DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "dont be in the 60th to 99th percentile in income" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article in the New York Times that discussed an analysis of college admissions data. According to that analysis, the wealthiest top 0.1% of applicants had a huge admissions advantage, the poorest applicants had a slight advantage, while those in the middle had a disadvantage. The article actually paints a somewhat more complex picture. As one poster, quoting the article, explained, "colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings". While the article mostly focuses on how this system perpetuates the "intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity", posters in the thread were more concerned by the disadvantages suffered by those in the middle that the article illustrated. As the original poster noted, that is where most DCUM posters are represented. Most of the college forum posters have always seemed to believe that college admissions were unfair and that they are particularly unfair when it comes to the forum's posters. So, for many posters, this article simply justifies what they already believed. Some posters ignored the advantages enjoyed by the wealthy and, instead, focused on the slight advantages received by the poorest applicants. As one poster explicitly put it, "there is a clear bias towards the lower half of the income bracket and again sthe upper half (half, not the 0.1%)" But, as another poster pointed out, unlike other groups, poor students are not overrepresented in student bodies. My understanding after reading the article is that there just are not that many poor applicants who meet the admissions requirements. Those that do have a great chance of admission, but there still simply aren't many of them. Ironically, that was almost exactly the same argument made by one of the apologists for the ultra-wealthy who wrote, "who really cares about the very small number of ultra rich?" Like the original poster, most of those participating in this thread are most interested in discussing the disadvantages suffered by those with middle incomes. Some posters even parse the data to show that differences even among varying strata of the middle income segment. But, basically, this is the other side of the coin used to explain the poor and ultra-wealthy advantages. While there are few members of those categories, there are a lot of applicants in the middle and, as such, the competition is fierce. The bottom line described in the article is that there is an entire system of "affirmative action for the wealthy" that includes legacy admissions, admissions of friends and family of large donors, athletic admissions, and advantages provided to private school students that give the ultra wealthy an extreme advantage. As illustrated, an applicant in the 99.9th income percentile would have a roughly 3 times more likelihood of being accepted by an elite college as a student in the 90th percentile.

The most active thread over the weekend was the thread about Virginia's new policies regarding transgender students about which I already wrote. So, I'll move to the next most active thread which was titled, "Gosselins" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. I have led a fairly fulfilling life to this point with little to no exposure to the Gosselins. I would have been quite happy to keep things that way. I have heard the family's name in passing and I understand that there was a reality television show called "Kate Plus 8". But, beyond that, I know virtually nothing about them. So, this thread is very confusing to me with lots of names being cast about by posters who seem to have very detailed knowledge of everyone involved. The thread was started back on May 15 by a poster who simply asked if the "the twins" were graduating from college and where "the septuplets" were going to go to college. This was a major gaff by the original poster that was quickly pointed out. The Gosslins have "sextuplets", not "septuplets". The thread sort of languished until the past few days when, apparently, various members of the family began giving interviews criticizing each other. That reignited the thread which gained 12 pages over the weekend. I, of course, am not going to read the entire 28 pages of this thread or even the new pages. The only thing I could conclude from skimming some of the recent discussion is that this is not a thread that I am going to be able summarize. Posters have different opinions about different family members, but there is too much that I don't understand for me to have any idea about what anyone is talking. All I can say is that the family is divided and, similarly, posters are divided. I have been happy living in blissful ignorance regarding this family and I prefer to continue to do so. Therefore, rather than delve into the details of what is going on, I am just going to throw up my arms in resignation and leave it to those of you who are interested to read the thread for yourselves.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "New VA trans policies for schools" and posted in the "VA Public Schools other than FCPS" forum. The thread addresses new model policies issued by the Virginia Department of Education regarding the treatment of transgender students in schools. The new model policies require students to use facilities that match their biological sex and require referring to students by names matching the sex on their official record unless parents request something different in writing, It will be up to local school systems to adopt policies consistent with the new models. As would be expected, posters are strongly divided about the new guidelines. For instance, regarding the role of parents in a student's social transition, posters favoring parental rights strongly agree that parents should be informed if their children are using different names or pronouns at school. They consider a failure by schools to inform parents of such matters as "conspiring" against parents and, in the most extreme cases, examples of "grooming". The new model policies go beyond merely informing parents, however, and prevent schools from using names or pronouns that differ from the sex contained in the official records. Parents opposed to these policies want schools to be safe places for students in which children can confide in trusted adults without fear of repudiation by their parents. There is also considerable disagreement about the guidelines concerning bathrooms and locker rooms. There is a lot of fear and anxiety among some posters concerning students assigned as male at birth sharing girls facilities. These parents welcome the new guidelines that prohibit this. On the other hand are parents who view this as discriminatory. While I did not see it mentioned in the thread, my understanding is that this issue has already been decided legally in favor of transgender students. Ironically, this is based on legal proceedings that took place in Virginia. A transgender student, Gavin Grimm, sued the Gloucester County School Board when he was prohibited from using male bathrooms. Both the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rule in Grimm's favor and the US Supreme Court chose not to hear the case, leaving those rulings in place. This would seem to mean the new guidelines are in contradiction to legal findings. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin may welcome a legal battle on this issue given the political advantages he seems to see in attacking transgender rights. Moreover, the current Supreme Court Justices may not be as sympathetic to transgender students as in the past. At any rate, transgender issues remain among the most divisive topics on DCUM.

