Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was again the Fairfax County Public Schools boundaries thread that I've already discussed. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Young Men are Becoming More Sexist - It's About Status", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster quotes from transcripts of a podcast discussion about attitudes toward women held by young men around the world. According to the discussion, young men are becoming more sexist than older men. This is somewhat of a contradiction because by most measures, young men are more supportive of women's equality, being more likely to support women pursuing any job or holding elected office. Young men are more likely to recognize that women have equal capabilities. But, according to the discussion, there is increased resentment towards women among younger men than among older men. This is attributed to young men's desire for status represented by such things as college education, purchasing a home, and having a pretty wife or girlfriend. Women have been out-performing men educationally for sometime now and the difficult housing market is obviously effecting young people, both male and female. But, it is the last factor, finding a girlfriend, with which young men struggle the most because greater financial and social independence among women has resulted in less pressure among them to find a mate. In short, women are now able to be more picky and young men resent them for it. Moreover, when those resentful young men turn to the Internet, they find welcoming communities eager to encourage and feed their resentment. Topics of this sort have been fairly common in the relationship forum and I have written about several such threads that were among the most active. While I would never argue that the discussions in the relationship forum reach Socratic Club levels, they are head and shoulders above the level of discourse displayed here. Not for the first time, I feel like the political forum is nearly useless. It is filled with automatons able to do little more than repeat the handful of talking points with which they have apparently been programmed. For instance, it is disappointing but not surprising to see that among the first responses were attempts to turn the discussion into one about trans people. It takes a bit to unpack how the thread got there, but what you need to understand is that to some DCUM posters, it is not traditional sexist ideas such as women being inferior to men, their place being in the home, and their duty being to bear children, that threatens women's rights. Rather, it is offering support to trans people that is the real threat, and apparently in these posters' view, a much bigger threat in fact. Similarly, plenty of posters were eager to assure readers that liberal men are actually the biggest misogynists, their primary infraction being that they are not honest about their misogyny as apparently are conservative men. It is always possible to take any issue and wedge it though the prism of your particular political views — and plenty of posters in this thread do exactly that — but doing so does not result in a very enlightening discussion. As such, this discussion is not particularly enlightening.

The next most active thread was also posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This one was titled, "Trump trusted more than Biden on democracy among key swing-state voters". The original poster quotes a Washington Post article discussing a poll conducted by the Post in cooperation with George Mason University showing that voters in swing states trust former president, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump to protect democracy more than they trust President Joe Biden. This is a surprising result and could be the basis of an interesting discussion. Unfortunately, before I finished reading the first page I was convinced that this was another discussion between automatons spouting talking points. The first responder attributed the result to "Too much censorship" by the Biden administration and the another of those responding on the first page blamed the "prosecution of Dr. Haim in Texas". I can't imagine to what "censorship" the first of these posters refers and just how many swing state voters have any idea who Dr. Haim is or why he is being prosecuted? Liberals and residents of DC — much of DCUM's userbase in other words — are constantly accused of living in a bubble. But, only a true bubble-dweller can believe that censurship or Dr. Haim are the motivating factors for swing state voters. As such, I didn't bother reading any more of this thread. I will say frankly that I don't believe that more voters trust Trump to protect democracy, at least as that poll question was meant to be understood. What I suspect happened is that the question, which asked which candidate would do a better job of handling threats to democracy in the U.S., was misunderstood. While those of us who do live in the DC bubble, such that it is, would understand that question in context of January 6 and the like, I suspect those being polled were more likely to see this question in other terms. For instance, especially in a state such as Arizona, voters might be more likely to see migrants who are allegedly being allowed to vote as a threat to democracy. Certainly they have been exposed to plenty of media assuring them that this is the case. Others might see the question in terms of national security. For whatever reason, voters tend to trust Republicans more when it comes to defense and national security and, therefore, Trump would have a natural advantage. I am fairly certain that if the question were worded to simply ask which candidate is more likely to become a dictator, Trump would lead by a significant margin. That, unfortunately, would include those who think that Trump becoming a dictator would actually be a good thing. Moreover, there is accumulating evidence that, contrary to years past, poll takers are having a much more difficult time getting responses from liberal voters now. As such, the poll might not be as representative as one would hope. Still, I think that the poll's results are useful and worth considering. I have frequently doubted that "protecting democracy" is really a very strong issue on which to run a presidential campaign. I've lived though enough races by now to agree with the conventional wisdom that the economy matters more than most other factors. Therefore, if this poll does nothing more than convince Biden and his advisors to choose another issue to campaign on, it will turn out to be a good thing.

