DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "The Witch Trials of JK Rowling podcast" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. As can be expected from the title, the thread is about a podcast discussing JK Rowling and her views regarding the transgender community. The original poster says it is one of the best podcasts to which she has listened recently and she considered it to be balanced and rational. I haven't listened to this podcast, but it doesn't appear that many of those posting have either. Moreover, the discussion isn't so much about the podcast but rather Rowling and trans people. Topics on trans issues have become among the most controversial on DCUM and tend not to go well. As such, I generally end up locking or deleting them. In the case of this thread, I eventually locked it. Threads on transgender topics tend to have a familiar arc. They start out with posters demonstrating the best intentions, stressing that they are not anti-trans, indeed they are actively supportive, but they have questions or slight disagreements. In the case of this thread, Rowling is essentially used as a proxy to demonstrate this position rather than posters immediately attributing it to themselves. For instance, one of the first to respond writes, "Rowling is consistently measured in her speech and clearly has real compassion for transgender people...". But, as such threads continue, more and more responses are not only not "measured" but clearly anti-trans. The same poster claiming that Rowling has "compassion" for trans people goes on to imply that trans individuals are suffering from "delusion". Apparently the podcast compares support for the trans community to the Salem Witch Trials. Many of those responding point out that Rowling is succeeding brilliantly as a best-selling author and extremely wealthy person. Newly-passed laws are not limiting the rights of those like Rowling — who at worst risk being the target of mean tweets — but transgender people who are seeing restrictions on their most basic rights. On the other hand, a poster who describes herself as the "mother of a trans teen" who has listened to the podcast argues that Rowling is not exactly transphobic and that activists have overreacted to her. The real threat, this poster suggests, comes from right-wing politicians. As is common in such threads, posters complain that they can't engage in "respectful debate". The problem is that posts like those suggesting that trans people are "delusional" go unchecked or are even made by the folks who claim to be "measured". It is hard to have a respectful debate when one side's starting position is that the other side is delusional. In the case of this thread, it turned into a several page argument about whether criticizing Rowling meant support for rape and arguments that the trans community was motivated by misogyny. Rowling, and many of those posting, see advancement of trans rights as often resulting in set-backs for women's rights. Posters argue that they, and Rowling as well, only want to protect women's places. Because this necessitates restricting access by trans women to those places, this is viewed by supporters of trans people's rights as anti-trans. Repeated experience has proven that a nuanced discussion of that point is simply not possible on DCUM.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "I got an email telling me my daughter is a mean girl." and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster explains that she received an anonymous email saying that her teen daughter is a "mean girl" who gossips and excludes others. The original poster says that she knows that her daughter is popular and is sometimes frustrated by expectations that she be everyone's friend, but does not have a feeling that she is a mean girl. The original poster asks for advice about what to do. This is a 14 page thread and I've only read a few pages of it. Based on that limited exposure, I am inclined to say that the original poster is one of the most level-headed participants in the thread. She is neither ruling out nor completely accepting the accusations in the email. While she recognizes that her daughter has faults and is therefore willing to consider the possibility that she is a mean girl, the original poster doesn't feel like the email is sufficient evidence of this being true. Some posters were prepared to accept the email as fact and declare the child a certified mean girl and, by implication, her mother a bad parent. Others were more skeptical, suggesting nefarious explanations for the email in which the original poster's daughter was more a victim than a victimizer. Much of the discussion in this thread is less about how to react to the email and more about the appropriateness of anonymous emails. Quite a few posters view this as a completely valid means of communication while others are critical of both the practice and those who condone it. Personally, as a recipient of many generous, but unlikely to be true, proposals from random Nigerian governmental officials, I don't trust anything that comes in email these days.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Is this a legitimate reason for a divorce?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Given the tendency of posters in the relationship forum to recommend divorce for almost any reason, I would expect that the answer to the question posed in the thread's title would be "yes". The original poster's complaint in this instance is that her husband does not defend her from criticism (she calls it "attacks") by others. She describes two examples, which were apparently the only cases of this happening. Everything else in their marriage is good, but she considers her husband to be "wimpy" and doesn't want to stay married to him. For once, most posters seem to be opposed to divorce, especially because the couple has four kids. The original poster doesn't provide a lot of details about the "attacks", but what she does provide are not convincing to many posters. Quite a few believe she is greatly overreacting. Several posters advise the original poster that everyone has flaws and that she has to take the good with the bad. Even posters who sympathize with the original poster and think that her husband should have defended her don't believe this is divorce-worthy. Some posters are even able to find a bright side to a conflict-avoidant husband. To be sure, there are a few proponents of divorce — it wouldn't be the DCUM relationship forum if there weren't — but they are relatively sparse.

