Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Just for laughs - a sex talk with my tween". The thread was posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum and described a converstation between the original poster and her 11 year old daughter. The original poster's daughter had just completed a class about puberty and seemed comfortable talking about such topics with the original poster. The original poster took advantage of this opportunity to have a broader discussion about sex with her daughter based on the idea that it is better for her daughter to be informed before sex actually becomes an issue. The original poster explained the converstation which legitimately had me laughing out loud. I don't want to give the story away, but suffice it to say that it involved dressing up like cows. Personally I applaud the original poster's ability to have open dialogue on such topics with her daughter and I give her extra points for creativity. Many posters had reactions similar to mine. But not all. One poster in particular was quite angry because she believed that the original poster's daughter would immediately tell her own daughter about what she had learned. This poster much prefers for her daughter to remain ignorant until such time as, well, it was not clear until what time exactly. Strangely, despite this poster's displeasure with the possibility of the original poster's daughter spreading the word to her own child, the exact same poster later insisted that "kids are supposed to ‘learn’ this from other kids." The issue is not that the original poster's daughter might tell this poster's daughter about sex apparently, it's that the original poster talked to her daughter about sex. If the original poster's daughter learned about sex from an older sibling and then told the other poster's daughter about it, I guess that would be okay. Needless to say, quite a few posters disagreed with this thinking. Their main argument was that it is better for kids to learn about sex from their parents than from other kids, especially other kids who might be in the process of pressuring them for sex. Moreover, with so many kids having access to smart phones, kids are being exposed to sex and porn at a much younger age. But then the original poster received criticism from an entirely different angle. Whereas the earlier scold poster had accused the original poster of "pushing oral on your child", the new criticism seemed to be that the original poster — by including warnings about being pressured and mentioning that oral sex still has dangers of spreading disease — might have been too dismissive of the practice. Posters with this perspective were eager to minimize any threat of disease and, instead, emphasize the pleasure that could be derived. Because that discussion would not be appropriate in the original poster's circumstances, these posters ended up making strange bedfellows with the initial scold poster. The same poster who accused the original poster of "pushing" oral sex ended up on the same side of the debate as posters who absolutely want to promote oral sex as a pleasurable and safer alternative to intercourse. The dispute about just exactly how safe from disease this actually is basically took over the thread, leading me to lock it. What a disappointing end to something that had started out seeming to be such fun. That of course, some might say, could be a suitable metaphor for many sexual experiences, especially among those who don't know better.

The next two most active threads are ones that I will skip because I have already discussed them. Those were the Connecticut Avenue bike lane thread and the Gaza war thread. The next thread is related to the Gaza war. Posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and titled, "Went to music festival on MDW and saw more Palestinian flags than US flags", the original poster says that she went to a Memorial Day weekend music festival and many "Gen Z" kids were wearing keffiyehs, waving Palestinian flags, and wearing other clothing that indicated support for Palestinians. The original poster described this as "extremely performative" and suggested the kids were engaging in "Palestinian cosplay". If there has been a common theme running through all the very many threads about the Gaza war on DCUM, it has been posters who are convinced — and desperate to convince others — that opposition to Israel's destruction of Gaza is based on frivolousness. There are constant claims that college kids and others are purely motivated by TikTok. There are accusations that those concerned about Gaza are uninformed, know nothing about history, and couldn't find Gaza on a map. Therefore, I guess it is no surprise that critics are now accusing the kids of treating Palestine as if it were some strange version of Comic Con. One thing that always astonishes me about posts like this one is the total lack of self-awareness that the posters demonstrate. The strongest complaints about the ignorance of young people are made by those who most clearly indicate their own misunderstanding. For instance, in a follow-up post, the original poster criticizes "young people" for viewing the events in Gaza through a humanitarian lense. Instead, the original poster argues, they should study the "ideological history of what's happening in the Middle East", especially with regard to radical Islam. I am immediately suspicious of anyone who suggests that the tens of thousands of deaths, mostly women and children that have occurred in Gaza can be simply explained away. But nowhere does the original poster suggest that the Israeli occupation itself is meaningful in anyway. I really have no idea how it is possible to adequately understand Hamas or any Palestinian organization without understanding the impact of the Israeli occupation. Even when the physical occupation of Gaza by Israel ended, Israel's embargo and control over Gaza created what was essentially a virtual occupation. To ignore the impact of this on developments in Gaza and, instead suggest, as the original poster does, that blame lies with "radical Islam" is really the height of ignorance. I guess what I am saying is that whether the kids are informed or not, consider whether those criticizing them are really in a much better position. They clearly think that they are, but that is really disputable. At any rate, young people can certainly stand to learn more — can't we all — but they may very well also have something to teach. Instead of pointing fingers and ridiculing the kids, those like the original poster might be better off putting their arrogance aside and listening. They might learn something.

