Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Is this a legitimate reason for a divorce?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Given the tendency of posters in the relationship forum to recommend divorce for almost any reason, I would expect that the answer to the question posed in the thread's title would be "yes". The original poster's complaint in this instance is that her husband does not defend her from criticism (she calls it "attacks") by others. She describes two examples, which were apparently the only cases of this happening. Everything else in their marriage is good, but she considers her husband to be "wimpy" and doesn't want to stay married to him. For once, most posters seem to be opposed to divorce, especially because the couple has four kids. The original poster doesn't provide a lot of details about the "attacks", but what she does provide are not convincing to many posters. Quite a few believe she is greatly overreacting. Several posters advise the original poster that everyone has flaws and that she has to take the good with the bad. Even posters who sympathize with the original poster and think that her husband should have defended her don't believe this is divorce-worthy. Some posters are even able to find a bright side to a conflict-avoidant husband. To be sure, there are a few proponents of divorce — it wouldn't be the DCUM relationship forum if there weren't — but they are relatively sparse.

The next most active thread yesterday was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Yesterday's blog post talked about a thread discussing the shooting of Ralph Yarl, who was shot after ringing the doorbell of the wrong house. While that discussion was going on, we learned of a similar event in New York State. This thread, titled, "Hey, look! Another wimpy, scared old white man shoots and kills someone for no reason!" is about that shooting. Kaylin Gillis, a 20-year-old woman, was shot and killed while a passenger in a car that had mistakenly turned into the wrong driveway in a rural area of New York State. As in the case of Yarl's shooting, the shooter was an older White man (Gillis was also White). The original poster puts blame squarely on Fox News and the Republican Party for creating unwarranted fear and anger among this demographic. Quite a few posters agree that Fox News and MAGA Republicans are responsible for creating an atmosphere of fear that, combined with veneration of guns, leads to tragic incidents like this. Other posters deny that Fox or the Republican Party are to blame, with some suggesting that the shooter suffered from dementia. However, given that he had the wherewithal to immediately call his lawyer and to refuse to speak to the police, he seems to have pretty good control over his facilities. A few posters describe actually living in fear and being afraid of anyone who comes to their door. Sadly, these posters see their situation as completely rational. As an illustration of the sad state of our society, before this thread was even 24 hours old, a third similar shooting occurred. This time in Texas, two members of a competitive cheerleading team were shot after one of them mistakenly attempted to enter a car she thought was hers. After the woman returned to her friend's car, the occupant of the car she had mistaken for her's got out and fired multiple shots into her friend's car, wounding the two. A 25-year-old man has been arrested in connection with this shooting.

The third most active thread was titled, "Are fields like management consulting & investment banking still taking kids from any major?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster describes hearing a saying that as long as you attended a top university such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford, you could major in art history and still be offered a position at JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs. She wants to know if this is still true. The first poster to respond says that this is still true and the second says that it has never been true. That just about summarizes the thread. Several posters describe friends who had humanities degrees from these schools who got such jobs while another poster says that as a graduate from one of these universities himself, he struggled to find a job in the sector. There was broad agreement that having family connections, being an athlete, or even being a pretty female could enhance your opportunities. Some posters argued that investment banking firms have expanded the pool of schools from which they recruit and are more selective about majors. There is considerable discussion about what skills are needed for working in the finance industry with some posters arguing that interpersonal skills might be more important than math. Quite a few posters pointed to the importance of analytical ability. Generally this thread is filled with anecdotal examples, many of which describe contradictory experiences. There are as many posters who are completely confident that they are right as there are posters who are sure that those posters are wrong. In the end, you can come to any conclusion you like from reading this thread, or no conclusion at all.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Is 2024 about trans/crime/dei vs abortion and book banning type of issues?", the original poster reiterates the question in the title, asking whether the 2024 election (I guess she means Congressional as well as Presidential) will pit Republicans warning about crime, transgender issues, and "wokeness" against Democrats decrying restrictions on abortion and book-banning. I have not read this thread and have no interest in reading it. However, I am convinced that the original poster is mostly correct. Obviously, the economy will play a roll and, arguably, a more important one then any of the issues the original poster mentions. But, I don't think that will be the leading campaign issue. Rather, as we have seen in past elections, Republicans tend to run on fear. Just prior to past elections, Fox News has dutifully fixated on "caravans" of migrants coming from Central America. Republican candidates then ran on border security. While that did not prove to be a very successful strategy, Republicans still favor fear as a motivator. But, now instead of hordes of migrants from the South, they will promote fear of crime and attempt to convince their voters that either ANTIFA or Black Lives Matter activists will invade their homes at any moment while "woke" liberals defund the police and refuse to prosecute criminals. After Glenn Youngkin prevailed in Virginia by running against transgender students and in favor of banning books, Republicans have widely adopted similar approaches. Republicans have nearly trampled one-another in their rush to propose anti-trans bills, matched only by their eagerness to pass anti-abortion laws. Similarly, many Republican-dominated areas have banned long lists of books from school libraries and even attempted similar bans at public libraries. There is significant evidence that while Youngkin may have caught the zeitgeist of the time, that was a short-lived period and Republicans have over-played their hand. While some Americans may have concerns about transgender athletes, generally fear of transgender individuals has not been a successful motivator in recent elections. Abortion rights, on the other hand, has inspired historic voter turnout among Democrats and those leaning Democratic. So much so that some Republicans would like the issue to go away. Former President Donald Trump, for instance, rarely talks about abortion despite being the individual most responsible for the current restrictions. While not nearly as important as an issue as abortion, Republicans took an issue that had been successful for Youngkin — anger about books that many felt were not age-appropriate for young school children — and turned it into a wholesale war on books about race and history. This has given the Democrats a stronger hand on the issue. For quite a while, Republicans have favored culture war issues. In 2024, as the original poster has suggested, they will continue to run on such issues. But, this time the Democrats will likely be happy to to have those debates.