The Most Active Threads Since Thursday

I have had a busy few days, doing a bit of traveling and spending time with family. I was unable to write a blog post on Friday, so today I will discuss the most active threads since Thursday. The most active thread during that period that I have not already discussed was titled, "Harris Walz interview w CNN" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original title of this thread was actually, "Harris Walz interview w CNN – only 18 minutes", but after a number of requests I shortened the title because it misstated the actual length of the interview. The controversy over the length of the interview is a story in itself. Former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and his supporters devote a huge amount of time and effort to trying to convince the public that they are not being treated fairly. In this instance, soon after the announcement that Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz would be interviewed by CNN, Trump supporters began circulating on social media the claim that the interview would only be 18 minutes long and that a full transcript would not be released. This, they claimed, was evidence that the interview would be cleaned up to hide the fact that Harris is, according to them, unable to articulate a complete sentence or connect two thoughts together. The original poster apparently based this thread on those inaccurate claims, but attributed the misinformation to CNN. As it turned out, the interview was longer than 18 minutes and a full transcript was released. A recurring phenomenon that has really started to bug me is that right-wingers will post false information and left-wingers will accept those falsehoods as fact and defend them. In this instance, posters immediately began defending Harris for giving an 18 minute interview and not making a full transcript available. This only helped to spread and confirm inaccurate information. My rule of thumb is to assume by default that anything posted by conservatives is wrong, either intentionally or simply because they don't know any better. Instead of posting knee-jerk responses defending lies about Democrats, liberal posters should take a minute to check whether the information is true or not. As for posters' reactions to the interview, they were about what you would expect. Conservatives had plenty of criticisms. According to them, Harris looked down too much, did not speak coherently, and had lots of help from Walz and Dana Bash, the interviewer. Liberals, of course, thought that Harris had done great. There were a few posters who claimed that their vote had been influenced one way or another but most people simply had their previous opinions reinforced. There was almost as much discussion about Bash as there was about Harris and Walz with conservative posters trying desperately to demonstrate that she was biased in favor of Harris. Several liberal posters also believed that Bash was biased, but against Harris rather than in her favor. Another manufactured controversy involved the fact that Walz was included in the interview. Right-wingers argued that this was unusual and showed that Harris could not be trusted on her own and needed Walz to babysit. In fact, interviews including both the presidential and vice presidential nominees are common and have been conducted by all recent nominees.

Skipping threads that I've already discussed, the next thread that I will go over was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum and titled, "Where to go from here (Black student)". The original poster says that her family is Black and her daughter has "elite-level stats" with a high grade point average and test scores. Her daughter, who is preparing to apply for colleges, will not consider colleges with "low single digit" Black enrollment. Because her daughter already plans to apply to historically Black colleges, the original poster is looking for recommendations of colleges with strong Black communities that are not HBCUs. In the background of this discussion is the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibits race from being a factor in college admissions. It appears that ruling has caused the admissions of Black students at top universities to plummet and, as a result, many elite universities don't clear the threshold set by the original poster for the percentage of Black students. The dilemma, as outlined by many of those responding, is that low numbers of Black students in top universities are forcing those like the original poster's daughter to choose between elite educations and a campus experience that provides a greater sense community. Many posters argue that the original poster's daughter deserves the best education possible and that she should not be put off by a low percentage of Black students. Others empathize with the young woman and see advantages of a larger Black population. A number of posters have recommendations for schools that are both high quality and have a significant number of Black students. Others argue that the original poster's daughter should consider large public universities in which a low percentage of students is still a large number. Any thread dealing with racial issues tends to go off track fairly quickly. DCUM is full of posters who have racial resentments and personalities that prevent them from sticking to the topic. Some posters don't understand why a low single digit Black population should present a problem. There is a debate about whether the original poster's daughter is fixated on "grievances of things that happened mostly to your ancestors." Other posters feel that it is important to point out that not all Black students are African American, some are immigrants. DCUM posters would be unaware of this fact were it not for these posters. Some posters want to compare the Black experience to that of other minorities such as Jews or Asians. There is even an off topic discussion about whether Jews are the "correct" type of minority and complaints that Jews don't get the same sort of sympathy that a Black poster does. While these topics could be the basis of interesting discussions, they don't address the original poster's query. This thread does provoke an interesting question that some posters discuss. If well-qualified Black students such as the original poster's daughter begin to avoid elite universities due to their low enrollment of Black students, where will those students go? This is, of course, exactly the question the original poster is trying to answer, but on a larger scale. Will one elite university emerge as the favored destination? Will such students decide to attend HBCUs, leading to an influx of exceptionally strong students to those schools? Conversely, will elite colleges be content with a low number of Black students that could become a dwindling spiral as low numbers cause Black students to avoid them, lowering the numbers further?

