Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active threads yesterday were mostly threads in the "Political Discussion" forum that I've previously discussed and will skip today. As a result, the first thread that I will discuss today was actually the sixth most active yesterday. Titled, "so sick and tired of gymnastics Olympics coverage" and posted in the "Sports General Discussion" forum, the original poster is, as the title says, sick and tired of the coverage of gymnastics. Her view is that nobody cares about gymnastics outside of the Olympics and, even then, they are only pretending to care. She is bothered generally by sports that have judges because judges are subjective. So that is another knock against gymnastics. She wants more coverage of archery and shooting. Several posters immediately chimed into say that they have subscribed to Peacock so that they are able to watch whatever events they choose. A month of Peacock for $8 seems like the deal of a lifetime if you really want to watch the Olympics. The original poster presented her complaint as if she were speaking for everyone. As the responses show, she clearly was not. Many posters enjoy gymnastics and are happy about the coverage. Some posters don't care about the judging at all, but simply enjoy watching the routines. A few gymnastics fans had nostalgia for the gymnasts of the past who they considered to be more graceful then today's athletes. Other posters argued that their interest in gymnastics is year long. One poster pointed out that there is nothing wrong with only being interested in gymnastics during the Olympics. It's fun to enjoy something different occasionally. Moreover, several posters were critical of the archery and shooting events that the original poster enjoys. These posters said that while they like participating in those sports themselves, they are boring to watch. Another poster agreed with the original poster but went on to complain that Simone Biles has received so much coverage. I don't understand that complaint. Biles has earned more medals of any U.S. gymnast. Of course she should receive outsized coverage. The original poster was told that if she doesn't like gymnastics, she should just not watch it. For their part, the gymnastics fans were happy to have as much coverage as possible. Throughout this thread posters pitch their favorite sports or athletes while others criticize the ones they dislike. The so-called "pommel horse guy" seems to have a lot of fans in the thread. But, the original poster was not among them. "Literally ZERO people ever care about the pommel horse. What a weird and stupid event", she wrote. This provoked a spirited defense of pommel horse events from other posters. While several sports received criticism in this thread, the announcers received even more. They were almost universally panned and the best defense one poster could rustle up was to postulate that they had been instructed to speak at a 4th grade level.

The next most active thread yesterday was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Why do Democrats like to call white men ‘dudes’?", the original poster — prompted by the "White Dudes for Kamala Harris" Zoom call — claims that "Democrats and liberals" like to use the term "dude" to seem cool and relatable, but that they actually have no connection to the "average guy". As a result, he finds the use of the word to be "cringey". First, let me say that this is one of the stranger complaints about Democrats that I've come across. The original poster is bizarrely triggered by the use of "dude" and his follow-up posts do nothing to improve the situation. They actually make things worse. Democrats have taken to calling conservatives "weird", provoking a backlash from those claiming that they are not, in fact, weird. But then one of them pops up to start a thread in which he posts 12 times about how he is triggered by Democrats saying "dude". Sorry, but that's weird. All that said, I think that basically all of those responding missed the original poster's point. He is not bothered by the term "dude" by itself. Rather, he believes that the Democrats who use that term wrongly believe that doing so will make them more appealing to the common man. But, in his view, "dude" is not commonly used and, in any case, Democrats are not part of the cultural milieu that would refer to guys as "dudes". Perhaps he believes that Democrats — who he apparently believes to be elitists — are normally more likely to call each other "chap" or "my good man" in the country clubs and polo fields he seems to think they frequent. Their use of "dude" is cultural appropriation if you will. And, lest you think the original poster is taking this subject lightly, he argues that this sort of messaging is condescending to those like him who are able to see through the Democrat's facade and it pushes them further toward the MAGA right. Posters in this thread valiantly attempt to explain to the original poster that not all Democrats say "dude" and not everyone who says "dude" is a Democrat. In the case of the Zoom call, one participant was Jeff Bridges who famously starred as "The Dude" in "The Big Lebowski". Therefore, using "dude" in the context of the Zoom call was entirely appropriate. Beyond that, I am not sure why the original poster doesn't realize that many Democrats do say "dude" authentically. He seems to believe that Democrats are out of touch with the common man. But, in reality, it is the original poster who is out of touch. Perhaps "dude" is not commonly used within the bubble in which he appears to dwell. But, outside his bubble, "dude" is used frequently by Democrats and Republicans alike. As one poster puts it, "Dude is just a slang word used in casual conversation. Pretty common and really has no deeper meaning about a person who uses it."