The Carlee Russell thread was back as the most active thread yesterday after local officials held a press conference. But, again, since I've covered that thread I'll move on to the next most active. That one was titled, "What do the non mask wearers think today when they see someone wearing a mask" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that she is a healthcare worker and still wears a mask when she goes out. She is glad that a few others do as well so that she won't stand out as much. Responses fall into roughly three categories. Many posters believe that those wearing masks may be ill, recovering from an illness, or live with folks who have health concerns. Several others simply don't care or assume whatever reasons the mask-wearer has are personal and not their business. The third category attributes mask wearing as a sign of anxiety or mental health problems. Eventually, a group of posters emerge who don't really address what they think about those who wear masks, but proudly and defiantly announce their own unwillingness to wear masks. Some nostalgically recount not masking at the height of the pandemic and feeling pleasure about the discomfort they caused in others. There is also a number of posters who see masks as political symbols and believe that those who wear them are engaging in political symbolism. Of course the mask debate is not new on DCUM. Far from it. But one thing that has changed in these discussions is that there is no longer much of an effort to persuade others to wear masks. To be sure, posters who still wear masks are willing to explain their reasons and defend themselves. But, almost no one is telling others that they should mask. But, past efforts to encourage masking seem to have left a number of posters traumatized to the point that they react to the mere sight of a mask as if it is an attempt to oppress them. There is a certain irony in seeing those who are riled to the point of anger by someone else wearing a mask questioning the mask wearer's mental health. For every overly-anxious mask wearer that probably needs to spend some time in a therapist's office (note, this applies to very few mask wearers) there is probably a rabid anti-masker who should be sitting right next to them. A new development in this discussion is that some posters have started using masks due to poor air quality, particularly on code red days caused by smoke from Canadian wildfires. Whereas in the past people might commonly be maskless outside but don a mask when entering a building, now the opposite happens with people wearing masks outside and removing them upon entering.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Will no longer shop at Giant- annoying checkout machine" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster is upset because the checkout lines at Giant that have cashiers are long and slow and the self-checkout machines are annoying and don't always work properly. While the original poster is specifically referring to the Giant in McLean, other posters report similar frustrations with Giants all over the DC region, at other grocery stores such as Harris Teeter and Wegmans, and at stores outside the area. Some posters report having better luck using a hand-scanner, but apparently those are not available at all stores. The positive stories about hand-scanners led to several requests for instructions about how to use them. However, other posters said that the hand-scanners are beginning to disappear because of increased theft. One poster said that the hand-scanners themselves were being stolen. A dispute broke out about whether Giant's increased use of self-scanners is due to theft or a desire to reduce staff and rid the company of a union contract. In contrast to the complaints about self-checkout, a number of posters were fans of the system with some even saying they go to Giant specifically because of the self-scanners which they find easy and quick to use. But far more posters report avoiding Giant due to the scanners. One strange thing I noticed was a poster who showed up posting several posts supporting Giant and its self-scanners. The poster would ultimately post 9 mostly consecutive posts defending Giant, mocking the complaints of others, and accusing them of whining. I normally don't take accusations of posters being corporate shills very seriously, but this poster certainly raises suspicions. Other posters find the in-store shopping experience so frustrating that they have resorted to ordering online and using curbside pickup. It is amazing how so many current issues impacting society are all represented in this thread. There is automation versus human staff, accusations of political tolerance of theft, inflationary prices during a time of rising corporate profits, differing comfort levels with technology, and a general dislike of change all impacting the common experience of grocery shopping. On a more basic level, I think this also reflects the impact of corporate MBAs in windowless offices fixated on spreadsheets and profit margins. The idea of increasing automation and reducing a unionized workforce probably sends those bar charts rocketing upwards. When the actual result is increased theft, they simply make the process more onerous for their customers. Their solutions always seem to result in transferring more responsibility to the customer. But, at what point will the customers no longer tolerate their grocery shopping experience turning into a miserable ordeal? For several posters in this thread, that point has already been reached.

