DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Does this Taylor Swift fling with the NFL football brute seem super fake?" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Like the countless British Royal Family threads, Taylor Swift threads could easily take over the entertainment forum. Unlike the BRF threads, however, Taylor Swift threads rarely result in waves of inappropriate posts that require constant intervention. Indeed, about the only complaint I ever get about Taylor Swift threads is that there are too many of them. The posters themselves seem to be extremely well-behaved. Plus, they can take a joke. This particular thread is about Swift's apparent relationship with Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce. Posters are convinced that the relationship is contrived and not authentic. The reasoning, as best I can tell, is that Kelce does not fit the image that fans have for a Swift boyfriend. Some posters argue that this is a means for Swift to bolster her popularity with "flyover country". I know very little about Taylor Swift, but even so I am fairly certain that popularity is the least of Swift's concerns. As posters point out, she is able to fill a stadium within in minutes of ticket sales opening. Some posters see Kelce as little more than a dumb jock who is far from suitable for Swift. Others rush to Kelce's defense and point out a number of factors that could make him appealing to Swift. I simply had to marvel at some of the motivations posters ascribed to Swift. My favorite was a poster who argued that by dating Kelce, Swift is hoping to appeal to the "Tens of millions of men" who have fantasy football teams and convince them that it is okay to listen to Taylor Swift records. But, the goal is not to simply to sell music, but to swing general elections. Unbeknownst to me, listening to Taylor Swift apparently makes you vote a certain way. I am a bit surprised about how even Swift's most loyal fans seem to view her as manipulative and conniving, with her every move being planned out for public relations purposes. The most charitable among them are convinced that she is simply gathering material for future songs.

The most active thread since my last post on Friday was titled, "Buyers can't have it both ways" and posted in the "Real Estate" forum. The original poster notes that in her neighborhood houses are "selling like hotcakes". The houses are all the same age and have been slightly updated or staged. However, one house that has had nothing done to it has been sitting on the market. The original poster blames the lack of interest on the fact that it would require updating after purchase. This leads the original poster to accuse buyers of trying to "have it both ways". On one hand they complain that no houses are on the market and on the other refuse to consider houses that have not been updated. Several posters provide an explanation for why houses in need of updating are avoided by new buyers. After having put nearly every cent of their savings into a down payment and closing costs, new buyers don't have cash for a renovation. If they buy an already updated house, the cost of the renovation is rolled into their mortgage. Several posters see the advantages of buying a house in need of updating. For instance, several would rather do a renovation themselves rather than accept a cheap job done only to enhance a sale and there are the obvious financial advantages. But, if they don't have the money, they can't take advantage of those benefits. A second reason cited for avoiding homes in need of updating is the disruption that comes with renovations. With months long waits for appliances or cabinets, many posters say they would just rather avoid the headaches. However, the length of this thread is a result of one of my most hated phenomenons: a fight between generations. In this case, the battle is between millennials and baby boomers. As I have repeatedly written, I don't like generational labels which I find to be of little value. I especially dislike when posters divide each other with these labels and get into arguments. In this case, millennials are accused of being lazy and too incompetent to paint their own houses while boomers are said to be overly attached to their outdated homes for which they are expecting to get far too much money. The lack of utility of generational divisions is quickly displayed by posts from millennials who not only can paint a room, but apparently have built their entire homes from the ground up with little more than a hammer and screwdriver. Similarly, plenty of boomers claim to be quite happy to spend $40k updating their home in order to charge $80k more for it. 

Again, I'll start with a reminder of our new "Contribute" page for those of you who may want to help keep video ads off of the website.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Our garbage gym Lifetime Centreville is ripping out the indoor basketball courts and replacing it with all pickleball" and posted in the "Sports General Discussion" forum. As the title says, the gym at which the original poster's family has a membership has converted its two basketball courts to pickleball courts. In addition, the gym removed a rock climbing wall and cancelled birthday parties and summer camps. Clearly, the gym is moving away from family-oriented programs to appeal to the older pickleball crowd. The original poster asks for suggestions for gyms convenient to her that still have basketball courts. Some time ago there were threads similar to this in which posters complained that pickleball was taking over outdoor courts. Now that process has moved indoors. Pickleball proponents make no apologies. They see the gym as simply making decisions that make financial sense and meeting the needs of a fast-growing sport (though some posters dispute whether pickleball can be legitimately called a "sport"). Their only quibble is about being described as "old". Pickleball supporters are adamant that young people also play the sport and, regardless of their own age, they are not "old" and anyone calling them old is ageist. But, at the same time, they are eager to emphasize that older folks buying individual memberships are a more lucrative market than families paying for discounted family memberships. The pickleball fans ask why the basketball players can't play outside and the basketball fans ask the same of the pickleball players. Basketball supporters ask why the courts can't be shared while pickleball supporters argue that basketball players should assimilate and accept that pickleball is the future. The bottom line is that, at least in the original poster's neck of the woods, basketball players are out of luck. There don't seem to be any viable options for them.

