Monday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday I discussed the thread about the Olympics Opening Ceremony, devoting significant discussion to outrage at part of the opening that many Christians have interpreted as mocking "The Last Super" and, hence, Christianity itself. Yesterday's most active thread, titled, "Why are Christians insisting the opening ceremony depicted The Last Supper when it really was the Feast of Dyonisus?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, is specifically about that controversy. The original poster asks why the outrage among Christians is not only continuing, but actually escalating. The original poster even quotes a Christian paster attempting to clarify the misunderstanding. Finally, the original poster notes that, "It seems as if Christians are very invested in feeling persecuted and disrespected these days." Many posters agreed with the original poster that the anger being expressed was misplaced. The more charitable among them conceded that a misunderstanding about what was being depicted was understandable given that those angered are more likely to be familiar with the "The Last Super" than "Le Festin des Dieux". In contrast, several posters remain very upset and offended. For their part, they don't believe that they are confused. They are quite certain that the depiction was aimed squarely at mocking their religion and any contrary explanation is simply an attempt to gaslight. I have repeatedly written that resentment and anger are the motivating forces of MAGA adherents. This is a group that largely feels that every other group has been given advantages at their expense. Having taken what is rightfully theirs, the "others" have the temerity to mock or laugh at them. Many of those posting clearly love the opportunity to feel persecuted and they are not going to allow anyone to take that away from them. A sense of unfairness, that everything is rigged against them, is part of the MAGA world view. Hence the complaints that only Christianity would be mocked in this manner. Nobody would risk offending Jews or Muslims in a similar manner, they say. In fact, if the ceremony mocked anyone, it was Greek gods, not Christians. But the world view of the angry posters does not allow for such nuances. Similarly, the targets of these posters' anger is broad. They are, of course, upset with those who produced the ceremony. They are also angry with the French more generally. But they also hold U.S. Democrats responsible as well. Democrats obviously had nothing to do with the events but still they are blamed. The connection appears to be the Democrats' support for LGBTQ rights. The MAGA anger is not simply that (according to their view) Christianity was mocked, but rather that it was mocked by members of the LGBTQ community. Apparently, that makes it even worse. They seem to believe that Democrats, who support the LGBTQ community, share responsibility because they are obviously part of a worldwide effort to spread LGBTQ acceptance, replacing traditional Christian values in the process. The Olympic ceremony was simply one instance of that effort. The angry posters promised to take this out on Democrats in November, making the Olympic Opening Ceremony the least expected campaign issue so far.

The next several threads were political threads that I've already discussed and will skip today. Therefore, the next thread that I will discuss today was one posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum and titled, "Family visiting from London - what food is better here?". As the title says, the original poster has family visiting from London and is looking for types of restaurants to which she can take them. She wants to choose foods that are likely to be better here than in London. As such, she plans to avoid Indian, but is thinking about Mexican or Tex/Mex and possibly East Asian. She chose the travel forum for this thread instead of the food and restaurant forum because she wants to hear from those familiar with London. I am not sure how to summarize this thread other than simply listing the suggestions, which I don't really want to do. But a couple of standouts were Ethiopian food, cheesesteaks, bagels, and barbecue. One suggestion was to focus on the chefs rather than the cuisine, for instance choosing a Jose Andres' restaurant. There were also several recommendations for southern food. Local seafood, especially crab cakes, was a popular idea. Part of the issue with this thread, although it is is something of which the original poster is aware, is that London has tons of great food. Several posters are pretty doubtful that anything in the DC area would be better than what London has to offer. Posters from the United Kingdom and even London specifically weighed in. They tended to agree with the Mexican or Tex/Mex idea and also recommend Korean food. Several posters recommended specific restaurants that they thought would be enjoyed. A number of posters said that they have found that foreign guests often enjoy traditional American diners. To the extent that there was general agreement it was that southern food and food from central and South America had not crossed the ocean as successfully as other cuisines. Therefore, in addition to traditional southern food, there were suggestions of Peruvian, Cuban, and upscale Mexican. However, this thread reinforces the fact that tastes are individual. Posters rarely agreed on which foods are good in which places.

