DCUM Weblog

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and, therefore, I will start with yesterday's third most active thread. That thread was titled, "Event everyone can celebrate: terrorist leader Sinwar dead", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster started this thread soon after reports emerged that Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, had been killed in Gaza by Israeli forces. The original poster believes that this is an event that will please both Israelis and Palestinians. In addition, the original poster expresses hope that Sinwar's death will lead to an end to the fighting in Gaza, the release of the hostages being held by Hamas, and peace in the Middle East. I don't want to be too critical of the original poster because this view was commonly expressed yesterday, including by those much more prominent than the anonymous original poster. But this perspective mostly highlights the disconnect between U.S. perceptions of the war and the reality of what is actually occurring. Far from bringing an end to the war, Israel is continuing to widen the conflict in the region. Almost immediately, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assured his nation that the fighting would continue. What will happen with the hostages is unclear. It is possible that some will be killed in retaliation. More likely there will be no real impact. It is probable that even before Sinwar's death, Hamas had lost most of its ability to exert top down control of its members. The fate of the hostages could well be left to the individual groups that are holding them. As for peace in the region, it will be a long time before Gaza is anything more than a catalyst for further violence in the region. Moreover, as I wrote recently on this blog, Netanyahu's personal motivations are for continual war. Based on what I observed on social media, the reaction of Palestinians and Lebanese, even among some who were no fans of Sinwar, is not one of celebration. Israel released video from a drone that entered the building in which Sinwar had taken refuge after a firefight with Israeli troops. Sinwar's right arm appeared to have been amputated near his wrist and he seems to have applied a tourniquet himself. Using his left arm, he threw a stick at the drone. Arabs point out that rather than hiding in a tunnel, Sinwar was above ground leading the battle against Israeli forces and resisted to the last moment of his life. It appears that Israel may have just created a martyr whose life will inspire others. We have seen how little impact Israel's assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has had as Israel continues to face stiff resistance in southern Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah are resistance organizations whose members face the choice of fighting to the death or surrendering their homelands. Quite a few will prefer the former. The biggest impact of Sinwar's killing may be on U.S. - Israeli relations. For President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, this provides an off-ramp for Israel. Rather than the continued slaughter and starvation of Gazans which is costing Harris votes and possibly even the election, she would much rather see an end to the violence which might decrease the war's importance as an election issue. But Netanyahu appears determined to bomb and starve Gazans into submission. Biden and Harris will be forced to choose between their own interests and Netanyahu's.

The most active thread by some measure was the thread that I have already discussed about Vice President Kamala Harris' round of interviews that she has been conducting this week. Yesterday Harris was interviewed by Fox News' Bret Baier and posters' reactions to that event added several more pages to the thread and, as a result, the thread had nearly three times the number of posts yesterday as the next most active thread. The second and third most active threads were also ones that I've already discussed and I will therefore start with the fourth most active thread today. That thread was titled, "DEI at Michigan--NYT article" and was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article by the New York Times but offered no description or summary of the article, simply saying that it is a "must-read." Unfortunately, the article is extremely long and a summary would have been very helpful. The article is about the diversity, equity, and inclusion program at the University of Michigan. The university launched its first DEI program over a decade ago and is now on the second version of the program. The Times article describes how DEI has been deeply integrated into almost every aspect of the university. Considerable time, energy, and money has been devoted to implementing DEI, but, according to the article, the result has not been positive. Minority