The most active thread yesterday was somewhat of a surprise to me. Titled, "Succession - Season 4" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum, the thread is obviously about the HBO Max television series chronicling the Roy family and their business empire. This thread was originally started back on March 26 but added slightly over 10 pages yesterday. I only just watched this episode yesterday, saving me from reading through pages of spoilers in order to write this post. But, in consideration for anyone who hasn't caught up yet, I'll try to avoid spoilers now. A moment in the episode that basically went over my head was caught by our mostly female user base and became the subject of much discussion. I'm still not sure of its significance and based on the pages of discussion it provoked, there is no consensus about its importance among our users. Several posters, however, have strong opinions about the matter, often drawing on personal experience to argue their points. Beyond that, the posts mostly recount fairly memorable scenes. There is a bit of a debate about whether the show should be watched as light entertainment or whether it has deeper meaning worthy of causing introspection among viewers.

Because I took the weekend off from the blog, today I'll review the most active threads since Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "I dropped the hosting rope and now ILs think I’m ‘mad’ at them" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster recounts that she has hosted her in-laws for years for holidays and vacations. Each time, she is forced to be responsible for all cooking, cleaning, childcare, and logistics. Meanwhile, her husband neglects everything while simply hanging out with his family. When her husband suggested hosting for Easter, the original poster told him that he would have to take responsibility this time. There were a few issues with meals, and a few logistical problems, but it generally worked out. After the holiday, however, the original poster's mother-in-law contacted her asking if she was mad. The original poster explained that she hadn't felt like hosting this holiday. This caused the original poster's husband to ask why she had been rude and why she was mad at them. The family relationship forum has become a frequent venue for lengthy and contentious threads. As is often the case on DCUM, I am astonished at the topics that gain attention. While I understand that this is likely an important topic to the original poster, I am amazed that complete strangers have any interest in the thread at all. Nevertheless, it has already reached 25 pages. But, further investigation reveals that the interest was not all from complete strangers. By my count, the original poster has posted 53 times in this thread, many times referring to herself in the third person or offering anonymous support for herself. Even on page 24 she is continuing to defend the "original poster" while speaking in the third person and calling critics of the original poster "old biddies". Since all signs point to a likelihood that the poster will extend this thread ad infinitum, I've locked it.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Massive pentagon leak re Ukraine conflict" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started back on April 6 after the New York Times reported about a leak of secret US military documents regarding Ukraine. The thread gained interest yesterday due to the arrest of the alleged leaker. This story, and as a result the thread, has had an interesting trajectory. When the leak first occurred, it was portrayed as being bad for the Biden administration because it allegedly documented that that Ukraine-Russian war was going worse for the Ukrainians than it was being portrayed. When it was shown that some of the leaked documents had been doctored, many concluded that this was a Russian disinformation operation. As is true of almost everything these days, posters reacted based mostly on their political leanings. Biden supporters blamed the leaks on MAGA supporters aligned with Russia and downplayed the importance of the leaked information. Anti-Biden posters claimed that the leaks undermined public statements about the war and demonstrated that Biden was a liar. Much of the discusion focused on the origin of the documents. The New York Times article noted that the documents were circulating on Twitter and Telegram, but posters soon learned that prior to reaching those networks, the documents had surfaced in various discussion groups on Discord. The trail eventually led to a Discord group that had been disbanded. Many posters were convinced that the leaker must be member of Congress and there was quite a bit of discussion about which Member of Congress or which party might be behind the leak. Those suspicions eventually proved unfounded. The New York Times, working with an investigator from Bellingcat, was able to identify and interview a member of the now disbanded group and provide information about the leaker whose name the newspaper revealed yesterday. The leaker turned out to be a member of the Air National Guard who allegedly only intended to use the documents to educate members of the small Discord group about world affairs. Liberal posters were quick to claim vindication for predicting a conservative was behind the leak. Conservative posters were not able to respond with a cohesive message. Some tried to portray the leaker as a libertarian rather than a conservative. Posters who followed Donald Trump's lead and insisted that this was the most damaging leak in the history of leaks suddenly saw this as the brave act of an anti-war patriot. Some of the more conspiratorial-minded theorized that the airman was a fall guy for higher ups and urged posters not to trust the New York Times or Washington Post who are — according to these posters — in Biden's pocket.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Prince Harry to attend coronation without Meghan" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. I locked this thread less than 6 hours after it was posted because it was basically nothing more than 18 pages of Meghan bashing, much of it quite bizarre. I am no longer surprised that threads involving Meghan turn out like this, but I still find the fanaticism regarding her to be very strange. Both her haters and her supporters are way too obsessed. The numbers speak for themselves. In the few hours this thread was open, it reached 18 pages of posts, becoming the most active thread of the day. At least 11 posters managed to post in the double digits before I locked it. All of this because it was announced that Harry would attend the coronation of King Charles without his family. The irony is if the announcement had been that Meghan would be joining him, the thread would have been equally long and equality acrimonious. All that is required is a mention of Meghan. It doesn't matter what she does or doesn't do. All of this on DCUM where most of those involved know that I am hostile to these threads and will likely lock or delete them. Can you imagine the sort of traffic that sites that welcome such discussion must be observing? Their servers were probably melting down. If due to some incredible and extremely unlikely series of events Meghan ever manages to become Queen, I will convert DCUM to the DC Urban Meghan Forum. I would never read the forum, but no descendent of mine would ever have to work a day in their life thanks to the ad revenue that would produce.