Thursday's Most Active Threads

While many of the most active threads yesterday were ones about which I have already written, that was not the case with the most active thread overall. That thread was titled, "Are you offended when someone says they ‘didnt [sic] want someone else to raise my kids’?" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster asked if the expression, "I didn't want someone else to raise my kids" is an appropriate response to questions about why one spouse chose to not to work out of the house or to work part time. This is a classic "work out of the house moms" vs "stay at home moms" debate. DCUM doesn't have these arguments as much as we used to, but — as this thread shows — they have not gone away completely. The fact that this thread generated 30 pages of discussion in just one day shows that this topic can still animate posters. After 20 years of reading variations of this dispute, I really have no interest in reading 30 pages, or even 3 pages about it. The fundamentals of the argument are well known. Some moms want to stay home and raise their children and they have the luxury of being able to make that choice. For these moms, being a stay at home mom is fulfilling and they enjoy it. If they are asked why they made that choice, responding by saying that this was something they wanted to do would be perfectly honest. I am not sure why anyone would object to such a response, but I expect that someone would anyway. Problems arise, however, if the responses is phrased some what differently. For instance, if they say that they wanted to be the one to raise their children or that they didn't want someone else to raise their children, it implies some amount of judgement that women who didn't make that choice didn't raise their children. Women who didn't stay home often find this implication rude or insensitive. Predictably, therefore, many posters respond to the original poster by saying that they are not necessarily offended by this expression, but that they do find it inappropriate. Moreover, these posters often go a step further and explain that they believe saying such a thing is revealing about the person who said it. For instance, it might indicate that the person has a myopic view of things or might be trying too hard to justify her own choice. A number of posters who did not stay home argue that they still raised their kids. While a nanny or daycare might have cared for their children for a few hours a day, the most important parenting decisions and involvement still came from the parents. The other side of this coin is the negativity with which work-out-of-the-house moms often view stay-at-home-moms. Remarks about staying at home not being intellectually rewarding or wasting an education or career are not uncommon and are often hurtful to moms who stay home. As a poster on the first page pointed out, the tables are turned in this debate once elementary school starts. Nobody accuses moms of having someone else raise their children when the kids are going to school. However, criticism of moms who continue to stay home can rapidly increase with suggestions that they are sitting home doing nothing while their kids are in school. The bottom line is that neither group likes to have its choice criticized. The more that everyone can learn to respect the choices of others and understand that people are different and have different priorities, the sooner we can get past threads like this. Mothers, and fathers, may take different paths, but they almost all have the same goal and are doing their best.

The next three most active threads were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. After those was a thread posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum and titled, "High Value Man - AMA". I will probably have to visit an ophthalmologist due to straining my eyes rolling them while reading this thread's title. The original poster does not explain what makes him a high value man, but nevertheless invites posters to "ask him anything". The first question is, "Why are you such a loser?", which basically sets the tone of the discussion. Most of those responding have the opinion that anyone who describes themself as "high value" is very unlikely to be high value. Instead, that indicates a level of narcism that is undesirable. Posters seem particularly perturbed that a man would describe himself this way on a website like DCUM that primarily caters to women. Try as they might, posters cannot really pin down the original poster about what makes him high value. He implies that he is good looking (but not a super model), well educated, decent professional status, and charismatic. Based on his posts, many of those responding rule out charisma and education and doubt his claims about looks. The original poster's response when asked for specifics about what makes him "high value" is often to suggest that he has been successful with women. One poster responded to this by saying, "Any man who sees his value through the opinion of another woman is a man devoid of any value." From my point of view, the original poster is frustrating due to the oblique way he answers questions. Others felt the same way with one poster writing, "You are weirdly dancing around any question asked. You give non-answers. It's very clear you have no idea what you're talking about." For the early part of the thread, most posters seem to assume that he is single and dating. Later he says that he is no longer dating and is "coupled up". His response to one question about what made him a "high value man" was to describe his "strength of character, which is cultivated by habituation in the Aristotelian sense". An important issue in this thread is that individuals have different values. What one woman might consider "high value", another woman might not. Some posters clearly prioritize height and income. But others are more interested in personality. One poster responds saying, "High-value men have high levels of emotional intelligence. No comment on this thread has left me with the impression that OP has a noteworthy emotional IQ". Very few posters were willing to give the original poster much in the way of support. Some, however, thought that some of the criticism was going a bit too far and they gave the original poster credit for remaining calm. Ultimately the downfall of this thread is that it is simply not interesting. As a poster writes, "This is absolutely the most boring thread. Op is not providing any interesting information which is the whole point of AMAs." Throughout the thread posters accused the original poster of using artificial intelligence to create his answers. I don't know if that was true or not, but clearly some answers required human involvement. For instance, the original poster mentioned me by name and described things that I wouldn't want on the website. I doubt any AI system would come up with that response.

