DCUM Weblog

The thread that I discussed yesterday about the wife who is rigid about being on time led as the most active thread yesterday. Skipping that one, the next most active thread was titled, "A teacher who pronounces library as ‘liberry’" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. In her original post, the original poster simply says that hearing "library" pronounced as "liberry" is "like nails on a chalkboard". Despite the brevity of her post, the original poster touched on two separate issues, both of which provoked considerable response. Because the post appeared to be criticizing a teacher, many posters addressed that aspect. This often resulted in defenses of teachers and expressions of sympathy for the things with which they must put up. Others thought that this mispronunciation was more egregious because it was done by a teacher who is expected to be well-educated and might pass the mistake on to her students. The other aspect of the topic was about the pronunciation itself. Many posters argued that this pronunciation reflects a regional dialect or accent, something that some posters greatly appreciate. Others, including the original poster, argued that the pronunciation revealed an accent that demonstrated a lack of education. Some saw racial connotations in criticism of the pronunciation, while others said that individuals of various races said "liberry". Posters also brought up other words that are commonly pronounced differently depending on the accent of the speaker. Given the nature of language, especially English, in which the "rules" are often arbitrary or extremely flexible, I am not sure that pronunciations should necessarily be described as "correct" or "incorrect". Rather, I think it would be better to discuss "accepted" or "standard" pronunciations. In a subsequent post, the original poster herself seemed to find the regional pronunciation of certain words acceptable and not reflective of poor education, but continued to take issue with "liberry". This was clearly a subjective and personal conclusion. I was thinking about the topic of pronunciation recently after I started a new hobby that involves soldering electronic components. In the US, we pronounce "solder" as "sod-er". Those with a British accent pronounce it as "sold-er". Based on the spelling of the word, the British would appear to have the stronger argument with regard to the correct pronunciation. However, "solder" apparently came from the French word "souder", which has no "L" letter or sound. So, perhaps a point for the Americans. But the bottom line is that if you want to be understood and not thought to be mispronouncing things, you should probably adopt the accepted pronunciation of your environment. Conversely, if you think that someone else has mispronounced something, you might not want to immediately jump to conclusions.

The two most active threads over the weekend were the thread about DCPS's release of PARCC scores and the thread about Arlington County Schools closing Nottingham Elementary School. I've written about both of those already, so I'll start with the third most active thread over the weekend which was titled, "Wife is super rigid about showing up on time" and was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that his wife has always been strict about arriving on time to events. She believes that arriving late demonstrates a lack of respect for others' time. The original poster then goes on to describe a recent incident in which the couple, along with their three-year-old daughter were preparing to go to dinner at the original poster's in-laws home. The three-year-old began to engage in typical three-year-old behavior which delayed them. When the original poster's wife noticed that it was the time that they had planned to leave and their daughter was still not ready, she walked out of the house telling the original poster that she would take one car in order to be on time and he should come in the other car with their daughter when they were ready. In the original poster's opinion, it would have been alright to have been a few minutes late in this instance and he asks whether his wife is too rigid. As far as I can tell, the original poster did not provide any further input into this thread and may not have even read the responses. Most posters agreed that the wife is acting very rigid. However, several of them offered potential explanations that excuse the behavior. Some posters suggested the wife might have anxiety that causes her to want to be on time. Others suggested that the original poster, either being habitually late or by not always carrying his parental weight, might have triggered her. A few posters sided with the wife, agreeing that being on time is important. The thread eventually veered off of talk of the original incident and simply became a discussion of the importance of being on time. On that topic, posters were very divided. A number of posters described their frustration with those who arrive late to things and, like the original poster's wife, consider being late to be disrespectful of others' time. Other posters argue that being a few minutes late is normal and acceptable. Some posters even argue that being exactly on time is rude with one poster saying that she dislikes people arriving exactly on time to her home. Another poster consulted Emily Post about this, but there is still disagreement even about her advice. She says that it is rude to arrive early or more than 15 minutes late.