Next was a thread titled, "University of Virginia suspends tours that had come under fire for mentioning Thomas Jefferson's ties to slavery", and posted in the "College and University Discussion". The original poster provided an excerpt from a news article with no commentary of his own. The original poster does not appear to have posted again and, therefore, we have no insight into the poster's own thoughts beyond the subject line. Based on the excerpt posted by the original poster, the title is probably not even accurate. The backstory is that the University of Virginia has had student-led tours organized by the University Guide Service. Based on several firsthand descriptions of the tours provided by posters who participated in them, the tour guides spent an inordinate amount of time discussing issues such as the fact that the ground on which the university was built was stolen from its original inhabitants and that Thomas Jefferson had owned slaves. Some posters criticized the tours as "woke" and complained that they did not spend sufficient time showing or discussing aspects of the campus that were important to students considering applying to the university. The university recently suspended the tours because students often failed to show up to lead them and inconsistency in the content. According to the article referenced by the original poster, a group called the Jefferson Council has been very critical of the tours. That group claims that it is responsible for Governor Glenn Youngkin appointing 13 members of the university's 17-member governing board of trustees, leading to the suspension. The university denied that the suspension was due to the group however. A spokesperson explicitly said, "This isn't in direct response to any criticism from the Jefferson Council. This is more to do with the guides not showing up for their scheduled tours." Regardless of why the tours were cancelled, many posters seem to be glad to see them go. In many cases, posters simply wanted to learn about the campus. They didn't necessarily disagree with the statements about indigenous people or Thomas Jefferson owning slaves, but those were not what they wanted from the tour. Other posters were actively opposed to such statements, considering them part of a "woke" agenda and glad that Youngkin appears to be charting a different course. Fairly quickly this thread broke down into a mostly political debate between posters who support anti-racist statements and those who are opposed to their inclusion in the tour. The first group believes that anti-racist segments of college tours are important for creating awareness and working to oppose racism. The second group finds such statements alienating with some saying that the statements caused their children not to apply to UVA. One complaint that was shared by posters who described themselves as liberal is that the statements are simply performative and are not connected to any real action. Simply virtue signaling in other words. Some posters agreed that given UVA's pride in discussing the university's history and founding by Jefferson, proper context involving indigenous people and Jefferson's slaves should be provided. However, even some of these posters believed that the tour guides were sometimes clumsy in their presentations and, therefore, were ineffective.

The last thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum and titled, "Do men love their kids?". The original poster asks whether men truly love their children or simply take care of them due to obligation. They say that there is no such thing as a dumb question, but they have probably not read this question. In fact, the very first response was, in full, "dumb". The next poster stated that men do love their children with the proof being the expression "girldad". The poster says men would not "invent that whole schtick" out of obligation. The most obvious answer is that men are not all the same and, therefore, a single answer describing all men is impossible. As one poster writes, "There is a range from indifferent to abusive to adoring with many steps between." Other posters attempt to finesse their responses, trying to distinguish between how men and women love their children. I am not sure that something like "love" can be quantified so I don't know how you would even address this question from a scientific perspective. The way that the original poster frames the question, it is really binary. The answer is either "yes" or "no". But, even in that limited context, what actual proof is there to go by? Some posters rely on indications such as whether a father spends time with his children or is active in parenting. Other posters argue that these are not sufficient indicators because a father could spend time with someone without loving them. When one poster says that her father loved her and her husband loves their daughters, another poster responded by saying, "Show me don’t tell me." But this is the problem with the entire topic. In response to this demand, only anecdotes can be provided. Moreover, different posters interpret those anecdotes differently. Is a father coaching his kid's soccer team demonstrating love, fulfilling an obligation, or just participating in an activity that he enjoys? Posters mostly respond based on their own personal experiences. A surprisingly high number of those who respond are able to provide examples of loving fathers but are upset that their own husbands are not among them. There is a huge amount of resentment towards men expressed in this thread, which seems to have attracted an high number of women who have had bad experiences with men. I suspect that most of these posters would have answered any question about men negatively. Their answer to "Do men love their kids" is "no", but had the question been "do men have any good qualities" or "is there anything good about men", I suspect the answer would also have been "no". On the other hand, several posters insist that their husbands love their children. But, again, most of what they cite as evidence is simply the amount of involvement the men have with their kids. For example, while it is not the poster's complete explanation, she mentions that her husband knows the name of their child's teacher. That could be a sign of involvement, but not really evidence of love. The assumption is that involvement signifies love, something other posters argue against. Towards the end of this thread, posters began claiming that men also don't love their dogs. I found this surprising because I have read a huge number of posts written by women who claim that their husbands love their dogs more than them.