters who are also involved in online dating and comment on how much better luck they are having. These posters brag about how many dates they get, ignoring the fact that the trainer is having no problem in that regard either. Her challenge is finding a guy to marry her, something that none of those offering advice seem to have been able to do either. Now, perhaps that's not what they want, but still, their advice doesn't really apply. There are about three things that posters fixate on in this thread. One is that the original poster is somewhat condescending towards the trainer. This results in considerable pushback on the original poster. Second, the trainer appears to have high expectations that most of those responding don't believe are realistic and probably won't be met. This seems to be part and parcel of the online dating market. People enter it like kids in a candy store and then filter for the person of their dreams. The few lucky individuals that survive the filters get all the action. The trainer herself is probably being filtered out by guys looking for marriage. But far and away the factor that generates the most response is the original poster's assertion that the trainer has sex with most of the guys she dates. Very rough back of the envelop math suggests that is in the order of 100 different guys a year. Posters have all kinds of issues with this and even the original poster is convinced that this is a major contributing factor to her inability to find a husband. All in all, I'm not sure that the thread produces much helpful advice, which is probably okay because it is not clear that the trainer even wants advice.