The most active thread yesterday was the thread about Carlee Russell who is no longer missing but about whose disappearance very little has been revealed. Since I discussed that thread yesterday, I'll move to the next most active thread which was titled, "Am I the jerk?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of this thread or the original poster. I've received several reports suggesting that the original poster is a troll, but I have not observed any sock puppeting and prior threads from the poster (of which I can find very few) don't raise any red flags. Yet, the original poster is very hard to accept at face value. The thread begins with the original poster complaining that her kids have non-stop activities this summer. I assumed that she would go on to complain about the hassle of chauffeuring them around town, but it turns out that her husband does all of that. The original poster would like the kids to do fewer activities, but this has upset her husband because they enjoy the activities and the original poster is not the one karting them around in any case. The original poster believes that her opinion should matter despite the fact that her husband is doing all the work. Virtually everybody agrees that the original poster is indeed the jerk in this situation. To the extent that the original poster gets any sympathy, it is from posters who think she is suffering from stress caused by her job and taking it out on her family. Then, in what was apparently a surreal attempt to demonstrate her humanity, the original poster revealed that her husband is in recovery from alcoholism. Rather than supporting her husband's attendance of AA meetings, she complains that they are another activity to be juggled. With every response, the original poster loses more of the little sympathy others had for her and convinces even more posters that she is a troll. At some point, there is really no difference between a completely unreasonable poster and a troll and this poster has clearly reached that line. The impression that I get is that the original poster's husband may be less than perfect, but is doing everything within his ability to address his drinking problem and to parent their children. The original poster, on the other hand, is contributing very little other than criticism and complaints that her husband doesn't sufficiently consider her opinions. She appears to have considerable contempt for the man. The most sympathetic reading of this thread suggests that the original poster and her husband have a communications problem that could stand to be addressed. But frankly, I think the original poster is likely dealing with deeper issues. This is a case in which it might be better for all involved if the original poster is a troll.

The most active thread since my last post on Friday morning was titled, "Woman missing after reporting seeing a toddler on the highway" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. This thread was started Saturday based on a report that 25-year-old Carlee Russell had gone missing in Alabama in mysterious circumstances. While driving home Thursday night on Interstate 459, Russell had phoned 911 to report that a toddler was walking alone on the side of the road. Russell then pulled over and phoned a family member. Russell was heard asking someone if they were okay and then screamed, after which only noise from the road was heard. Police arrived to find Russell's car running with the door open and her phone and other belongings near by. But, there was no sign of her. Posters in the thread seemed convinced that Russell had been a victim of human traffickers who may have used a toddler as bait. A few posters found the idea that Russell was lured in to stopping unbelievable and proposed alternative ideas such as she was running away, had stumbled into a bad situation of sorts, or had even been attacked by a bear. Eventually the thread was mostly taken over by armchair detectives who appeared convinced that the mystery could be solved through Internet discussions. They would hustle back and forth between the WebSleuths website, Reddit, and DCUM, posting information from WebSleuths and Reddit without an ounce of skepticism. This led to considerable discusion of topics that don't appear to have any source beyond "a poster on Reddit" or similar. Seventeen pages into the thread, reports emerged that Russell had returned home and been taken to a hospital. The police eventually released a statement confirming that Russell was safe, but saying that they were holding off on questioning her in order to give the family some space. As such, almost nothing is known about what happened while Russell was missing or the circumstances under which she arrived at her home. This led to 20 more pages of theories and allegations, basically none of which had any factual basis. While many posters expressed joy that Russell had returned home safely and quite a few praised the handling of the situation by the police, a number of posters seemed determined to paint Russell as a sort of culprit in this situation. As of this morning, almost nothing has been released publicly about what happened to Russell, but that is not stopping rampant speculation.