students don't believe the program is having the intended result, non-minority students often react with disdain, and professors are often fearful of being accused of violating DEI policies. The DCUM college forum is full of posters absolutely obsessed with affirmative action, the use of race in college admissions, and the demographics of admitted students. A number of such threads have been among the most active threads and I have, therefore, discussed them in this blog. It is no surprise then that this thread attracted a lot of attention. It is also not a surprise that most of the posts were by posters opposed to DEI and that the thread largely consisted of criticism of the university's program. Posters criticized DEI generally and the University of Michigan's implementation of it specifically. They claimed that the program was a waste of money that could have been used more effectively to help minorities in other ways. Some posters claimed that DEI creates resentment and increases racial conflict rather than lessoning it. Other posters went to the defense of Michigan's DEI efforts, arguing that racial relations in the country are terrible and at least Michigan was trying to address the topic, even if its efforts weren't perfect. Other posters were willing to defend DEI more broadly and claimed that most of the criticism was from those who had previously been privileged and were now upset that they no longer held a special place in society. The University of Michigan generally has a good reputation on DCUM but also has a number of critics. Many from the second group used this opportunity to bolster their claims that Michigan is not as good as its reputation would suggest. Those accusations resulted in considerable pushback from Michigan boosters. Posters argued that DEI or not, the school was still a top school.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Honestly asking Trump voters: how can you support him after this bizarre episode?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a Washington Post article about a bizarre incident involving former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and asks what the thinking is of those who continue supporting someone who is so obviously mentally declining. The incident in question occurred during a town hall meeting Trump was holding in Pennsylvania. The event was interrupted twice by medical emergencies involving audience members. But after those were addressed, Trump suddenly said that he was done taking questions and suggested that music be played. He spent the next 39 minutes slowing dancing on stage as a list of his own personal bangers was played. Even before Trump decided that he would dance the night away, he had already displayed a lack of mental acuity. When an audience member noted that her grocery bill was still very high and asked Trump what he would do about inflation, Trump replied that people mention grocery prices to him a lot. But then Trump started talking about farmers and Chinese President Xi. Trump went on to say, "But you asked another question about safety and also about Black population jobs..". The audience member had not brought up those things at all. Trump then veered into talking about immigration and unions. After that, Trump rambled on about Hannibal Lecter for a while before turning his attention to the Border Patrol. Trump then discussed Springfield, Ohio, a city whose Haitian population he has falsely accused of eating pet cats and dogs, though he didn't bring pets up on this occasion. Finally, Trump wrapped up by complaining about early voting. Nothing in this response addressed how Trump would combat inflation. This thread is 23 pages long and I can't read it all. But from what I did read it looks like many posters provided additional evidence that Trump is losing his mental capacity. The day after his town hall, he cancelled a scheduled interview with CNBC. While he did appear at a question and answer session before the Chicago Economic forum, that did not go well for him. When asked if he would break up Google, Trump went on a tangent about voting rolls in Virginia, never mentioning Google. When President Biden was still in the race, conservatives repeatedly highlighted the slightest mental lapse he experienced, accusing Biden-supporters of being in denial about his condition. Now, the tables have turned and Trump-supporters deny what is plain for everyone to see. Just imagine the conservative reaction if Biden had spent 39 minutes swaying to music while in the midst of a town hall? Conservatives in this thread either simply denied that Trump is showing cognitive decline, claiming that liberals are providing biased descriptions of events. Otherwise, they tried desperately to change the subject. Their most frequent diversion was to Biden, who of course, is no longer a candidate.

