DCUM Weblog

The most active thread since I last posted was the thread about the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision which I've already covered. But, only a few posts short of that one was a thread titled, "APS Closing Nottingham" and posted in the "VA Public Schools other than FCPS" forum. "APS" refers to Arlington Public Schools and "Nottingham" is an elementary school in north Arlington. Apparently, the APS school board recently announced a proposal to send current Nottingham students to other nearby schools and use Nottingham as a swing space for schools that are being renovated. Changes of school assignments are always controversial and the length of this thread at 37 pages shows that this case is not an exception. However, the initial reaction from Nottingham parents in the thread was surprisingly subdued. They were far from thrilled with the proposal, but indicated that they could live with it. There was far more outrage from parents associated with the schools to which Nottingham students would move with near apocalyptic predictions regarding the extra traffic it would cause. But, it appears that the conventional wisdom expected Nottingham families to react with outrage and entitlement. When a few posters responded in ways that fulfilled that stereotype, they become the face of Nottingham parents. Frankly, I think it is an unfair portrayal, but posters complaining that they were being victimized because they are white and wealthy and that some would even be killed because of this decision made easy targets. Many of the pro-Nottingham responses were justifiably lampoonable. One poster was inspired to create a sarcastic version of Martin Niemöller's famous quotation, "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out...", paraphrasing it to say, "First they overcrowded Glebe And I did not speak out..." While Nottingham parents threatened everything from moving out of Arlington to legal action, they didn't quite reach the point of comparing the closing of their school to the Holocaust. Though in the case of some posters, that may only be a matter of time. Still, and I am adamant about this, many of the Nottingham posters were level-headed and entirely reasonable in their responses. They just didn't get much attention. Nobody is likely to be thrilled with the closing of their much-loved school and their children's future schooling that had appeared to be settled suddenly being thrown into question. On the other hand, some of the posters with ties to other schools seem to be taking an inordinate amount of joy from this proposal. For instance, one poster wrote, "Hahahaha. Yes. Karma for Nottingham who was oh so obnoxious in the 2018 go round." This was a less respectful version of a point made by several other posters. According to them, past efforts by Nottingham families to successfully oppose proposals that would have added additional students to the school left Nottingham under-enrolled and vulnerable to this sort of development. A final decision on the proposal to convert Nottingham into a swing space is apparently not due for almost a year. So, this is not likely the last we've seen of this thread.

Today's post is going to be a little different. One reason for that is because almost half of the most active threads yesterday were on the topic of the decision by the US Supreme Court to prohibit race as a factor in college and university admissions. The most active thread of the bunch on this topic, as well as being the most active thread of the day and already the fourth most active thread of the last 30 days was titled, "US Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action in College Admissions" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread is already 73 pages long and has almost 1,000 posts. All in less than 24 hours. The second was titled, "SCOTUS outlaws race as college admissions factor" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. In comparison, this thread is positively subdued at only 42 pages and less than 600 posts. Mind you, that would be enough for the most active thread of the week most times. Several posters reported these threads expecting that I would want to lock one rather than have duplicate threads. But, I was afraid that mixing the Political and College forum users might have an impact similar to that of of crossing the proton streams in Ghostbusters. I couldn't take that risk. When there are events like this court decision that spur incredibly active threads, some posters fear their posts will be lost in the mix and, instead of joining an existing thread, start new ones. The more clever among them will try to find an unique spin because I will lock or delete an obvious duplicate. One such thread was posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum and titled, "Won't the AA ruling be particularly bad for private school URMs?" Similarly, another thread was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum titled, "So what is changing? Questions about SC affirmative action decision". I didn't actually know about the last two until just now or I might have locked them. I haven't read any of these threads, other than a few posts that were reported. We have been preparing for weeks for this Court decision expecting this type of reaction on DCUM and assuming that we would be inundated by reports and basically have to devote ourselves fulltime to moderating the threads. However, there have been very few reports and for the most part we ended up ignoring the threads. They likely could benefit from some supervision, but the threads are simply moving too quickly to keep up.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "I said something really stupid/insensitive to gf and now she’s given me an ultimatum" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. I am not going to bother describing the topic of the thread because the poster was likely trolling and definitely sock puppeted throughout the thread. I had actually meant to check this thread yesterday because it came to by attention for some reason, but I didn't get around to it until this morning. Fairly quickly in the thread posters believed that they recognized the writing style of the poster and began linking to other threads that they suspected were from the same poster. The original poster denied being the author of the other threads and even challenged posters to ask me so that I could disprove the allegation. I think that there are significant elements in common between this thread and many of those believed by others to be from the same poster. But, it would take more effort than I am prepared to commit to confirm they are all from the same poster. The sock puppeting in this thread alone is enough to put the thread's authenticity in doubt. For instance, in one post, the original poster writes, "OP is a jerk" and in a subsequent post writes, "OP was already a jerk to begin with." This poster seems to be suffering from both identity and self-esteem issues. For whatever reason, the relationship forum has attracted a lot of drama seekers. The result is thread after thread of likely imaginary relationship conflict. Trolling the forum is a strange pastime if you ask me. I have to admit some amazement with the posters who are able to remember threads from, in some cases, years ago and match them to the poster of a current thread. Trolling an anonymous forum may seem like the easiest thing ever, but be warned. These posters will catch you. I don't know how they do it, but they do it.

