Monday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Does your community pool have a dress code?", and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster complains that college "girls" home for the summer are all wearing thong bikini bottoms which she doesn't think are suitable for a family venue. The topic of how girls and women dress is always a bit touchy. Prom season routinely provokes threads complaining about the cuts of dresses. But, exchange swimwear for dresses and the debate is amplified exponentially. The thread is full of posters like the original poster who have no issue with nearly naked swimmers if they are confined to adult beaches, but don't really want their children exposed to such things. However, based on the replies in the thread, their concern would probably be more appropriate for their husbands and sons. A number of male posters, extolling the benefits of dark sunglasses, are quite happy to see as much of the young females bodies as the girls choose to expose. Several of these posters asked the original poster to identify the location of her pool, presumably so that they could come visit. Other posters, likely female, argue that the original poster should mind her own business and let girls dress as they please. Moreover, probably futilely, these posters also argued that others should not "ogle" women's bodies and if those like the original poster don't like how others are dressed, they should close their eyes. While the original poster's criticism was directed at college students, other posters said the same dress habits extend to even younger girls. A few posters commented that older women, including formerly heavy moms who have discovered Ozempic, are also flaunting their bodies. This provoked some posters to argue that skimpy swimwear should be left to the young. But others took the opposite view and expressed happiness that women with less than perfect bodies can get away with bikinis. Some posters who enjoy wearing revealing swimwear explained that they have great bodies and like the way they look in such outfits. As for being ogled, one poster was clear that she didn't care if others looked at her or not. Posters also disagreed on the motives for wearing thongs and similar attire. Many assumed it was the current style and the girls were following the trend. But others argued that such clothing had a practical application of minimizing tan lines. An entirely different debate broke out over men, with some posters arguing that if women are going to wear thongs, men should adopt "banana hammocks". But other posters found the thought of this appalling. A few of the moms in the thread suggested that their daughters were so uncomfortable with this trend toward revealing outfits that it might have contributed the growth of those identifying as non-binary.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. Titled, "If you had a negative experience traveling to Disney, can you share why?", the original poster asks others to share negative experiences they have had with visits to Disney as well as why the experiences were not very good. DCUM is full of Disney fanatics who won't countenance criticism of the parks and who are quick to defend Disney, blame "haters", and explain why any problems were the fault of the guest rather then the venue. Therefore, it is no surprise that this thread has already reached 19 pages. In general, those replying either didn't understand the assignment or simply ignored it. Instead of describing specific experiences and what made them disappointing, posters spoke in generalities. Common complaints were the length of lines, the poor quality of the food, and the heat. In addition, many thought the cost was too high. A number of posters argued that Disney used to be better in the past and they used to enjoy it, But, not anymore. A huge source of complaints was "Genie+", something about which I know nothing and therefore can't say anything further. Those defending Disney generally contended that to have a good time you have to know what you are doing (such as understanding Genie+). Those who do know plan ahead, are prepared to spend a lot of money, and know what extras to purchase to get quicker access to rides. While these posters seem to enjoy the planning, the need to think so far in advance was a turn off to others. They would prefer more spontaneity and relaxation. A very common dispute in this regard was between posters who said that they had planned months in advance, including making restaurant reservations, and those who didn't like advanced planning and found it impossible to find any available opportunties during their trip. The second group also complained vociferously about the need to rely on a mobile phone for so many things that used to be done in person. A few posters suggested that Disney seems to be more of an attraction for obsessed adults than it is for kids. Some of the replies, perhaps unintentionally, supported this contention. Several of the Disney defenders revealed significant investments of time and money into repeated trips. For some, a trip to Disney is an annual event and their explanations of how to make the visit enjoyable implied considerable costs. A fairly common suggestion was that Disney might be good for kids to visit once, but that was enough. For the cost, some posters argued, there are plenty of other alternatives such as a trip to Europe, a beach vacation, or a trip to the mountains that many would enjoy more.