Next was a thread titled, "The problem with Desmond Tutu’s quote:" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster quotes Desmond Tutu, the late Archbishop of Cape Town in South Africa, as saying, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." The original poster believes that this is flawed logic because a person's failure by one side will be used by the other side to accuse the person of siding with its opponent. DCUM has traditionally had many intelligent and thoughtful posters. But one of the first responses agreed with the original poster and called Tutu's sort of thinking, "Cultural Marxism". This made me think that perhaps the good old days are gone. Now we are stuck with brain dead simpletons who likely cannot define "Marxism" nor explain what is meant by "cultural Marxism. But, thankfully, there are still posters capable of understanding Tutu's quote. As one poster explained, Tutu was referring to a period of clear injustice. In his case, that was Apartheid, but the poster offered the example of slavery. In such a situation, neutrality simply allows the injustice to continue. Only taking a side against the injustice will do anything to stop it. Another poster added the continuation of the quote which said, "If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." Sadly, however, we are increasingly living in a post-truth world where everything is considered equally true or false. In that light, a poster suggests that the side responsible for injustice may not be clearly distinguished. Several posters agree that Tutu's quote works when one side is clearly wrong, but, they argue, few conflicts are that clear cut. Those who believe that there are plenty of obvious cases of injustices, the Holocaust and slavery being two examples, are accused of "black and white" thinking. While it is true that many conflicts are complicated and don't easily lend themselves to determining which side is right and which is wrong, that does not negate the validity of Tutu's statement in cases where injustice is clear. Reading through this thread, the idea came to me that some situations may not actually be as complex as posters would suggest. However, the process of allocating blame for injustice would likely be uncomfortable for them. Pleading complexity is, at least in some cases, likely to a be simple defense mechanism that prevents being forced to acknowledge that the individual's preferred side is the unjust one. This is particularly true in situations in which acknowledging the injustice that exists ultimately serves interests opposed to your own. When forced to choose between their own interests and opposing injustice, many will side with injustice. But, declaring the situation to be "complicated" and claiming neutrality may ease the guilt of doing so.

I had to skip a few more threads that I've previously discussed and, therefore, the last thread for today was actually the eight most active yesterday. Posted in the "Real Estate" forum, the thread was titled, "This is my dream beach home". The original poster linked to a Redfin listing showing a very large home located in North Bethany, Deleware that is near, though not exactly on, a beach. The house is listed for $6.2 million and the original poster says that although it would need a pool, she thinks that it is gorgeous and asks if others agree. Most of those responding agree that the property needs a pool, but several complain that it is not oceanfront. Quite a few dispute that the house is "gorgeous" in the first place. General consensus is that that the house is far too expensive given that it is not on the ocean and lacks an ocean view. Posters don't like how crowded the neighborhood is or even the parking lot on one side of the house. Moreover, many posters are concerned about the impact of climate change and whether any beach front, or near beach front, investment would be wise at this time. Posters also question just how "private" the "private beach" that the original poster described really is. Many posters suggest that the beach is actually public and likely to be crowded at times. Frankly, I am not sure that a single poster actually liked this house, let alone considered it to be a dream house. Moreover, I am fairly certain that the criticism caused the original poster to lose interest in the house as well. Some posters were able to identify better options for less money, though further away from D.C. Others stuck up, if not for this specific house, at least the general location. But, those posters were really the exception. In general, posters did nothing but dump on this place. Posters often accuse original posters of being real estate agents attempting to shill one of their listings. I'm sure that there have been instances of that, but I suspect that the practice doesn't occur as often as some posters seem to believe. Moreover, unless the agents are masochistic, they probably never do it more than once. What sane person would subject a house that they are trying to sell to this sort of criticism? DCUM posters are far more likely to chase away anyone interested than to help sell a house.