Yesterday's most active thread was the "Karen" thread that I discussed yesterday. So, I'll skip that one and start with the next most active thread which was titled, "I cannot believe there are still people out there spanking their children..." and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster says that she saw in another thread that some parents still spank their kids and she is "floored". Spanking is a perenial topic that is always divisive. As in this thread, there are posters who believe that spanking is necessary to create discipline. As one of the first posters to respond writes, "It's pretty obvious your kids are the ones disrupting everyone else, OP." Such posters attribute a host of negative behaviors to children who are not spanked. In response, posters with views similar to those of the original poster argue that discipline is possible without spanking. "You do know you can discipline without hitting right?", says one such poster. In between are posters such as one who writes, "I think a swat on the butt is no big deal. Spanking with an eye to hurt is a different animal." Basically, these three positions are stated and restated throughout the thread, along with a large helping of stories about posters' own experiences growing up. Several posters seem to take a perverse pride in having been spanked when they were young. Some posters also discuss laws against spanking that exist in other countries and suggest that spanking is a barbaric and unenlightened practice. Others blame a host of today's problems on a decline in spanking. One of the more bizarre exchanges I stumbled across involved the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation not to spank. A poster argued that this recommendation is not valid because the organization is silent about the practice of "cry it out" which the poster apparently also considers abusive. This left me pondering whether there are people out there who support spanking but find CIO too barbaric. However, it turns out that the poster in question actually opposes spanking. She just has a bone to pick with the AAP and apparently believes that criticizing the organization is more important than acknowledging a policy position with which she agrees. Another argument made in the thread is that far worse things happen to children than spanking so, it is implied, spanking is not worth the concern. I imagine such posters refusing to fix flat tires on their cars because other cars have blown their engines or been totaled in wrecks.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Is Karen considered a racial slur?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that her high school-aged daughter told her about a discussion at school in which a student was corrected by a teacher for using the term "Karen" because the teacher viewed the term as a racial slur. The original poster does not view "Karen" as a slur and asks whether this is a common interpretation. There are a number of issues to consider here. One is that there is no universally agreed upon definition of "Karen". Wikipedia defines "Karen" as "a middle-class white woman perceived as entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is normal." Dictionary.com's definition is slightly different saying "Karen" refers to "an obnoxious, angry, entitled, and often racist middle-aged white woman who uses her privilege to get her way or police other people’s behaviors." When I first encountered "Karen" as a meme rather than a first name, I remember it differing somewhat from both of those definitions. "Karen" was a middle-aged, perhaps middle class, White woman with a bob haircut who wanted to speak to the manager. I always found this a bit bewildering because I was always taught that, if you were not satisfied with the service being provided, you should speak to the manager. In fact, I have spoken to a great many managers in my lifetime. So, what was the problem here? Eventually, the meaning of "Karen" morphed to describe a White woman who uses her racial privilege to harm or otherwise disadvantage others, especially Black men. However, I have seen posters on DCUM use "Karen" to mean any number of things. To some extent, it has simply become a substitute for the word "bitch". "Karen" as a name and in its original connotation as a meme is closely associated with white women. As such, there is no denying its racial and gender implications. Therefore, many consider it to be a racist and sexist pejorative. Several of those responding in this thread argue that "Karen" is used to silence women, particularly White women. An interesting discussion could probably be held on the relationship of race, gender, and privilege and how those things relate to the term "Karen". In its most common usage, "Karen" assumes that White women have racial privilege which they exploit, frequently against Black men. White women, on the other hand, often see themselves not as privileged, but rather suffering from gender discrimination that encumbers them with a host of disadvantages. As such, "Karen" is simply a misogynistic effort to discourage women from standing up for or asserting themselves. Another thing to consider is the difference between how the term many have been meant when used and how it was interpreted. Someone may very well call someone a "Karen" due to the individual's overly-entitled behavior. But, this could easily be perceived as criticism resulting from the individual's race and gender. For this reason, while I think the idea behind "Karen" can be useful, in actual practice, "Karen" is not the appropriate term for it. It would be great to have a term to refer to overly-entitled, self-absorbed, self unaware, obnoxious folks of whatever race or gender. But, instead of "Karen", I propose "Elon".