Next was a thread titled, "To those born and/or living on the coasts, do you perceive Chicago to be ‘unsophisticated’?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that she was on a Zoom call and a colleague based in Manhattan described Chicago as "a gorgeous city" but "rather unsophisticated." Others on the call, including some who were originally from Chicago, agreed. The original poster was correct to ask about how Chicago is perceived. There is obviously no agreed upon metric for evaluating the "sophistication" of a city. Hence, this is an entirely vibes-based judgement. Perceptions can be based on a number of factors and can even be completely unrelated to reality. Many posters say that the don't perceive Chicago as being unsophisticated. That is particularly true with those who have spent time living in or near the city. A number of posters explain that they don't think about Chicago at all and, therefore, don't consider it either sophisticated or unsophisticated. To them it may as well not exist. One of the more interesting posts was from a poster who has lived in New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago for at least eight years in each place. She was able to compare and contrast the cities and those who live in them. In her judgement, Chicago was preferable to either of the other two. Several posters tout Chicago's strengths which include great food, many excellent museums, and kind residents. Chicago is also praised for its cost of living which is significantly lower than either New York's or San Francisco's. Many of those who like Chicago simply don't care if the city is considered sophisticated or not because they appreciate the city regardless of what others think. On the other hand, one poster is convinced that the city's entire population suffers from a fear that others look down on them. Other posters agreed that Chicago may be unsophisticated, but in a good way. As such, they find the city to be down to earth and generally free of pretension. Much of the thread involves posters trading opinions about various cities, not limited to Chicago. In addition, apparently many posters relate "sophistication" to wealth and, therefore, explained their perceptions of Chicago based on how the wealthy live. Others link sophistication to specific universities with attendance of an Ivy League school seeming to be a requirement of sophistication. Because Chicago is full of Big Ten graduates, the horrific aspect of being surrounded by those who attended state universities put Chicago beyond the pale for some posters.

The first of today's topics was about the Olympics and so is the last thread that I will discuss today. As it happens, both of these threads were started by the same poster. Posted in the "Sports General Discussion" forum and titled, "why is team USA stinking?", the original poster claims that the U.S.A. Olympic team is very weak and "one of the least likeable and least talented groups" ever. The poster is upset that the U.S.A. team has fewer gold medals than France, Japan, and China. On the other hand, the original poster doesn't care about the silver and bronze medals won by the U.S. team. Opinions are all over the place in this thread. Some posters expect that the U.S. Team will eventually win more gold medals and has a good chance of coming out on top in that regard. Others suggest that the original poster is wrong to ignore bronze or silver medals in sports in which the U.S. is normally not strong. These posters consider those to be impressive achievements. But the original poster rejects this opinion, indicating that only gold medals matter. Another poster had the same thought that I did, that Ricky Bobby must be posting on DCUM. Some posters are not even happy when the U.S. does win gold medals. For instance, the gymnastic team is criticized and a poster suggests that worldwide talent may be decreasing. Others point out that by any objective measures, the U.S. athletes, including the gymnasts, are stronger than those in the past. There is particular focus on China who is believed to be taking the Olympics much more seriously than the U.S. By any measure, there are some really unsophisticated opinions in this thread. The original poster's fixation on winning gold medals is one of them, as is that of the poster who thinks the U.S. gymnastic team is not impressive. Both of these posters are offended by those who criticize their opinions, arguing that it is their right to provide contrary opinions about the U.S.A. team's performance. That's true. But others have a similar right to state their opinions about those opinions. There are clear differences between those posters who simply appreciate sports, especially at this high of a level of competition and those like the original poster who are purely focused on gold medal count. The first group enjoys strong performances even when they don't result in medals. In their opinions, those fixated on medal counts are missing the big picture. The original poster seems to be devoting a lot of time and effort to the Olympics and not enjoying any of it. But, at least that poster has achieved two gold medals for creating active threads on DCUM.