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Are privates that don’t offer merit aid still enrolling the best students?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that her child is turning down an Ivy League acceptance due to the cost of the university and, instead, will attend a state flagship school. The original poster wonders if this is an indication that many of the best students may be avoiding top private schools that don't provide merit aid. Many of the threads I've discussed in these blog posts have touched on similar topics. The rising cost of college has resulted in many students/ families earning too much to be eligible for need-based financial assistance but not enough to afford $85k a year colleges. One result is that students turn toward less prestigious, but still very good, schools that offer merit aid. Several of those who responded agreed that this is a trend with many of those saying that they noticed it themselves. On other other hand, others argue that this is not a new development and that students have always turned down Ivy League schools due to cost. The discussion in this thread goes in a couple of different directions. Many of the posts question whether Ivy League schools still have the prestige that they once had. Some posters suggest that in addition to the cost, other factors such as holistic admissions policies, have led to demographic changes that no longer make these universities as elite as they once were. Similarly, many posters argue that state universities that were traditionally not considered academic powerhouses now attract top students. The other direction the discusion takes is continued focuse on the cost issue. Many posters stress the existence of "donut hole" families such as those described above who make too much for need-based aid but not enough to pay for expensive schools. While just about everyone acknowledges that many families are in this situation, there are differences about what to do about it. At least one poster expresses hope that families will begin to save for education at an earlier age. Others argue that many families can't save the amount required for today's college costs. In response to that, a poster suggests that those families have not made paying for college their number 1 priority and that they should take out loans. That, of course, leads to a discusion about loan forgiveness.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "If you are still masking children indoors for Covid" and posted in the "Health and Medicine" forum. It has been a while since I've discussed a thread about masks so I guess it is time. The original poster says that she lives abroad but sees in pictures of her child's friends that many still wear masks indoors. In the country in which she is in now, almost nobody other than the elderly masks and she is curious why some children are still masking. Masks are one of those topics is which both the pro and anti-maskers have complete confidence in their position and each side thinks the other is completely off their rockers. As such, any thread like this is guaranteed to be a dumpster fire. The pro-mask side's attitude is reflected in the very first response which states, "Because we have common sense". Similarly, a couple of posts later an anti-masker writes, "A very sad thing that parents are making their children still do this." Neither evinces the slightest doubt or leaves any room for nuance. Happily, the same cannot be said about all of those who respond, many of whom make an effort offer detailed explanations. Some point out that the children may have or suspect that they have COVID and don't want to expose others. Other posters point out the many other communicable diseases that children many pass to each other and suggest that masks many help prevent the spread of those as well. An interesting point that was raised is that, in Europe, parents have significantly more paid sick leave and doctors and medicine are free. So, having a sick child or family member is much less of a burden. The pro-masking side is not without its prejudices against anti-maskers, but anti-maskers seem less cautious with their disparagements. As is common, many posts in this thread accuse those who favor masks of being anxious, being insane, or requiring therapy. I can understand those who believe that masks protect them feeling negatively about those they think are threatening their health, but I really struggle to understand why anti-maskers are so concerned about maskers. What harm are they presenting? While teachers in the thread seem to be generally supportive of masking, one teacher comes under fire for telling children, "It's nice to see your face" if a child comes in without a mask. This is portrayed by a pro-masker as evidence of an evil political agenda that should require the teacher to seek a different line of work. Another normal feature of such threads is posters arguing about the benefits or detriments of masks. Again, this seems to be an all or nothing issue where each side is firmly planted in thinking that their belief is right. Ultimately, this thread, like most others on the topic, devolves to nothing more than angry posters being angry. If that is your thing, you are in luck.

Because I took the weekend off from writing blog posts, today I'll review the most active threads since Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. In brief, the thread discusses the arrest of Eleanor Hunton Hoppe for distributing child pornography and charges related to child sexual abuse. Hoppe is a member of a prominent family in Richmond, Virginia and known by the original poster and several other posters in the thread. In addition to being horrified by the charges, many posters are concerned about the lack of media attention to this case. There appears to have been no news about the case for three weeks after the arrest and then very little. This led several posters to conclude that Hoppe's prominent family was suppressing information. The original poster linked to court documents about the case, including a "Statement of Facts" which is quite explicit. The document details how an FBI undercover officer corresponded with Hoppe to arrange a meeting at which Hope was planning to participate with a purported father while the father sexually abused his 8-year-old daughter. Hoppe was arrested when she arrived at the planned meeting. Several posters noted that it is unusual for women to be involved in such offenses and there are many posts seeking to understand what might have led to Hoppe's actions. There is a quite a bit of speculation, much of it informed by posters who claim to know Hoppe personally (at least two posters even claim to have had sexual relations with her). While I understand the interest in this thread, I am concerned about how long it will be able to remain on the site. Google has already flagged several pages and I am doing my best to keep it within the advertising terms of service. But the nature of the topic makes that difficult. Several posters are convinced that Hoppe's family are applying financial and/or legal pressure to suppress the story and would likely blame the family for the thread's demise. But, in the eventually that I remove the thread, it will likely to be due to advertisers.