Yesterday was another day in which many of the most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. Therefore, I'll start with the third most active thread which was titled, "DUI and Death on Harrison" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that a group of kids have been drinking in Cherry Valley Park for almost a year now and he has repeatedly contacted the police who, according to the original poster, did nothing. Now, the original poster says, "one of those kids is dead". I, and I assume many others reading this post, have no idea about what the original poster is talking. I have no idea where Cherry Valley Park is located, who died, or under what circumstances. Some posters, however, do seem familiar with the incident that the original poster is discussing, but they point out that he has the details wrong. Apparently, the kids drinking in the park are high school and middle school kids. However, the death to which the original poster alluded involved college students home for a break. The kids who had apparently been drinking were in a car and the driver hit several parked cars causing his car to overturn. One passenger was ejected from the vehicle and died at the scene. The driver has been charged with "DUI/Involuntary Manslaughter and Breath/Blood Test Refusal". Posters immediately launched into a debate about who is to blame for this incident. The original poster had denounced the driver, his parents, and the police, all of whom he believed bore responsibility for the incident. However, it was his mention of parents that set some posters off. Several posters rejected the notion that parents had any responsibility for the acts of college students who are technically adults, if only barely (the driver is 18 and the deceased passenger was 19). Other posters, however, argued that many parents have a permissive attitude about alcohol which results in their children being cavalier about drinking and driving. Some parents are even accused of being enablers of underage drinking. Moreover, some posters thought that allowing teen children to stay out with what was likely a family car until the early hours of the morning is irresponsible. There is considerable discussion in the thread about the dangers of young adults drinking and driving. Posters pointed out that college freshmen back from school often have just had their first taste of freedom and may be attending colleges with strong drinking cultures. They want to assert their independence at home and can be especially prone to drunk driving. Posters have vastly different views of the incident. While almost universally they express sympathy for the families involved, many posters are adamant that responsibility should be placed on the driver and they are happy that he is being charged. Other posters, however, consider this to have been a tragic accident which will undoubtedly severely impact several families. They argue for compassion and understanding. One big division is between posters who point out all the bad choices that were made that led to this tragedy and insist that it could have been prevented, often by better parenting. Other posters warned against believing that something like this could not happen to those posters or their kids. Even good kids with good parents occasionally make bad choices. Most of the time they are lucky to get away with it, but sometimes the result is terrible.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Bill Maher explains the Middle East to Gen Z: Can anyone really dispute the facts?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a segment of "Real Time with Bill Maher" in which Maher directly addressed singer Chappell Roan, and by extension the entire Gen-Z, and provided what Maher and the original poster apparently believe to be an accurate history lesson about the Israel-Palestine conflict. According to both Maher and the original poster, Gen-Z is wildly uninformed about Israel due to relying on TikTok for information. The original poster finds Maher's version of history to be indisputable. I was an active participant in this thread and found several fundamental errors in Maher's version of history. One issue is less about historical fact and more about interpretations. Maher argues that Israeli Jews cannot be colonizers because Jews have a historic connection to the land of Israel. This ignores that the Jews who created Israel largely came from Europe which had been their home for hundreds, if not thousands of years. There is a legitimate debate over what rights are really construed by such a tenuous connection, especially when Palestinians with much more recent claims on the land are denied any similar rights. Maher also claimed that for 2,000 years, nobody was interested in the land that is today's Israel. This is so fundamentally wrong that it really undermines everything else Maher has to say. Multiple crusades were fought over the land. That hardly signifies a lack of interest. Moreover, Maher erases the thriving Palestinian cities, towns, and villages that existed there for hundreds of years. Maher implied that Zionism was a reaction to the Holocaust and Jews didn't begin migrating to today's Israel until after World War II. Factually, Zionism had its roots in the late 1800s and Jews were emigrating as early as 1882, the time of the First Aliyah. Maher also suggested that anyone opposed to Israel's killing of Palestinian civilians is a supporter of Hamas or Hezbollah. This is a logical fallacy often employed to delegitimize critics of Israel's policies. The irony of Maher's version of history and the original poster's praise for it is that Maher's rendition is more fundamentally flawed that any TikTok video could hope to be. Maher is really in no position to be criticizing anyone else's knowledge given his own apparent ignorance. As several posters pointed out, those like Maher and the original poster criticize young folks for allegedly relying on biased sources of information but Maher and the original poster also have generally only been exposed to equally biased sources. In the Middle East, history is more often used to obscure facts than to clarify them. When people say that the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is complicated, they generally mean that they are confused by history. But history really has little meaning to the current conflict. Jews and Arabs have not been fighting for thousands of years as many would have it. Instead, the conflict is relatively new and quite simple. Two different groups want to live on the same land. It is really not any more complicated than that. Maher's resort to distorted history is really an acknowledgement that Gen-Z is closer to the truth than he would like.