Next was a thread titled, "Verdict Wednesday!" and, like the previous thread, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread was started in anticipation of the trial of former President and current cult leader Donald Trump on charges of conspiring to hide payments to porn star Snowy Daniels going to the jury. The case did indeed go to the jury and deliberations are continuing. The thread is a combination of predictions, updates on developments, and debate about the trial. On the one hand are posters who don't think the legal procedures are of any importance whatsover and, regardless of what happened in the courtroom, biases among jurors will be the deciding factor. For instance, some posters believe that a jury consisting of New Yorkers will naturally be biased against Trump, ensuring his conviction. Others fear that one or more Trump supporters among the jurors will prevent an unanimous verdict. Another frequent occurrence in the thread is for Trump supporters to complain about a legal developments, claiming that they are unfair and perhaps unconstitutional only to have it explained to them that what happened is actually New York State law. I've noticed this phenomenon of right-wingers who are normally tough on crime suddenly acting like the most liberal of snowflakes when they see the law applied to those whom they support. The idea that Trump might be held to the same legal standard as anyone else causes them to question the legal standard. Similarly, people who absolutely know better such as Senator Marco Rubio and Jonathan Turley are quoted complaining about developments as if they were major scandals when, in fact, they are perfectly normal actions according to the law. The willingness of otherwise intelligent people to debase themselves for Trump has always been astounding. The sheeplike adherence to the words of such individuals by Trump-supporting posters in this thread is, in contrast, unsurprising. What would otherwise be a mostly useless thread is saved by the patient and repeated explanations of what is actually happening and how it reflects New York State law by a small number of posters who are clearly very well informed. One of my favorite exchanges in the thread started when a poster embedded tweets by Jonathan Turley more or less correctly describing part of the jury instructions. But Turley's explanation was confusing and the Trump supporter understood Turley to be saying that the jury's verdict would not have to be unanimous. Another poster provided a link to an AP fact check that further explained the instructions. The Trump supporter then responded that he would believe Turley over the "hack" AP reporter. Of course, Turley and the reporter were not in conflict. A poster then provided a link to the jury instructions themselves, provoking the Trump supporter to say, "Yes, and Jonathan Turley is correct". Whether Turley had been right or wrong in this instance had not really been questioned. Rather, his poorly worded tweet was misunderstood by the Trump supporter and there didn't seem to be anything other posters could do to help him understand his error.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)" forum. Titled, "If TJ has such smart kids, why so much cheating?", the original poster seems to be under the impression that students at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology engage in quite a bit of cheating. If you are ever wondering about the value of a liberal arts education compared to a STEM oriented one, I suggest that you read any TJ thread. You will be binge-reading John Locke, St. Augustine, Immanuel Kant, and planning college visits to every SLAC you can Google. Posters immediately launch into explanations for why TJ students cheat. Mind you, it hasn't even been established that there is a cheating problem at the high school. When one poster asked for facts to support the premise, he was completely ignored. Just about the only evidence provided was an allusion to an essay written by a student who attended TJ 23 years ago. Instead, posters leaped directly to explanations for why there is so much cheating. Initially there were two competing narratives. They hinge on recent changes to TJ's admissions policies. One narrative is that the cheating is especially prevalent among students from before the admissions change who were pushed so hard, either by themselves or their parents, that they cheated in order to stay ahead. The second narrative is that the admissions changes resulted in students who are not prepared for the courses and that they, therefore, cheat in order to simply pass their classes. But some posters say that neither of these narratives is correct. Rather, it is argued, some kids simply don't believe cheating is wrong and, therefore, see it as a legitimate means to an end. Similarly, some posters believe attitudes about cheating reflect parental values. There have always been allegations that some parents take unethical steps to get their kids into TJ. One poster suggested that students with such parents might be more likely to cheat. Another poster agreed writing, "Cheaters encourage their kids to cheat". The narrative that less qualified students are committing the bulk of the cheating simply wouldn't die, primarily being kept alive by a single poster. I once heard a story about a study being conducted of camels. A French team wrote a paper on the topic of the reproductive habits of camels. A British group studied the lifespan of camels. Palestinian scholars drafted a paper titled, "Camels and the Palestine Question". Just like the metaphorical Palestinians who are likely to connect any topic to Palestine (an understandable reflex, it must be said), this particular poster is certain to blame anything negative on TJ's new admission policy. Had that poster been part of the camel study, his contribution would likely have been "How TJ's New Admission Policy Has Hurt Camels". I noticed that this poster made a post theorizing how much more often "underqualified" students cheat compared to "advanced" students. The same poster then sock puppeted a response agreeing with his own post. That's cheating.