After taking last week off from this blog, I'll review the most active threads of the 10 day period that I missed. None of these threads will likely be surprises to anyone who has paid even the least amount of attention to the news. The most active thread, by a considerable measure, was titled, "Tourist submersible missing on visit to Titanic" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. This thread followed the initial disappearance, subsequent search for, and eventual discovery of the fate of the OceanGate submersible that was lost during a visit to the wreck of the Titanic. Rather than detail the substance of this now 147 page thread, I am going to take the opportunity to be somewhat self-indulgent. I sometimes enjoy providing a behind-the-scenes look at how things work on this website. We are a two-person operation and are essentially responsible for the website 24/7, including when we are otherwise on vacation. As I announced earlier, this past week we were hosting out-of-town guests and celebrating our younger son's high school graduation. As such, I was hoping to minimize my interaction with DCUM. This thread massively interfered with that plan. Almost immediately, many posters decided that the loss of five lives was an excellent opportunity for jokes and humor. Other posters considered this disrespectful and objected to it. My inbox was soon filled with reports of inappropriate posts. When I apparently didn't respond quickly enough, a poster continued reporting posts, but then also started replying to the posts and simply adding the word "reported". Those posts provoked responses arguing about the reports and reports complaining about the messages saying "reported". So, what might have been a single report morphed into five or more posts or reports, multiplied several times. I was forced to take a break from touring the Udvar-Hazy Center annex to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in order to sit with my phone trying to stem the tidal wave that was flooding my inbox. I blocked the IP address of the poster who continually replied "reported". But, when the block expired, she spent several days posting complaints about the block and creating even more posts for me to remove. There was considerable disagreement in this thread about the applicability of DCUM's "48 hour rule" which prohibits negative posts about deceased individuals for the first 48 hours after their death. In the beginning, this rule was thought by some not to apply because no deaths had been confirmed. Once parts of the destroyed vessel were discovered, some posters argued that 48 hours had already passed since the deaths. My concern was less about splitting hairs but more focused on keeping the thread substantive and on-topic. I didn't see much need for absurd discussion of orcas, unfunny attempts at humor (which in many cases was simply copied without attribution from Twitter), or lame poetry. Ironically, with the thread reaching nearly 2,200 posts, as recently as yesterday a poster was still complaining about posts being removed. I think plenty has been posted and nothing of importance was likely missed.

Yesterday the thread about the Asian American student who was rejected by several top colleges continued to lead the most active list. Again, since I've already written about the thread, I'll start with the next one. That thread was titled, "Protest at Mundo on P street" and posted in the "DC Public and Public Charter Schools" forum. Mundo Verde is a District of Columbia public charter school that has a bilingual, experiential, "green" curriculum. As such, it checks a lot of boxes for progressive families who are interested in social responsibility and has been one of the more popular schools among DCUM posters. While schools like Mundo Verde have developed fan clubs in the forum, they have also inspired groups of detractors. Neither side tends to be shy about voicing opinions. This thread is specifically about protests that have been held by 3rd grade families at one of Mundo Verde's two campuses. Based on what I have read in the thread, the third grade has suffered from teacher attrition and had poor academic outcomes. Caregivers are protesting in support of a list of demands including that two adult teachers be provided for third graders, specific goals for teaching math and ELA, and other items. Many posters lament the dismal experience these children appear to have experienced and sympathize with the families. Some posters use the thread as an opportunity to air long-held grudges against Mundo Verde. On the other hand, many posters emphasize that the protests are limited to a single campus and the complaints do not reflect conditions at the second campus where, posters insist, students and families are very happy. Some posters go further and claim the protest only reflects dissatisfaction with a single grade and not the entire campus. Eventually, the thread turned into a wide-ranging debate involving a host of issues including public vs public charter school rivalry, competition between Mundo Verde and various other schools, and the role of the Public Charter School Board.

Once again I have to start with yesterday's third most active thread because the first two have already been discussed. That thread was titled, "Conservative DCUM'ers: how far back do you want LGBTQ rights rolled back?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster notes that this is the first Pride month in decades in which corporations or local governments were afraid to wave the rainbow flag and asks conservatives what aspects of LGBTQ rights they want to roll back. There is probably no way that I could read this entire thread and not end up wanting to blow DCUM up entirely. I don't know how any supporter of LGBTQ rights could feel otherwise. From what I've read of the thread, it consists of posters who are either deep in denial or determined to scapegoat the transgender community. There are Republicans who claim that they have no interest in rolling back LGBTQ rights, ignoring their party's agenda completely. There are Democrats who think the LGBTQ community is too vocal, especially those who are transgender. There is at least one gay man whose knowledge of history is so lacking that I assume he must have spent his entire existence trapped in a cave. Based on the posts I've read, nobody believes there is an effort to roll back LGBTQ rights. None of the posters appear to have heard of Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law. Or, if they did, they blame it on trans people. Hello, it's not called the "Don't Say Trans" law. These posters seem oblivious to LGBTQ-themed books being banned from schools and libraries or the protests provoked by them. In this thread, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' attacks on Disney simply don't exist. According to posters in this thread, the problems involving the LGBTQ community are not caused by Republicans, but by the LGBTQ community itself, particularly those who are trans. Apparently, Pride month should not be celebrated with flags and parades, but by LGBTQ individuals politely returning to the closet so as not to offend all of these self-described supporters of the LGBTQ community who simply don't want to encounter that community's actual existence. A poster complains about "hearing people yap about it all the time", repeating an oft-made criticism. I would agree with this poster if "the people" in question were those constantly attacking the LGBTQ community. Who would have even heard of Dylan Mulvaney had it not been for those who yapped incessantly about her while attacking Bud Light?