The next most active thread was actually the Montgomery Country zoning thread that I discussed yesterday. Skipping that today, the next was a thread titled, "Was this Target return in poor taste?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that she recently went to Target and purchased a number of travel-sized toiletries. Everyone in their family filled a clear plastic bag with the items they wanted and they went on their vacation. After the vacation, the original poster took the items that hadn't been taken on the trip back to Target to return. While returning the items, she was told that such products are thrown away and the Target employee assisting her lamented about "what a waste" it was. The original poster wants to know if she was wrong to return the items. I'm really surprised that posters were able to generate 14 pages of discussion about this in less than a day. There are a variety of responses, but not a huge number. As as result, there is plenty of repetition. Without reading every single post, I would say that the the majority of posters don't think the original poster should have returned the items. Some posters are more understanding based on the assumption that the original poster might not have known that the items would be thrown away and, as such, their advice is for the future. Among those who don't think the items should have been returned are those who don't think the amount of money involved — roughly $15 — was worth being concerned about. They argue that if $15 is important to the original poster, she shouldn't have bought so much in the first place. Having spent the money, they believe that she can save the items for a future trip, use them at home, or donate them. Other posters believe that if Target's policies allow the items to be returned, the original poster has done nothing wrong by returning them. There is disagreement over whether Target should throw away such items if they are returned. Some posters argue that sealed, unused items could be resold but others are distrustful of such items and don't agree. Some posters argue that any waste is the fault of Target who, after all, is responsible for throwing such items away. They suggest that Target could donate them, causing some posters to question why returned toiletries are not good enough for those privileged to shop at Target but just fine for poor people who rely on donations. On the extreme end was a poster who, despite the number of posts arguing against return, proudly stated that not only would she return items in similar situations, but she would report the Target employee for being unprofessional. For her part, the original poster says that she has learned from the experience and will be more careful about buying in the future so that she won't have to return anything.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "I want my kids to go to top schools. Sue me.", the original poster says that she wants her child to go to a top college whether that is an Ivy League school or a Top 50 university. She doesn't know why this is considered a horrible thing and she is annoyed when people are attacked for it. Moreover, she believes these criticisms are coming from parents of children who aren't high-achieving enough to get into top schools. For years I have had to read, for one reason or another, multiple threads per day in the college forum. I do not recall a single one in which posters were criticized for wanting their children to attend a top university. Recently, there has been criticism of interest in schools that some posters perceive as "too woke", anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic, or in red states in which women's rights are threatened. But none of these criticisms were because the schools are highly-ranked. As a result, I feel like this poster has erected a straw man and portrayed herself as a victim when she really is not one. The first poster to respond does admit to criticizing parents but for putting their own dreams for the children ahead of the kids' own best interests. Frankly, I have not seen many posters doing that either, though a few have expressed disappointment because they recognize that their kids are unlikely to achieve the college success for which they had hoped. Much of this thread discussed the perception that a top school automatically equals a top education. That is a perception with which many posters disagree, arguing that top schools are not always the best match for a student and in many cases a lower-ranked school can actually provide a better education. The original poster later responded to say that she may not have have worded her original post correctly and that what she was actually trying to say is that she is bothered by parents being criticized for pushing their children toward a top school. This is a trickier topic that gets into attitudes toward so-called "tiger" parenting and so on. Posters do have differing opinions in that regard, with some supporting it and others opposing it. Even after this clarification, most of the discussion revolves around the original post with the majority of those responding being entirely in favor of kids attending the best school that will take them. One poster turned things around a bit and complained about assumptions made about her family after her child had been accepted by an Ivy League school. She said that others assumed that she had pushed her kid in that direction when that was not the case. But, I am not sure if this amounted to criticism or simply false assumptions.