Once again I am beginning this blog by talking about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. This was easily predictable as soon as the thread titled, "Prince Harry’s Latest Private Struggle: Hollywood or Home?" was created in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The original poster quotes an article suggesting that as Megan Markle is planning her next venture, Harry is considering a more subdued role. The original poster concludes by asking, "Is Harry ditching Hollywood?" I must say that the sourcing for this story in impecable, relying on the HeadlineReporter which, in turn, cites the Daily Mail. But, frankly, the source could have been the bathroom wall of an Irish pub and few of those responding would have cared. Clearly, most of those participating in this thread know the couple better than they know themselves. For instance, multiple posters claim that Megan wants to get a divorce but Harry doesn't. However, later in thread, posters claim that Harry is the one considering divorce. Despite their knowledge of the Sussex's, several of the posters struggle with geography. There is an initial dispute over whether the couple lives in Los Angeles. They don't, but rather in Montecito which is slightly over 90 miles from Los Angeles. Of course, everything west of the Rockies looks the same to us east coasters. Beyond this, there is little to differentiate this thread from the countless other Harry and Megan threads. Like those, this one will likely be locked soon. There is really no other topic that attracts obsessive posters like the Sussexes. Moreover, the posters spend a tremendous amount of time arguing about whether the fans or the detractors of the couple are the most obsessed. While I can understand fans wanting to post incessantly, I really don't understand the haters. Why do they find it impossible to simply ignore these two? It's really strange.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Being denied my earned leave because I’m covering due to maternity leave" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. When I read this title, I wondered what would cause a thread on this topic to become the most active of the day. Once I read it, I understood. The original poster is complaining that she has accrued vacation leave that she will lose if she doesn't use. She applied for vacation time off for later in the year, but was denied because she is scheduled to cover for someone who will be out on maternity leave. But, rather than simply stopping at this point, the original poster claimed that she was being punished due to not having children and asks why people without kids are being punished like this. Turning this issue into a fight between parents and non-parents is a sure way to stir controversy on a parenting website. Hence, ten pages of responses. The original poster's claim that she is being punished for not having children gets plenty of pushback as would be expected. Posters point out that the original poster would have been denied leave even if the other employee was childless and simply on vacation. Similarly, the original poster would be denied leave even if she had children. Someone has to be there to cover. The most common response was to tell the original poster that she had submitted her leave request too late and that she should request time off before the other employee begins maternity leave. As one poster writes, "She can take leave, she just can't take it when she wants." The original poster seems to go out of her way to alienate just about everyone. She accuses other posters for being in favor of compensation theft, ignores any helpful advice, and attacks her employer for being "cheap". One poster responded by saying "+1 you sound like a very nasty person." The original poster is likely trolling because some of her responses are just too obtuse to be real. For instance, at one point she writes, "Maybe the person who got pregnant did it too early to allow me my leave." By the end of the thread, the original poster has provoked such a negative response that the response itself leads to a backlash as new posters wonder why nobody has sympathy for the original poster. That is explained by one poster who says, "This is a solvable problem but OP doesn't want to solve it. She just wants to melt down." The problem may not actually be solvable to the original poster's satisfaction, but it definitely won't be solved by throwing a temper tantrum on DCUM.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Is it true that 90% of women aim for the top 5% of men?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that he has heard the claim made in the title from his adult daughter and her friends. However, in a subsequent post, the original poster claims to be a 31 year old who is wildly successful at dating women a decade younger than himself. Doing the math, he would have been a minor when his adult daughter was born and is claiming to date women her age or below. In other threads, the poster has discussed his wife. Call me cynical, but I'm not buying any of this. Moreover, I have questions about the type of guy who would be obsessing about this sort of thing. As for the topic itself, it combines many themes from other discussions such as women primarily being interested in tall, educated, financially successful men. The number of posters claiming to have statistics about such things provoked enough eye-rolling that I was concerned about potential damage to my eye muscles. This thread was particularly obnoxious in the frequency of posters using terms such as "high-value men" or "high-value women" and talking about the "market value" of individuals. I've never been the world's biggest romantic, but if this is how you are approaching dating, no wonder things are not working out. A significant number of posters in this thread claim to be very knowledgeable about the desires of members of the opposite sex. Women know what men want and men know what women want and both think the other gender is misguided. Multiple posters claim to be among the top 1% of this and top 10% of that and to be dating nothing but others like them. Call me a cynic for the second time but I really doubt that folks with all of that going for them are spending their free time posting in DCUM's relationship forum. I'm fairly convinced that most of this thread consists of trolls trying to troll each other and none of them realizing that they are being trolled themselves. Maybe I should start a new website for trolls to date each other? All the guys can claim to be 6'5", earn 900k annually, and to have been a star lacrosse player at Harvard. All the women can claim to be supermodels with PhDs in early childhood education. Since none of them likely ever leave their houses, they probably won't ever learn the truth.