Since I didn't post yesterday, today I'll look at the most active threads during the past two days. The most active thread over those days was titled, "Republican Debate 8/23/23" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This is currently a 28-page thread, most of which I haven't read. This thread demonstrates the limitation of a moderating system that depends almost entirely on one person and that person being me. I didn't watch the debate and wasn't reading this thread when it started Wednesday evening. But, as I prepared for bed that night, reports started coming in regarding inappropriate posts in the thread. Very shortly, my inbox was full of reports. Eventually the number was well over 50 I believe. Given the choice of reviewing the large number of  reports or sleeping, I chose sleep. Thursday morning was spent loading the car and heading off on a drive to take one of our sons to college. I decided that I wasn't going to be able to address the pile of reports still in my inbox and just deleted them. My feeling was that this thread would either be fairly short-lived or turn into a complete dumpster fire regardless of any efforts to save it and neither case made cleaning it up a priority. Arriving home in the early evening, I found my inbox filled a second time with another round of reports of posts in this thread. Again, I decided the reports were not worth my effort and deleted them. I'm sorry to those posters who took the time to report the posts. Generally I greatly appreciate your willingness to help moderate the site. But, there are times — hopefully few in number — when I'm just not available or have to prioritize my work. The result is that this thread is in what you might call a state of nature. If you are interested in what an unmoderated DCUM political thread looks like, here is an example. Based on the reports that I glanced at, there are many off-topic posts, several that are not factual, and a lot that are otherwise inappropriate. I also noticed from my very limited skimming of the thread that there are a lot of posts about Democrats which should be surprising in a thread about a debate in which no Democrats participated. But, it is not surprising since the favored tactic of conservative posters is to engage in "whataboutism", or replying to any criticism of conservatives by saying "what about" some unrelated Democrat. Recently, some conservative posters have even started arguing that "whataboutism" is a term that Democrats made up in order to stifle debate and shut down conservative speech. I can't think of any clearer acknowledgement of how wedded they are to this method of debate. But, it makes it completely unsurprising that the reaction of conservatives to criticism of the debate performance of Republican candidates was to criticize Jen Psaki.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "AITA: Getting crap for not attending a Friday wedding because we have no childcare" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster explains that she and her husband have been invited to her husband's cousin's wedding which will be held on a Friday afternoon at a location two hours away. The original poster has two children and has not been able to arrange childcare for them. Moreover, both the original poster and her husband are planning to use their paid time off for an upcoming vacation. Therefore, they have decided to skip the wedding. This has led to some family drama due to another relative coming into town with two kids. He first asked whether he could share childcare with the original poster and when told they were planning to miss the wedding, suggested renting short-term housing at the wedding location and hiring a local babysitter. The original poster is not interested in having her children cared for in a strange house by a stranger. Then the original poster's in-laws suggested that she care for all four kids while her husband went to the wedding. This does not solve the problem of a lack of paid time off and the original poster doesn't want to care for four kids. She wants to know if she is wrong in this situation. This thread is 12 pages and I don't have time to read it so I can't say what happened in most of the thread. But, from what I did read, some posters think the original poster is wrong because she doesn't appear to have tried very hard to find a solution for this issue. Others disagree and put blame on the others who are looking to the original poster to solve both her and the relative's childcare problem.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Sanity Check - DH in Boxers" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster asks how appropriate it is for a middle-aged man to do outside chores and short errands wearing boxer shorts with no other pants. The fact this thread reached 10 pages and leads all other topics in activity yesterday really makes me wonder whether life is so good for our users that this is the most troubling type of issue they face or life is so bad that they are forced to escape by reading the most mundane thread available. Either way, there is near universal agreement that boxers belong inside pants and are not outerwear. Some posters might allow boxers in the privacy of one's home and perhaps even outside in circumstances in which the wearer was not likely to be seen by others. But, for most, even that's not appropriate. A few posters argued that boxers have the same coverage as shorts and, therefore, they don't think there is much difference. But, the difference for most posters is the existence of a fly on boxers. While the ease of egress provided to the male genitalia by a fly may be a convenience in the bathroom, it provides obvious problems in the front yard, let alone the hardware store. I had thought that the original poster was talking about her husband but it turns out that the original poster is the boxer-wearer himself. He followed-up with several pro-boxers-as-outwear arguments and even proposed that this might be an "Italian thing". This suggestion was contested by a poster whose spouse is "100% Jersey Italian". The poster later clarified that his boxers have button flys which somewhat solves the "unexpected appearance" issue, but the poster also admits that he now realizes his attire might make the family's nanny uncomfortable. Several posters are concerned that poor bathroom hygiene could lead to unsanitary and visually unappealing leftovers on the underwear. They much preferred remaining ignorant about this rather than being forced to confront it when encountering the original poster and his boxers. One poster went as far to question the original poster's endowment based on her disbelief that any but the smallest examples could be constrained by mere boxers. The reaction to this by the original poster was such that I had to remove it.