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 trend that I have mentioned every day this week in which many of the most active threads are older threads that I've already discussed not only continued yesterday, but actually became more pronounced. Fully eight of the top 10 most active threads were ones about which I've already written. As a result, the first thread that I will discuss today was actually yesterday's seventh most active. Titled, "I’m so sick of dogs everywhere" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, the original poster describes two recent incidents in which she was in public places and encountered pet dogs. One was a restaurant with patio seating where another customer's dog kept lunging at another dog and brushing against the original poster's husband's leg. The other encounter was with two dogs in a grocery store. The original poster wants to know why some people feel the need to bring their dogs with them everywhere. The first thing I did when I saw this thread today was move it to the "Pets" forum. So that is where you will find it now. Debates over where dogs do and do not belong are pretty legendary on DCUM and, as such, I expected this thread get heated. What I was not prepared for was exactly the way in which it got heated. If someone wanted to satirize a DCUM thread, this thread is a good example of how it might turn out. The first poster to respond berated the original poster, not because she was not tolerant of dogs, but because she had been too passive in response to her encounters. The poster was angry that the original poster didn't complain to the manager of the restaurant and didn't contact the Health Department about the dogs in the grocery store. When another poster told a cute story about a dog on a high speed train in France, another poster accused her of liking dogs more than people. But that poster was silent when a poster complained that some restaurants are more hospitable to dogs than children and was told that is because kids are worse than dogs. Other posters agreed with that last poster and expressed happiness that dogs are more welcome than children in some places. As in most things, opinions on this topic exist on a spectrum. Yet it is the extreme opinions that get the most attention, which, of course, is not unusual. Those extreme positions, in turn, caused extreme reactions. In response to anti-dog posts, some dog owners promised to begin bringing their dogs to public places more often. In response to intransigent dog owners, other posters say they will begin complaining to management and other authorities more frequently. For much of the thread I wondered why those who bring their dogs everywhere didn't provide explanations for that behavior. But then explanations were provided and I almost felt that made things worse. For instance, some posters bring their dogs inside stores and restaurants because they are afraid that if they tied them up outside they would be stolen. Maybe not an unreasonable fear, but why bring the dog in the first place then? The answer in one case was because the dog is uncomfortable when left at home alone.

Once again several of the most active threads yesterday were threads that I've already discussed and will skip today. As a result, just as was the case over the past two days, I am starting with what was actually yesterday's fourth most active thread. That thread was titled, "HoCo dresses- Could they be any shorter" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. At first I assumed that residents of Howard County have been wearing especially short dresses for some reason. Later I deduced that the thread's title actually referred to homecoming dresses. I am used to DCUM's annual tradition of bashing girls' high school prom fashion choices, but I guess that this is now going to be a twice a year event. The original poster writes that the dresses "literally couldn't be any shorter or tighter". But that was said last year and will be said again next year. Therefore, I can comfortably predict that they can, in fact, get shorter and tighter. I find this sort of thread to be especially tedious. There is no better way to make yourself sound old and out of touch than by complaining about what "the kids today" are wearing. Making some old foggy clutch her pearls is basically a rite of passage for high school kids. As one poster wrote, "It is the God-given duty of teenagers to wear/do/say things that are shocking to their elders. I’m sure the prehistoric cave parents stood around and clucked about the appalling trends in mastodon skins." There is rarely anything new in these threads. This one, just as all the others before it, has posters who agree with the original poster that nobody should be allowed out of the house dressed in such a manner. Others tell the original poster to mind her own business. Still others defend the dress choices. Some posters cloak their disapproval in notions of practicality, arguing that the dresses are uncomfortable and make bending over difficult. Others suggest that regardless of the propriety of wearing such clothing, many of the girls don't have the body type necessary for the dresses. A number of posters complained about being "forced" to look at girls' private parts. In response, a poster says, "I have no idea what those posters talking about private parts are on about. They sound like internet perverts." A popular tactic was to compare the attire to that worn by prostitutes. This seems to especially raise the hackles of those supportive of the girls. Parents of girls who dress in such styles argue that this is not a battle worth fighting and question why others care about it so much. One poster asks, "why do the choices of unrelated teen girls get people so furious?" Another issue that posters bring up is that only girls' clothing is policed in such a manner while the boys are ignored. This is excused by a poster who suggests that it is because boys aren't the ones showing up "mostly naked". Some of the anti-short-dress crowd suggest that girls dress in such a manner because they lack self-esteem. In response, some posters who support allowing girls to dress however they want suggest that it is actually those posters who are offended by the dresses who have issues. As one poster responded to them, "You also have serious hang ups with sexuality. Yours and, weirdly, other peoples. And you’re beyond strange [because] of it".

