Monday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was a political topic but with a twist. Titled, "I live in Takoma Park. I’m voting for Trump!", the thread had both national and local aspects. The original poster chose the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum for the post. That was the twist because much of the discussion ended up being about national politics. The essence of the original poster's post is that the original poster is a legal immigrant and a registered independent who wants to put a sign supporting former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump in her front yard. She lives in Takoma Park, MD which is famously ultra-progressive. While the original poster believes that it would be a positive demonstration of freedom of expression in America to dissent from the vast majority of surrounding opinion, she is worried about possible vandalism or social harm to her family. Reading this I thought that this story sounded invented. Taking a look at the original poster's other threads, there is a reasonable possibility that this was a troll attempt (and a fairly successful one at that). The original poster has previously demonstrated a liberal perspective on politics and even referred to Trump supporters as "magats". On the other hand, the original poster has previously shown opposition to undocumented immigrants, a position that she reiterates in this thread. Therefore, potentially she might vote for Trump based on that single issue. But, I am doubtful. She has also written favorably about Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and unfavorably about Ohio Senator J. D. Vance, the two party's nominees for Vice President. Beyond that, a proper response to the original poster's concern depends on the specifics of her home's location. Does she live on a main drag where thousands of people a day might see her sign or is her house tucked back on a side street where only immediate neighbors might notice a sign in its yard? In the first case, there is no telling what a random hothead who happens to be driving by — and might not even live in Takoma Park — might do. In the second, it depends on the neighbors. Presumably the original poster knows her neighbors and would have some idea how they might react. None of those responding in this thread know those specifics and, instead, most answer based on stereotypes of Takoma Park residents. Right-wingers get tremendous joy from exposing what they consider liberal hypocrisy when liberals are not welcoming of right-wing views. This is often based on the right-wing's rather strange understanding of free expression which they believe should allow them to express whatever sentiments they wish but that liberals should not be able to state their dislike for those sentiments because that would be intolerant and liberals are supposed to be tolerant. As such, there is considerable drooling over an opportunity for Takoma Park liberals to expose themselves as hypocrites. Discussion eventually turned toward Trump's political agenda and what some posters don't like about it. Another popular trend among DCUM's conservative posters is to disassociate themselves from all but a small portion of Trump's positions. They might argue that they are personally pro-choice, support LGBTQ rights, aren't racist, and so on, but due to one or two specific reasons, they have decided to vote for Trump. In the original poster's case, this reason is immigration. But, as other posters see it, when you put up a Trump sign, you are supporting the whole enchilada. Intentionally or unintentionally, you are telling everyone that you support Trump's attacks on democracy, his threat to the rule of law, and his plan to forcibly expel a million undocumented migrants.

The next most active thread was the thread about Vice President Kamila Harris running for President. I've already discussed that thread and will, therefore, go on to the next thread. That thread was posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum, though I am not sure that was the most appropriate forum. Titled, "Party requesting guests to take shoes off", the original poster says that her family is Asian-American and that they don't wear shoes in the house. They are expected to host a grade-wide dinner for their private school and she wonders if it would be strange to ask guests to remove their shoes. As one of the first posters to respond pointed out, "People on DCUM are very divided on this. Search this topic and you’ll see pages and pages of discussion." Whenever this topic comes up — which as that poster notes, is regularly — it is notable just how divided posters are on the issue. Those from cultures in which shoes are not worn in the house of course are perfectly fine with not wearing shoes in the house. However, most of them have already encountered situations such as the original poster is expecting. They have advice such as providing slippers for guests to wear and mentioning in the invitation that their house is shoe-free. But they generally have had unfortunate encounters with guests who resisted removing their shoes and sometimes had to simply tolerate it. The pro-shoe posters are surprisingly resistant to removing shoes. Several say that if they know in advance that they will be expected to take off their shoes, they won't attend. At least one poster appeared to deny the practice of entire cultures and argued that those who have shoe-free houses are simply trying to avoid cleaning. Another suggested that she was bothered by shoe-free homes in which the owners had pets, particularly cats. It is really strange how the allegedly highly-educated DCUM audience is so resistant, and ignorant of, this particular cultural tradition. Reasons for not wanting to remove shoes included a lack of preparedness — for instance not having socks on or having socks that are embarrassing — and health or medical reasons. A few argued that their shoes were an important component of their outfits and didn't want to remove them for fashion reasons. Some posters didn't provide an explanation but seemed to view a request to remove their shoes as insulting. A number of posters believe that an adult should never be asked to remove their shoes and that it would be rude to do so. Others felt that removing shoes for a social event would be acceptable, but not for a business occasion. A number of posters suggested that regardless of their own feelings about shoes in the house, hosting a large event and expecting everyone to remove their shoes was probably doomed to failure. Therefore they suggested allowing shoes and having the house professionally cleaned afterwards or hosting the event elsewhere.