The most active thread since my last blog post was titled, "School Asking DC To Mask To Accomodate An Other" and posted in the "VA Public Schools other than FCPS" forum. The original poster says that she received an email from her child's school asking that the child wear a mask in a specific class because another child has a "medical situation". If the original poster's child declines, her child will be moved to another class. The original poster is suspicious that this might not be a real medical situation but simply a mother overreacting to COVID hysteria. In that case, the original poster does not want to subject her child to wearing a mask. However, if it is indeed a serious medical need, the original poster says she will bend over backwards to accomodate the other student. She wants to know how she can determine which of the two cases this actually might be. It was almost immediately clear to me — once I saw the thread which, unfortunately was not until just now — that this poster was trolling. In subsequent responses, the original poster (frequently without identifying herself), suggested that concern about COVID was limited to "drama queens" and liberals. The original poster later referred to masks as "muzzling her child" and threatened to "spit in the face" of another poster. Without identifying herself as the original poster, the original poster responded in subsequent posts saying that she is done with masking and would not ask her child to mask and also saying that she would simply said her child to school without a mask rather than responding ahead of time. While this poster is trolling, the thread touches on a serious topic. The State of Virginia settled a lawsuit filed by the ACLU by agreeing that peer masking is an acceptable accommodation for students who are at risk from COVID. Therefore, some Virginia schools are likely facing this issue, though it is anybody's guess whether the original poster's child is in one of those schools.

Fully six of yesterday's ten most active threads were threads that I have already discussed. That barely leaves me enough for today's post. The first about which I'll talk was the second most active thread yesterday. Titled, "MCPS teachers - what would you tell parents in your class(es) if you could?" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum, the thread is meant, as the title suggests, to invite input from Montgomery County Public Schools teachers about what they would tell parents if they had the opportunity. The thread begins with warnings that teachers are very busy, have very little extra time, and cannot do all that they would want. A parent responds to one of these posts by describing the teacher in question as a "failure in [the teacher's] life's work." In many ways, this is current state of MCPS boiled down to its most essential essence. Teachers warning that they are being stretched too thin and being called "failures" by parents in response. The real cherry on the cake is that just four posts later that very same poster responded by describing herself as a "distraught" parent who was beng "taunted" by teachers and painting herself entirely as the victim of bullying teachers. If this is the situation with which teachers are dealing — and by all accounts it is — no wonder they are quitting in droves. Who wants to deal with this kind of parent? But, the poster didn't stop there. When other posters patiently explained that anyone reading the school forums on DCUM would know that there is a teacher shortage and that the remaining teachers face severe resource constraints and the poster should be supportive rather than combative, the poster rejected the message. Instead, she replied saying that she was an "outsider to the special needs parenting community" — the exactly opposite of what she previously suggested — and accused teachers of being abusive and "narcissists" who gaslight parents. This poster is not representative of all the parents who post in the thread and, hopefully, is not representative of most parents with whom teachers have to interact, but it wouldn't take too many parents like this one to completely poison things. In addition to this poster, other parents seize this thread as an opportunity to air their grievances with teachers. Ignoring that this is the compete opposite of the intention of the thread, one poster suggested that they discuss the teachers' union and school closures during the pandemic. It's been clear for some time that there is a cohort of parents who are no longer able to discuss any other aspect of schools and education and, like a scratched record that repeatedly replays the same few notes, fixate on school closures regardless of the context. It really seems like many school systems are entering a vicious circle in which teachers are stressed to breaking, parents are more than willing to break them, and more teachers quit causing those remaining to be stretched even thinner. I'm not sure that this pattern can be reversed until the kids that experienced school closures have aged out and taken their parents with them.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "The Blind Side scandal" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. This thread has been going for a while but apparently took off yesterday, adding 15 pages to reach 25 pages in total. As most can probably guess, this thread is about the lawsuit filed by former NFL player Michael Oher against Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy. Oher and the Tuohys were the subject of the 2009 movie "The Blind Side" starring Sandra Bullock. Oher claims that he just learned in February that he had not been adopted by the Tuohys as he apparently believed. Not being a family member, Oher says he did not receive payments from the movie that were provided to the couple's children. The entertainment forum seems to have attracted a number of obsessive posters who often appear deeply knowledgeable (though that appearance is often misleading) and are capable of a prodigious number of posts per day. We have seen this in threads about Meghan Markle and Taylor Swift. In this case, I don't think these posters are longtime fans of either Oher or the Tuohys, though it is pretty clear that many posters have been influenced by Bullock's portrayal of Leigh Anne Tuohy. Indeed, quite a few of those posting seem to have gotten most of their information from either the movie or the book on which the movie was based. Many of the posters in the thread are suspicious of the Tuohy's motives and accept Oher's contention that he was misled into thinking that he had been adopted when, in fact, he had not been. Some of these posters believe that the Tuohys exploited Oher, were only interested in him due to his football skills, and had no interest in making him a formal member of their family. Other posters side with the Tuohys, arguing that a conservatorship was more practical than an adoption and that Oher should have been aware of the legal implications. One argument made by Tuohy supporters is that they have not actually received that much money as a result of the book and movie and that the money they spent raising Oher exceeded any income. So they don't expect him to receive anything from the lawsuit even if it is successful. One particularly strong supporter of the Tuohys continually launched attacks on Oher that appear based on nothing more than conjecture. She suggested that Oher is out of money and going after the Tuohys as a money grab. Moreover, she alleged that this was being done at the best of Oher's wife, contending that this was mostly a mother-in-law vs. daughter-in-law conflict. I haven't seen anything to support this view, but given the innumerable mother-in-law/daughter-in-law conflicts that are routinely fought in our Family Relationships forum, it would fit right in on DCUM.