Next was a thread titled, "2024 POTUS - polling only" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. One drawback of most DCUM discussions, but particularly those in the political forum is their tendency to be sidetracked. Some posters simply don't have the ability to stay on topic and, instead, go off on whatever tangent catches their interest. In an effort to prevent this from happening in this case, the original poster started this thread to simply collect presidential polls. The original poster established a guideline that no more than 3 sentences of thought or analysis could be posted. The original poster and other posters then set about diligently reporting any non-compliant posts to me so that they could be removed. The thread was started back at the end of August and is now 107 pages long. It almost entirely consists of embedded tweets or graphics showing poll results along with short comments. The thread added just over 7 pages yesterday which was enough to put it among the most active. Yesterday's posts were not that much different than those earlier in the thread. Polling is a controversial topic. Over the past several elections, one side or the other has frequently accused pollsters of rigging polling results to sway the election. Thanks to the development of websites such as FiveThirtyEight.com, many posters have learned to become more discerning about polls. The result is that most poll results are met with partisan-leaning criticism. On top of that, traditional polls that are considered high-quality have had differing results. Plus, the results change frequently, favoring Vice President Kamala Harris one day and former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump another day. Polling comes down to modeling. One criticism is that pollsters can't reach everyone. Young people, in particular, are reluctant to answer their phones so a phone poll of young voters will almost be useless. Pollsters address this by weighting the responses they do receive appropriately, which is where modeling is involved. Polls often fail because the electorate was not modeled correctly and the most common reason for that failure is that the electorate changed. For instance, maybe a large number of voters who don't normally vote, and therefore were not weighted very heavily, suddenly came out to vote. With key states being very close, normally statistically tied, there is tremendous concern that small modeling errors will result in significant poll failures. Both sides are trying to address this concern with Democrats bragging about a better ground game to get out the votes and Republicans stressing the existence of "silent" Trump voters who don't tell anyone that they support him. Polls can also play a role in the public's reaction to election results. If the actual results differ significantly from the polling predictions, the suggestion that cheating was involved might gain wider acceptance. Complicating things is the fact that Republicans are flooding the market with low quality polls that more than likely vastly overstate support for Republicans. This is another area in which Republicans are attempting to create doubt and undermine trust in institutions.

The final thread that I will discuss today was also posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Michigan gov Gretchen Whitmer mocks the reception of the Eucharist, with a Dorito", this thread is a textbook example of how Republicans manufacture outrage. The original poster embedded a tweet that itself contained a TikTok video. The video showed a young woman kneeling and having a Dorito placed in her mouth. As the camera panned out, it was revealed that it was Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer who had fed the woman the Dorito. The woman in question was podcaster and author Liz Plank and they were replicating a trend on TikTok in which someone is show being fed and then the camera pans out to show that it was a friend feeding them. These videos are normally recorded with the song "Dilemma" as their soundtrack. The Plank/Whitmer video also had "Dilemma" playing. Anyone familiar with TikTok trends would immediately know what is going on here. Unfortunately, older people, which these days includes me, are more likely to be confused and confusion can be exploited. The tweet included in the original post was from the AF Post account. AF Post describes itself as creating "narratives centered around America First ideas". Instead of explaining that Whitmer was engaging in a TikTok trend, the tweet claimed that Whitmer was "mocking the reception of the Eucharist". The original poster, either knowingly or not, completely buys into the AF Post allegation and questions why Whitmer would do such a thing. Moreover, many of those responding also accept this description of the video and claim that it is deeply offensive to Christians. There is just so much stupid in this thread that I don't know where to begin. Posters make all kinds of claims about how this will affect the election. But Whitmer is not currently running for anything. The suggestion seems to be that this video will cause voters to vote for former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. If that is true, which I doubt, U.S. politics is even worse than I believed. Moreover, despite the massive outrage that some posters display, many posters who say that they are Catholic say they are not bothered. Posters even contact their religious friends or relatives to ask them and report that they are not offended either. There is a real question about just how many people will even learn about this TikTok and, among them, how many — if any — would determine their vote because of it. Then the thread turned into a debate about religion with some posters arguing that religious sensitivity is very important while others argue that there is too much deference to religious sensibilities and that is problematic. The result is that responses range from "the video is offensive", to "the video is not offensive" to "who cares if the video is offensive?", to "I hope the video is offensive". Despite the heated exchanges in this thread, I think I can safely predict that the impact of this TikTok video on the election will so insignificant as to not be measurable. With issues such as electric vehicle credits, union jobs, proposed tariffs, and the wars in Gaza in Lebanon being impacted by the election, voters in Michigan have bigger fish to fry. Of course, panic-stricken Democrats may need to up their anxiety-medication dosages, but that would probably be true in any case.