Next was a thread titled, "Noticing very chunky young kids" and, like the previous thread, posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster says that while at the pool this summer she has noticed a lot of "chunky" kids. She says that her own kids, who don't always eat healthily, don't gain weight regardless of what they eat. She feels bad for the kids who have to deal with weight issues at such a young age. Weight in general is a touchy issue on DCUM. There is tremendous prejudice against overweight people, especially women, and a number of posters are very sensitive about the topic. There has also been an effort to reduce criticism and shaming of those who are overweight, going so far in some cases to be "fat-positive". While there seems to be a general attitude that discussing weight is not polite, there is still an understanding — often unstated — by many that weight issues are linked to many serious health issues. The result of all of this is that the original poster is probably correct to be concerned about the large number of overweight kids, but wrong to mention it. Therefore, she receives quite a bit of criticism for posting this thread. Many posters suggest reasons for the weight problems that the original poster observed. A fairly common explanation is the kids' large intake of sugary foods, especially sugary drinks. Some posters blame parents for not providing healthy food to their children and allowing them to eat junk food instead. Parents who have picky children are mocked. Much of the discussion is similar to that in other weight-related threads. Posters argue that our food is causing us to be overweight and that this is an issue that affects people of all ages. Others suggest that weight is related to genes and not something that is easily controlled. Several posters say that they have multiple kids who eat the same diet but have vastly different weights. Other posters contend that a lack of physical exercise also contributes to the problem. This is a difficult topic to discuss for a number of reasons. Parents of thin kids tend to be overly smug. Many posters provide explanations for why their kids are heavy that are related to health or medical conditions. While these posters are probably completely correct, the number of responses of this sort creates the impression that many parents are in denial about their kids' weight. As an undercurrent of all of this is a theme running throughout it that weight gain is practically unavoidable and that even kids who are thin now will eventually be overweight.

The final thread that I will discuss today is one that I do not believe should have been posted. Had I known about this thread before now, I would have deleted it. I came pretty close to deleting it now and discussing the next most active thread instead. I may still end up deleting it. The thread was posted in the "Religion" forum and titled, "What happens when religion and ideology conflict?". The original poster asks whether "a specific ideology be considered a type of religion". This seems innocuous enough if you are not aware of the back story. The back story is that the original poster is very anti-trans and believes that "gender ideology" is the equivalent of a religious belief. The original poster repeatedly attempted to post variations of this thread in the political forum but I removed them. She then posted at least one version in the religion forum which I also removed. Afterwards, she changed her language sufficiently that I didn't notice this thread and she got away with it. The original poster would end up posting over 50 times in this 11 page thread. Among the mental illnesses we encounter on DCUM, one of the most common is this type of compulsive obsessiveness. The original poster was simply determined to post a thread of this type and nothing was going to stop her. The motivation for her obsessive behavior is apparently an equally obsessive desire to convince others that gender identity has no basis in science and is simply a "belief". Why this poster has that particular obsession is a question that I can't answer. But I would much rather that she find a different outlet for her fixation than DCUM. The original poster's argument is that "gender ideology" — as she calls it — is a religion and, because religion should not be taught in school, gender ideology should not be either. There are a couple of false assumptions in this argument. First, religions can be and are taught in schools. Indeed, there are classes with names such as "comparative religion". Second, as another poster points out, "Gender is not a belief system or ideology, it's biology + psychology + sociology. It doesn't have ‘a place parallel to that filled by the God.’" It is the original poster's "opinion" that gender ideology is a religion. But that opinion ignores the roots of gender identity in science. Some might ask why I would not want to allow this discussion. The answer is that I am not interested in hosting discussions that question the reality of other's existence. I would not allow a thread discussing whether Black people are inherently less intelligent than others. Nor would I countenance a thread about whether Hitler might have been justified in attempting to exterminate Jews. Likewise, I have no tolerance for those like the original poster who argue that trans people's identity is not real, but rather a myth. I do accept that gender is largely a social construct and, as such, is subject to changes in perception. I agree that this could be a topic of interesting discussion. However, it is an unfortunate reality that any topics involving gender identity attract anti-trans posters such as the original poster. Sadly, many of them share her obsessive nature as well. Hence, any such thread quickly becomes an attack on transgender people as this one clearly did. The result is that I prefer to prohibit such discussions in the first place, especially when they are started by those with clear ant-trans agendas.