The most active thread yesterday was the thread about the lastest indictment of former President Donald Trump. But, since I've already discussed that thread, I'll start with the next most active which was titled, "Is there any way to convince a young man to step it up because he will never do better?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. There is an argument to be made that this thread would be more appropriate for the "Adult Children" forum, but I'll leave it where it is for now. The original poster says that her 25-year-old son has been dating his 25-year-old girlfriend for 5 years. The original poster likes everything about the woman and believes that her son would — in her words — "never do better". However, she describes her son as immature and failing to grow up. His girlfriend has confided in the original poster that she is losing patience with the situation and the original poster is concerned that the girlfriend will break up with her son and he will regret it for the rest of his life. To be sure, there are posters who sympathize with the original poster and urge her to have an open and honest talk with her son to make him understand what he risks losing. But, for the most part, those responding are not very supportive of the original poster. For some, this is just a matter of the son simply not being ready and, as such, he should not be pressured. Many of these posters argue that men can wait longer for marriage than women and 25 is too young. Others, are downright antagonistic towards the original poster, thinking she is way too involved in her son's affairs. Moreover, these posters suggest that the original parent has probably "over-parented" her son all along, leading to his current immaturity. These posters urge the original poster to butt out. Along these lines, several posters suggest that the original poster's son must be allowed to make his own mistakes and, hopefully, learn from them. In a follow-up post, the original poster emphasizes that marriage is not the only milestone for which her son is failing to prepare. She lists things like exploring career opportunities, regions to which to move, or buying a house in which he could take his girlfriend into consideration. She repeatedly comes back to her fear that her son will always regret losing this girlfriend. While some posters do think it is appropriate to have this fear, most of those responding aren't as sure that her son couldn't do better or don't think that really matters if he is not ready.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Rich Men North of Richmond" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. I can't believe that anyone has escaped knowledge of this song by Oliver Anthony that is being discussed nearly everywhere. Indeed prior to this thread there was already a 3 page thread in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum that I locked because it had turned into a political discussion. This song is widely seen as a rallying cry for the lower and middle classes and has been adopted by conservatives as almost an anthem. It turns out that the song's popularity has not grown completely organically, but rather as a result of a well-funded conservative campaign to promote the song. Because of the song's association with the right-wing and the tribal nature of today's society, liberals immediately attacked the song, which does touch on a number right-wing clichés. But Anthony himself says that politically he is in the middle of the road. Read carefully, the song's lyrics do have some lines that appear critical of the right-wing. For instance a line about protecting miners instead of "minors on an island" is seen as criticizing those more interested in Jeffrey Epstein than US mine workers. It is very clearly those to the right, as well as QAnon, who are most obsessed with Epstein whereas Democrats are generally more concerned with workplace safety, including in mines. In fact, the current Republican Governor of West Virginia who is also a US Senate candidate, Jim Justice, is the head of a coal mine empire that has hundreds of safety violations. Whether in the Governor's mansion in Charleston or his home in Lewisburg, Justice is a very rich man who is, if just barely, north of Richmond. Anthony also rails against fat people on welfare eating junk food. One of the ironies of both our food and wellfare systems is that unhealthy foods that lead to obesity are cheaper and more widely available than healthy foods. Our government would have to spend more to enable poor people to eat healthy. Moreover, Anthony — who describes himself as a farmer with a 90 acre farm — is likely eligible for, if not the beneficiary of, many government support programs himself. Regardless of the details, the song has resonated with a large audience. The song's lyrics are such that there is a bit for everyone included. As such, the right-wing has clearly embraced the song and others, including posters in this thread, find messages that would appeal to Bernie Sanders followers.