Next was a thread titled, "Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitism?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster explained her understanding of Zionism and her understanding of anti-Zionism. She then concluded that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. I was heavily involved in this thread and was even the first to respond. I have been giving this topic a lot of thought recently because a number of Jews for whom I have considerable respect have argued that much of the opposition to Israel has been anti-Semitic. While there have been a number of examples that clearly support their argument, I have often found myself disagreeing in other instances. It has been repeatedly said that as a non-Jew, I am not in a position to determine what is or is not anti-Semitic. That judgement should be left to Jews. This presumes that such a determination is completely binary and can be determined objectively. In reality, Jews don't even agree on such things in many instances. Regardless, I do think that the point of view of those targeted by anti-Semitism is worth listening to and considering seriously. What I have observed in many cases is a difference between how something is interpreted and how it was meant. This led to the question, which I asked in the thread, of which is more important, how something is understood or how it was meant? In this regard, there is a frequent tendency on behalf of those labeling something as anti-Semitic to "explain" the meaning of something differently than what those taking the action claim was their intention. A common example is the expression, "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free". On the face of it, this saying does not address anything beyond a geographic area and a desire for freedom. It does not explain what is foreseen for Israelis, particularly Jews, or the expected governance of the area. Furthermore, asking any of those who use the slogan will either elicit wide-eyed confusion that suggests the individual had never previously thought of that question or one of many well-considered explanations, none of which involve removing Jews. Yet many, including the US House of Representatives, have determined that this expression is anti-Semitic and "calls for the removal of the Jewish people" . In contrast, the official charter of Israel's ruling party says that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently reaffirmed this statement. Differing from the Palestinian desire for "freedom", the Israeli demand — over the exact same area — is for "sovereignty". But in contrast to the cries of "anti-Semitism" in response to the Palestinian slogan, almost everyone has been silent with regard to Netanyahu. It is unclear to me how the Palestinian expression can be determined to be anti-Semitic, something not supported by its plain reading and contrary to the explanations of those who use it, but Netanyahu's much clearer statement is not criticized as being bigoted or calling for the removal of Palestinians. This is but one example of how actions meant to oppose Zionism or the State of Israel are interpreted as anti-Semitic when it is reasonably arguable that such an interpretation is wrong, or at a minimum, inconsistent.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. Titled, "Pride week in elementary school?", the original poster says that her child's Montgomery County Public Schools elementary school celebrates Pride Month with a spirit week in which each day is devoted to recognizing some aspect of the LGBTQ community. The original poster simply wants to know whether other MCPS elementary schools are having similar spirit weeks or whether her child's school is unique. From what can be determined from responses, such a celebration is uncommon, but does occur in other schools. However, most of the thread is devoted to arguing about the spirit week rather than how common such events may be in MCPS schools. Generally people have become reasonably comfortable with LGBTQ topics with two exceptions. The first is where children are involved and the second is the "T" in LGBTQ. Transgender topics result in controversy far beyond all the other colors in the rainbow. Because the original poster's question involves an elementary school and one of the days is scheduled to be a "Trans Day of Acceptance", the spirit week crosses both of those lines. To be clear, based on my reading, the majority of those posting are perfectly comfortable with the entire week and have no real issues with it. But, of course, there are exceptions. A number of posters argue that elementary school is too early to talk about sex. Others explain that these topics don't involve talking about sex, but rather love. Opponents argue that the kids are too young to understand what any of this means. Others say that elementary school students, especially those in the upper grades, may have gay or trans relatives or friends and, as such, are already familiar with the concepts. Opponents claim that this is indoctrination aimed at encouraging kids to be gay or trans. Others argue that this is not the case but rather the event is only aimed at teaching acceptance and other laudable values. It is really the transgender aspect of the week that stirs up controversy and most of the thread is devoted to that. The thinking of the concerned posters is that the Trans Day of Acceptance will require explaining what it means to be transgender. Some posters don't want their children to be exposed to even that amount of information. Other posters are concerned that things will go even further. As one poster says, "I don't want my child's kindergarten teacher saying that it's okay to just switch genders." This is clearly misunderstands what is going to occur during the event as well as what is involved with being transgender. I really don't understand why parents whose schools are not having such a celebration are so up in arms. This doesn't involve them. If the parents at the school in question have a problem with it, they have the ability to address it within the school. Why is everyone else getting up in arms?