Monday's Most Active Threads

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that had been most active over the weekend and discussed in yesterday's blog post. Those were the threads about President Joe Biden pardoning his son Hunter and the one about childcare conflicting with returning to the office. After those two, the most active thread was titled, "In praise of Olive Garden and Hampton Inn; praise YOUR lowbrow favorites!" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster just returned from a trip to her hometown in the Midwest. DCUM posters have a reputation for sneering at the Midwest, or what they call "flyover country", as well as the chains of restaurants, stores, and motels with which they associate the region. "Enjoy Applebee's" was once a popular DCUM expression of disdain for those leaving the vibrant city for less exciting areas (which, for the record, included DC suburbs). However, the original poster's experience was quite enjoyable. As she says, "My parents' house is beautiful, their neighbors are kind and generous, and my hometown is delightful." On the trip home, her family spent a night at a Hampton Inn along the way and dined at an Olive Garden. Both exceeded the original poster's expectations and she has only good things to say about them. As such, she invites others to suggest their "lowbrow" favorites. Two reactions were immediately apparent among the responses. One was to agree that Hampton Inns are normally nice motels and good choices for an interstate travel stop. There was really nothing but praise for the chain. The same is true for Embassy Suites. The other reaction was surprise that Hampton Inns and Embassy Suites are considered "lowbrow". For many posters, those chains are almost considered luxury hotels compared to what they were used to staying in while growing up. For the most part, however, this thread was a list of fast food indulgences. Most posters had a favorite fast food option or two. For some, those are regular treats of which they partake normally. For others, fast food is mostly limited to travel, especially by car. There were a few surprises for me in this thread. I understood IKEA as a popular lowbrow choice for furniture and home accessories, but I was not prepared for it to be praised as a dining venue. I had to agree with the poster who wrote, "I am legit fascinated by the PP who’s eating freaking rainbow trout in a furniture store." I'm glad that this was mostly a good-natured and positive thread. The only hint of conflict involved Ann Taylor, a clothing chain that some consider "lowbrow" while others consider fairly upscale. My only contribution to this discussion is to say that if you want to develop lowbrow tastes, take a road trip in an electric vehicle. You will soon become a connoisseur of Sheetz and Walmart dining and bathroom options. As for motels, anywhere with free charging will do.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum and titled, "2024 JonBenet Documentary". As I am sure everyone knows, JonBenét Ramsey was a child beauty queen who was killed in her home when she was six years old. She was murdered in 1996, and the case has never been solved. Apparently, there is a new documentary about the crime, though this is the first that I've heard of it. The original poster seems to have watched the documentary and now believes that JonBenét was killed by an intruder. This type of "true crime" thread tends to be immensely popular on DCUM, as the 30 pages of this thread can attest. So much so that there have been several requests that I create a true crime forum. I have not been receptive to such suggestions because, based on what I have seen in the true crime threads that we've had, such topics attract a lot of conspiracy theorists and posters who don't normally engage with the site's wider content. That second issue is true of other forums as well, of course, but the true crime posters are often a bit more off the wall than others. However, that doesn't appear to be the case with this thread. I haven't read all 30 pages, but what I did read suggests that most of the posters were pretty level-headed and stuck to conventional sources of information. What is notable about this case is that the list of suspects is very short. Basically, JonBenét's mother, father, and brother, plus a possible intruder who, as I understand it, has never been proven to exist. But the evidence is so confusing and contradictory, and the police investigation apparently so shoddy, that there are almost endless possibilities for speculation. Posters in this thread engage in speculating about most of those possibilities. Some think that it was the mother, others the brother, a few the father, and of course, there are those like the original poster who think it was an intruder. Arguments for and against each of the suspects can be made. Some posters took issue with the documentary itself, which they think was made more for dramatic effect than accuracy. For instance, a number of posters say that considerable attention was paid to a possible intruder who was not even in the area at the time. Speaking of the hypothetical intruder, if you assume that there was an intruder, the list of suspects grows exponentially. Posters in this thread seem to have uncovered every pedophile within 100 miles, and maybe further than that, and found some link between them and the Ramsey family. One of the most contentious aspects of this case is the DNA that was discovered on JonBenét's body and clothes. The thread is full of arguments about the significance — or lack thereof — of the DNA findings. A common pattern is for posters to be convinced that the evidence points conclusively toward one suspect except for one critical piece of evidence that contradicts everything else. They then either ignore, discount, or accept that evidence as a flaw in their theory.