I want start with another reminder of our new "Contribute" page for those of you who may want to help keep video ads off of the website. The response so far has been very gratifying and we are very thankful for those who who have supported us.

Today marks one year since I started writing the "most active threads" series. So, I thought that I would take a moment to revisit the origin of these blog posts. Back in 2007 when we moved to this website platform after two years of using another, my vision of the home page blog was that it would be a place for DCUM users who have an interest in writing to contribute blog posts. A communal blog for DCUM posters, if you will. That worked okay for a while with a small group of writers offering regular articles that kept the content fresh and interesting. But, slowly, those authors moved on to other endeavors. That left me as the primary contributor and I was often pressed for time or, more often, simply out of ideas. As a result, the home page content grew stale. Often it was little more than republished press releases. A year ago, the most recent post on this blog was nearly 10 months old. Moreover, we were at the beginning of what would be a seemingly non-stop decline in advertising revenue. Among the advice I received from advertising partners was to keep content fresh. "Surely, that is not a problem for DCUM", I thought. "Our content changes every few minutes if not more often." But, that was the forum content, not the home page. So, I stretched my imagination to its limits — obviously a very short horizon — and came up with the idea of writing about active topics on the website. If popular threads would provide writing prompts, I could write about anything, I believed. My goal was not to attract readers — indeed I couldn't imagine why anyone would read such posts — but only to appease Google's search engine and algorithm. The result was my first post in this series. Originally I also posted on the weekend but eventually stopped that in order to give myself a break. But, outside of weekends I am pretty sure that I have posted every day except the day of my brother's funeral and the day we drove our younger son to college.

Before I get started on the most active posts today, I want to draw attention to the new tab our navigation bar titled, "Contribute". This is in response to posters who offered to make donations to DCUM if we would discontinue the video advertisements that we had introduced. If you are interested in such a contribution, the "Contribute" page provides linkes to Patreon and PayPal allowing you to to that. All contributions will be greatly appreciated.

The most active thread yesterday by some measure — more than doubling the number of responses of the next most active thread and racking up an amazing 19 pages in less than a day — was a thread titled, "Travelled to interview, not sure what to think of prospective boss" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster describes an in-person interview for her "dream job" for which she had waited a long time for the previous job-holder to retire. The night before she was flying, her prospective boss texted her to say that he would pick her up at the airport and take her to lunch. This did not go over well with the original poster and, after some back and forth, she was able to get those plans changed. The prospective boss had arranged a full itinerary that included quite a bit of one-on-one time which made the original poster uncomfortable. The trip ended with the original poster being told that she would be offered the job. A few days later, the prospective boss texted her again which bothered the original poster and she told him that she would be available on another day (she later clarified that she was busy organizing a conference). This caused him to angrily reply back saying that maybe he should not offer her the job. The original poster ends by saying she believes that he is interested in more than a professional relationship and that she cannot take the job. She asks for advice about what to do. There are several issues included in this post and even more become evident as posters respond. There is the obvious issue of possible sexual discrimination or harassment. In the original post, the poster does not detail anything like that but seems uncomfortable simply being alone with a man. Some posters accept this as a reasonable concern but others think the original poster is overreacting. A second facet is the question of the boss's management style. Even taking the potential gender issues out of the discussion, many posters suggest that the prospective boss and the original poster may not have compatible working styles. Multiple posters stated that what the original poster described sounds very much like the typical interview in academia and the original poster confirmed that the interview was at a state university. This leads posters to advise the original poster that she likely does not understand what working in academia involves and that her expectations are massively unrealistic. Eventually the original poster did describe a comment by the prospective boss that was likely inappropriate, but posters are divided about whether it amounted to sexual harassment. Whether posters sympathized with the original poster or not, almost everyone agreed that if the original poster is not willing to put up with the boss, her only option was to turn down the job. Nobody seemed to see any effective recourse such as complaining to the human resources departement. I mostly stopped reading after the 4th page but as best I can tell, the same arguments simply repeated page after page with posters getting increasingly frustrated with the original poster.