A year ago on October 8 I wrote about the Hamas attack on Israel that had occurred the previous day. When I was writing, the full scale of the horror that Hamas had visited upon Israel was not yet known. Had I written that post a week later, I probably would have taken a different approach. In particular, I would have paid more attention to the brutality of the attack and the murder of many innocent and undeserving Israelis. In addition, I probably wasn't clear enough that I hold Hamas solely responsible for the attack. However, Hamas didn't act in a vacuum and what I was writing about were the conditions that made the Hamas attack possible. That continues to be an interest of mine. Re-reading the post today, I continue to feel that its analysis was solid. More importantly, I think the the main point of my writing — that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, due to personal interests, was responsible for creating an opening that Hamas exploited — remains true today. Netanyahu was pursuing a personal agenda that led to a national disaster. Netanyahu's motivation has not changed, which explains his willingness to sacrifice the remaining hostages held by Hamas and to expand Israel's wars rather than seeking a ceasefire.

Yesterday was another day in which many of the most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. I've mentioned this before, but a fairly new phenomenon on DCUM is that older threads frequently stay active for a long time. As a result, threads show up repeatedly on the most active list. Just as was the case with yesterday's post, the top three most active threads yesterday were ones about which I've already written. As a result, I will start today with the fourth most active thread. That thread was titled, "Ton of sit down interviews this week for Harris", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As the original poster of the thread notes, there have been weeks of hang-wringing by posters concerned that Vice President Kamala Harris has not been doing one-on-one media appearances. A cottage industry has developed to either criticize Harris as being unable to speak in unscripted situations or defend her reluctance to spend time with the press. This week, however, Harris has scheduled a number of one-on-one interviews with a variety of media outlets. Of course, her detractors are still not satisfied. They seem to believe that only an appearance on Fox News or maybe even Newsmax would be convincing. While one of Harris' appearances was on CBS's "60 Minutes", a traditional interview for presidential candidates, most of her schedule consisted of non-traditional media. For instance, one of the first was an appearance on the "Call Her Daddy" podcast. I confess that I had previously not heard of this podcast, despite being a podcast enthusiast. But the show is apparently the most-listened-to podcast among women and the second-most-listened-to podcast overall. So Harris' media advisors seem to have known what they were doing. By all appearances, many of Harris' critics were also unfamiliar with the podcast because they had to quickly Google for information with which to bash her. Other planned appearances for Harris included "The View", "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert", and "The Howard Stern Show". Harris will also do a Univision town hall. Harris detractors complained that these are "lovefests" in which no hard-hitting questions will be asked. They want Harris to be grilled on her past relationship with Willy Brown and her husband's past relationships. Harris and her campaign are not interested in playing the conservatives' games and serious reporters would ignore those topics in any case due to their irrelevance to the presidency. Instead, as many posters noted, the wisdom of Harris' media strategy is that she is using platforms that allow her to delve into topics and discuss nuances rather than being focused on talking points and soundbites. More importantly, she is reaching voters who generally ignore the traditional media. The vast majority of those tuning into MSNBC or Fox News have long ago made up their minds about for whom they will vote in this election. The non-traditional outlets allow Harris to talk directly to those who rarely vote, who may not pay attention to politics, and who may still be persuaded to support Harris. In addition, the longer formats and specialized interests of these shows allows Harris to delve into issues that traditional media — often focused on the horse race and conventional topics — tends to ignore.