Next was a thread titled, "Does anyone actually care where someone, other than their child, goes to college?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. As in the title, the original poster wonders whether anyone really cares where someone else's child attends college. She asks whether posters in the forum are worrying too much about which school their child ends up at and whether, in reality, they are too concerned about impressing friends and family. I didn't tally up all the responses, but based on my impression, most posters contend that they don't care. However, most of them are aware of others that do care. Among the reasons for caring are those that are practical, such as a poster who hoped that her son would be near his friend group. There were also those that were positive in nature, such as posters who were hoping that other kids receive their first choices and are happy to learn of the achievements of other students. Then, of course, were the less laudable reasons. One poster admitted to enjoying gossip. While I don't think anyone actually fessed up themselves, several posters accused others of wanting to judge the admissions outcomes. The judgement goes both ways, it seems. Posters say they are aware that the success of their kids has caused jealousy in others. In other cases, posters suggest that some — but never the poster themselves, of course — enjoy looking down on kids whose admissions outcomes were not all that they had hoped. One repeated pattern in this thread is posters saying that their kids chose a less than top-tier, but still really good, school — often an outstanding state flagship — but that they had also been accepted at much more prestigious colleges which they declined to attend. It seems important to them that others know that their kids could have gone to a higher-ranked school. Some posters try to make a distinction between simply having an interest and actually caring. They have an interest in knowing where their kids' friends and the kids of their own friends go to college, but they don't really draw many conclusions from the information. Some posters in the thread clearly show that they do care, especially when athletes are involved. Some posters are really bothered when they hear about students getting into top universities due to their athletic abilities. This appears to be based on the perception that athletes might not also have strong academic credentials, an assumption that is often not supported. I appreciated a response from a poster who said that most of the time she has no idea about the reputation of a college. That's probably true for most people. Similarly, her reactions are probably pretty close to normal. She said that if someone is going to an Ivy, she is impressed. If they are going to her alma mater, she is interested. If they are going to Liberty University, she is giving them the side-eye. The third reaction would be different for others depending on their own personal biases, but you get the idea. Another debate in this thread was over how much better prestigious schools actually are when it comes to teaching. Obviously, posters disagree, but there were not many convincing arguments that the extra money spent for elite private universities always results in better learning environments. In some cases it does, but more often the alleged advantages are non-academic.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Titled, "Who holds the power in the marriage dating market?", the original poster says that she is in her late-30s and has observed the dating and marriage market for the 15+ years that she has been in it. She then reports her observations. She says that conventional wisdom is that women have the power in a relationship, and she agrees that a young and reasonably attractive woman can easily find men interested in dating and sleeping with her. But getting commitment from these men is much harder. When men hit their 30s, she says, they suddenly get interested in marriage and choose whomever they are dating at the time. She compares it to a game of musical chairs. Those women who were dating the right guy at the right time got rings; the rest didn't. Therefore, she concludes that it is men, rather than women, who hold the power in the dating and marriage market. I think there is some honesty in this post and a bit of wisdom. However, assuming that the original poster is one of those caught out when the music stopped, her analysis helpfully relieves her of any responsibility. Based on her theory, perfectly marriage-worthy women lose out due to nothing more than bad timing. What I think, apparently along with many of those replying, is that there are things that such women could do to enhance their options. One thing that the original poster fixates on is money. She claims that in their 20s, the guys who women like her were dating didn't have enough money to support a family. She attributes the men's later interest in marriage to their finally making a high enough salary. Several other posters also mention the importance of income when choosing dating partners. While I understand why women would prioritize a healthy income, the original poster may have gone about it wrong. Rather than looking at the guys' current salaries, she might have been better off considering their future potential. As one poster put it, "Personally I would go for a nice GS-11/13 with promotion potential." In the observations outlined by the original poster, she also seems to have devoted quite a bit of time to casually dating guys that she knew not to be interested in marriage (according to her, due to their salaries). Other posters argue that any woman interested in marriage should simply screen out any man not interested in commitment or move on immediately once such a lack of commitment becomes clear. I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but from what I've read, it is a fairly substantive thread, and those in the dating market might benefit from the advice. One question that I always have about such threads is the record of success of those offering the advice. I am not talking about the original poster here, but if someone has spent years trying, but failing, to get married, are they really the best source of advice on how to get married? Maybe, yes, if they have learned from their mistakes. But I don't think that is generally the case. As for the original poster, she should read some of the advice offered by others. Assuming she is still single and interested in marriage, there is still hope.