The first thread that I'll discuss today was titled, "NYT Article on ‘Rise of Single-Parent Families is Not a Good Thing’" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster commends and briefly quotes from an opinion article in the New York Times which discusses an increase in single-parent families and the disadvantages those families face. The original poster agrees with the article's emphasis that while stable two-parent families have significant advantages, single-parent families should not be shamed. Reading the article, I felt that the Times' headline writer had done both the author and the article itself a disservice by framing single-parent families negatively as "not a good thing". The author's book upon which the article was based and the article itself looks at things from the opposite point of view, focusing on the advantages of two-parent families. It's not that single-parent families are inherently bad, but that they generally lack the advantages of two-parent families. The two major advantages of two-parent families that the author cites are fairly obvious. The first being greater financial resources due to normally having two incomes instead of one and the second being greater parental involvement as a result of two parents being able to contribute to childrearing. The author laments that the government is unlikely to step into to help resolve either of these disadvantages single-parent families face and argues that society must find ways to promote two-parent families. I think a number of issues are ignored in what is obviously a brief overview of the author's entire body of work on this topic. For instance, when the financial disadvantage of single-parenting is removed, most of the negative factors impacting single-parent families also go away. Several posters in the thread describe examples of single-parents who are doing amazing jobs raising children. Almost exclusively, these parents are financially successful. The article mentions the Covid-era expanded child tax credit but fails to mention the tremendous success that program had in reducing childhood poverty. Instead of giving up hope on future government assistance, perhaps we should campaign for this program to be reinstated? Moroever, as several posters note, anti-abortion policies being implemented by several state governments directly contribute to single-parent families. This should also be part of any discussion of this sort. Moreover, the article does not discuss the quality of parenting or two-parent relationships. Is it really better for a child to be raised in a toxic environment involving two parents whose relationship is destructive than to be brought up in a supportive single-parent family? I would argue that it is not and, therefore, a two-parent family should not be promoted as a magical solution. It is not enough to simply encourage two-parent families, but rather healthy and nurturing families regardless of the number of parents. We should also make efforts to reduce the financial challenges often faced by single parents.

The most active thread since my last blog post on Friday was titled, "When the Dems Lose 2024..." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started back on September 14 but apparently gained a lot of traction over the weekend. But, since it's 18 pages long, I don't have time to read the entire thing and I am not sure why it was so active over the past three days. I've come to think of the DCUM political forum as sort of junior varsity political discussion, but even that may be overrating it much of the time. It is often just a level or so above drunk guys in the bar blurting out their political opinions. The main point the original poster makes in this thread is that President Joe Biden will lose the upcoming presidential election, leaving Democrats bewildered and confused. The poster starts out saying that Democrats mistakenly believe that the country loves Democrats, something that the poster does not believe to be true. The poster's second point is that the Biden/Harris ticket is untenable and that "you" — apparently meaning DCUM posters but maybe meaning Democrats at large — didn't develop a better option. Next, weirdly enough, the poster blames ActBlue for upsetting grassroots Democrats by emailing them too often. But, the poster really hits it out of the park by concluding that the Democrats should nominate a bipartisan ticket that includes a Republican. In a better world, this thread would have ended after the first post because everyone would have read it and decided it wasn't worth their effort to reply to such nonsense. Sadly, that did not happen. Contrary to the original poster's belief, there is not a Democrat in the world who is not chewing their nails to the quick in fear of Biden being defeated. I guarantee that absolutely nobody will be surprised if he loses. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised. Similarly, Democrats are well aware of the animosity they face in much of the country. Groups of Republicans who routinely stage armed protests in response to anything from Covid restrictions (real or imagined) to drag queen performances leave little doubt about their feelings. In a perfect world, Biden probably would have announced early on that he would not run for a second term. But, that likely would have left him as a powerless lame duck. So, I understand why he didn't. At any rate, this is not something the average person has much influence over. Similarly, we could ask why Republicans haven't found a better candidate than former President Donald Trump. As for the original poster's last point, selecting a ticket that includes a Republican, the original poster shows his true delusion. What motivation do Democrats have to put a member of the opposition party a heartbeat from the presidency? All available evidence suggests that the 2024 election will be close. Between now and then any number of things can happen to change the calculus. Anyone who believes they know the outcome now is fooling themselves.