The top two most active threads were the threads about the Asian student who was rejected from top colleges and the thread about Trump's indictment. Since I've already discussed those two, I'll move to the third most active thread which was titled, "Rose Montoya in the White House" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. For those of you lucky enough to have avoided hearing about this story, Rose Montoya is a transgender woman who is a professional model, social media star, and transgender activist. During the Pride event recently held at the White House, she briefly bared and fondled her breasts while being filmed. The original poster of this thread, who describes herself as a strong supporter of the gay and trans communities, is appalled by this behavior and asks if others are as well. Almost all of those weighing in find the behavior inappropriate. But, for critics of President Joe Biden, the episode provided an opportunity. Some posters argued that since Montoya was not kicked out of the event, it means that Biden condoned the display of nudity. The White House quickly issued a statement disapproving of the behavior and promising never to invite Montoya and others who similarly engaged in nudity back to the White House. But, that did nothing to quell the flood of criticism directed at Biden. Moreover, several posters seized this as a chance for criticisms of the entire trans community. Posters claimed that this incident was emblematic of trans activism and separated trans activist from gay rights proponents, ignoring all of the provocative acts that gay rights activists have undertaken over the years. Other posters pushed back on this saying that Montoya didn't represent the entire trans community and the issue was the inappropriate behavior, not group to which the perpetrator belonged. It is always interesting which individuals are designated as representatives of their entire communities. Montoya, of whom I would bet most DCUM posters had previously not heard, is suddenly the poster child for the trans community. If a Black person had misbehaved, that would similarly be said to reflect poorly on the Black community. But, former President Donald Trump was recently found liable for sexual assault. Nobody argues that reflects negatively on all White men. Indeed, a number of posters don't even think it reflects poorly on Trump. In reality, this is a meaningless incident not worthy of discussion, let alone being among the most active threads. Unfortunately, in today's political environment, it is nearly the perfect storm. The almost wholesale adoption of QAnon ideology by the Republican Party has convinced millions that the Democrats are a party of child groomers trying to turn your children gay and trans. Having a transwoman expose her breasts on the White House lawn at an event that included children does little to disabuse them of that idea and, to the contrary, has given Republicans an opportunity to further amplify the perception.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Asian American student with 1590 SAT score blames affirmative action for rejections from 6 colleges" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original post consists entirely of a quote from an article about an Asian American college applicant who was turned down by six top colleges despite outstanding test scores and grade point average. The student blames affirmative action for these results and has joined in two lawsuits that are trying to end affirmative action. The original poster did not include any of his own thoughts, but they were apparently not needed to provoke discussion on this topic. The topics of affirmative action, discrimination against Asian Americans in college admissions, and the court cases have all been well-covered in our college forum. The court cases, which are currently before the Supreme Court, could literally be decided any day now. A significant number of posters believe the decisions will be favorable to Asian Americans and are looking forward to such an outcome with high expectations. Other posters appear to be getting frustrated with the entire subject and this student's plight was not met with as much sympathy as it might once have been. As posters were quick to point out, two of the schools are "test blind" and, therefore, his test scores wouldn't have been a factor. In addition, while the University of California, Berkeley was one of the colleges that rejected him, California has banned affirmative action in college admissions. The student alleges that he would have had a significantly higher chance of being accepted if he were Black rather than Asian. But, the lawsuit against Harvard alleges discrimination against Asian Americans in favor of White applicants. As such, many of those responding view the student's joining the legal action as performative without a lot of legal justification. Those responding are able to point to multiple factors that they believe make college admissions inherently unfair and don't seem to accept that the process is any more unfair for this student or Asian Americans in general. Despite this student's outstanding stats, many posters are not impressed and claim that such test scores and GPAs are not uncommon. For the most part, this thread simply rehashes the same old arguments about affirmative action and other factors that impact college admissions. There is debate about the value of test scores and GPA versus less objective factors that might indicate an ability to succeed. Everyone seems to agree that the admissions process is unfair, but they all also think it is biased against them. So, they disagree on the nature of the unfairness.