Yesterday there were two threads tied as the most active of the day. I'll give the nod to a thread titled, "am I a ‘Karen’ for not wanting my driveway blocked?" which was posted in the "Real Estate" forum. This thread was originally quite a bit longer but I removed several off-topic posts. The original poster says that she lives in a cul-de-sac with limited parking. Three to four days a week, contractors working on her neighbor's home block her driveway with their trucks. In order to pick up her children from school, she has to go over and ask for the trucks to be moved so that she can get out. After this occurred a number of times, her neighbor posted in their Facebook group that she was being a "Karen" and didn't have the right to interrupt the contractors' work. I've often said that DCUM could be be a good topic for someone's PhD thesis because it demonstrates so much about human behavior that could be analyzed and dissected. One characteristic is for posters to respond to posts with little regard for the actual topic, but instead to focus on their own personal crusade of the day. In this case, four posts into the thread a poster chastised the original poster for using the term "Karen". I've written before about how I don't like the name "Karen" being used as a pejorative (and I proposed that it be replaced by "Elon"), but it is clear that the original poster is only using the term because that is what her neighbor called her. If this was somehow too subtle for some readers, the original poster explicitly explained this in a response to the previous poster. Nevertheless, the thread was significantly diverted by posters protesting the use of "Karen". I removed those posts, otherwise this thread would have overwhelmingly been the most active yesterday. The second characteristic of human behavior that might be worth studying is the tendency to — for lack of a better term — nitpick or find fault with the original poster no matter what. While the original poster said that her driveway was being blocked, she also said that sometimes she was able to maneuver her car around the trucks and get out, albeit with some difficulty and only after moving another of her family's cars. One poster latched on to this as evidence that the original poster was, at best, not being truthful and, at worst, was trolling. This really misses the point. The third characteristic demonstrated is the lengths to which some folks will go to excuse bad behavior. One poster agreed with the original poster's neighbor because the contractors don't have anywhere else to park and, therefore, blocking her driveway is understandable and asking them to move is wrong. On the brighter side, several of those responding offered a good solution of purchasing some traffic cones and placing them at the end of her driveway.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Handling fancy destination wedding with small kids" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster is thinking about how to handle her brother-in-law's wedding which will be held next year in an expensive tourist town located two time zones away. Her main concern is what to do about her two young children. In past blog posts, I've discussed threads about destination weddings and threads about children and weddings. So, I expected a wedding that both involves children and a destination wedding would be full of challenges. But, it turned out to be almost completely to the contrary. In contrast to past threads in which children were not invited, the original poster's children are not only invited, one of them has been asked to be the ring bearer. Where in previous cases finding childcare at the location of the destination wedding seemed all but impossible, the original poster has a nanny that they could bring along and her own parents, who are also invited to the wedding, have offered to provide childcare. The original poster is reluctant to bring the nanny due to the added expense. She originally forgot to mention her parent's offer and, after bringing it up, still seemed hesitant to turn to them. Those responding simply don't see many hurdles in this situation, but instead, see many readily available solutions. They recommend renting an Airbnb instead of staying in a hotel and then bringing the nanny. Alternatively, they suggest missing a couple of the planed events in order to handle childcare. After it is revealed that the original poster's parents have already offered to help with childcare, that becomes the obvious solution. Many posters actually appear exasperated that solutions are so easily available and are frustrated with the original poster for not recognizing it.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "VA Democratic House candidate performed sex acts online for tips". This thread, which was posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum, is about the revelation that Susanna Gibson — a 40-year-old mother of two who is running for Virginia's House of Delegates in a suburban Richmond district — has been posting sexually explicit videos of herself and her husband online. This is really going to test the maxim of whether there is such a thing as bad publicity. But, on the positive side, Gibson will probably soon rival all Virginia politicians in terms of name recognition. For those who want their politicians to be transparent, Gibson has left very little to the imagination. There was a time when it didn't take much of a scandal for a candidate to withdraw from an election. But, that time appears to be gone. Numerous politicians have attempted to ride out — many successfully — scandals of varing degrees. Who can forget that former President Trump, while still a candidate, was caught on tape admitting to sexually assaulting women? Gibson shows no indication of backing down and has, instead, gone on the offensive against the Republicans who are behind the disclosure of the videos. Whether it is due to increased partisanship or changing mores, it is not clear whether this controversy will hurt Gibson. The first indications are that she has successfully increased her campaign fundraising in the aftermath of the disclosure. Those responding in the thread are divided between posters who think the videos are disqualifying and those who believe that consensual sex with a spouse is completely acceptable even if there is a bit of a twist. Conservative posters accused liberals of only being concerned about abortion and gun control and, therefore, ignoring anything negative about Democratic candidates. Democratic posters agreed that they only care about abortion and gun control and don't care what Gibson is live streaming herself doing. A significant number of posters contended that they would have to watch the videos in order to have an educated opinion. Gibson and her husband apparently solicited monetary tips in exchange for requested activities. This, Republicans argued, made this more than a matter of consensual sex and instead made it a form of prostitution. I am fairly certain that prostitutes are viewed more favorably than politicians among significant numbers of voters, so this line of attack may backfire on conservatives.