DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Dating a conservative" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster states that she is a woman who "is pretty progressive and liberal and works in gender equity" but has been dating a conservative man and wonders if there would be any long term issues with this relationship. The phrase "gender equity" in this post was a big red flag to me. Therefore I made a quick search for additional posts by the original poster in the thread and didn't find any. That was a second red flag. So I looked at the original poster's other threads. I am reasonably certain that the original poster is actually a man. Moreover, I think the poster has a habit of posting from the point of view of women with whom he is in a relationship. He seems to be struggling with dating and this may be an effort to better understand a woman's point of view. I haven't read much of this 14 page thread, but what I have read probably was disappointing to him if he was hoping for reassurance that a liberal woman might be happy dating a conservative man. I won't bother deleting or locking this thread at this point because, while it was probably started as a bit of a troll thread, the original poster has checked out. Whatever discussion is going on now is entirely between other posters.

Today's post will be a bit briefer than normal because I have another commitment to which I must attend. The two most active threads yesterday were both covered in yesterday's blog post. So, I will skip them today and move on to the next most active thread which was titled, "Youngkin is a book banner" and posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. The original poster of the thread embedded a tweet describing Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin's appearance on a CNN town hall. According to the tweet, Youngkin said that he would have signed HB 1448 had the VA Senate not blocked the bill. Also according to the tweet, that bill would have allowed Youngkin to ban books that he deemed offensive. Hence, the original poster's description of Youngkin as a book banner. I Googled "HB 1448" myself to see what the bill is all about. It is only one short paragraph in length and calls for the creation model policies dealing with the selection and removal of books from public school libraries. That is a few steps removed from giving Youngkin the power to ban books, so the tweet clearly overstates things. This highlights an ongoing trend in the local politics forum in which a left-leaning poster constantly posts anti-Youngkin posts, often engaging in extreme exaggeration if not outright misinformation. The poster's style mimics much of that to which we have become accustomed to seeing from right-wingers. Personally, I think Youngkin's actions lend themselves to significant justifiable criticism, leaving no need for hyperbole or misstatements and I wish this poster would rein himself in a bit.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "What’s a parenting choice you just cannot understand" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. I am really baffled by the constant threads about things people don't like, don't understand, are tired of, etc. These threads are just excuses to criticize others who then get offended and start arguments. To her credit, the original poster acknowledges that some of her own choices might end up on other's lists. But, in my opinon, she still fails when it comes to empathy. Her example of a parenting choice she doesn't understand is not prioritizing getting a baby or young child enough sleep. Where are the parents who don't want their child to sleep and actually prefer to have a tired baby screaming all the time? They don't exist. For new parents, a child's time asleep is a refuge, it is a welcomed break. Nobody wants less of it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like this is all an effort by the original poster to pat herself on the back for what was apparently a successful effort at sleep training her own child. If this is the case, the original poster's gripe is not that parents don't prioritize sleep, but that they don't address it exactly as she did. In other words, her real complaint is that some parents don't sleep train. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I am pretty sure that if the original poster took time to ask others to explain their choices, they wouldn't be so difficult to understand. In a follow-up post, the original poster stresses that she does understand that some parents don't have choices. For instance, some parents might need to wake a baby at 5 am because of day care or their job and the original poster emphasizes that she is not criticizing this. I'm willing to bet that similar explanations would also satisfy the original poster in 99.9% of the cases. I'm a fan of the adage of not criticizing others if you have not spent time walking in their shoes. As such, I find threads such as this very non-productive. But, I am apparently in a distinct minority since the thread has already reached 36 pages. Since I stopped reading after the third post, I have no idea what the other 35 pages say.

Because I didn't write blog posts over the weekend, today I'll look at the most popular threads over the past three days. The most active thread during that time was titled, "SVB failure" and posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. As anyone with even marginal awareness of current events can guess, this thread is about the failure of the Silicon Valley Bank. The story, as I understand it, is that this bank is popular with venture capitalists who invest in tech startup businesses. These investors require the companies in which they invest to keep their funds in SVB. Apparently during the closed economy of the pandemic, SVB accumulated money that could not otherwise be invested. SVB used that money to purchase bonds and securities which, due to the low interest rates at the time, had low yields. With the rise in interest rates, SVB faced the predicament of either selling the bonds at a loss or sitting on them until maturity, creating a liquidity crisis. According to a Twitter thread by on of the venture capitalist involved, a chat group involving 250 some investors discussed this problem, leading to several of the investors advising their companies to withdrawal their funds from SVB. This provoked a bank run which resulted in the FDIC taking over the bank. Lead-ing venture capitalists took to Twitter to demand that the government protect their deposits. and many companies who lost access to their funds worried about how to pay their bills. I haven't read the entire 27-page thread, but from what I have read, the discussion mirrors much of the general discourse on this topic. Some posters see the sky as falling and stress the dangers of SVB's collapse. Others take a "let it fail" approach and express fatigue with government bailouts. Eventually, discussion turned toward possible solutions and then analysis of the government's statement that it will safeguard deposits through measures that will not require taxpayer funds. Not every poster is necessarily onboard with this solution, but there seems to be a general understanding that the government would be forced to do something.

The most active thread yesterday, by some measure, was titled, "Why do donut hole families" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread, which garnered and amazing 21 pages of responses in just one day, discusses the families whose finances fall in the "donut hole" between those wealthy enough to easily afford college and those poor enough to qualify for need-based financial assistance. The original poster claims that there are plenty of in-state options, lower-tier private colleges, and even some out of state public universities that are affordable if families are not fixated on out-of-reach Ivy League schools. I don't have time to read much of this thread but from what I can tell, many posters are resentful to have found themselves in the donut hole. Some posters explain that having grown up in less financially well off families, they were forced to take out loans for college. They then got good jobs and worked hard to climb the corporate ladder which puts them outside the bracket that is eligible for need-based aid. However, the burden of paying off their own loans meant they could not save for their own children's college. Now they are too wealthy for aid and too poor to afford top colleges. Other posters argue that the term "donut hole" is misleading because it understates the realities of being poor. Being poor does not mean that college affordability issues suddenly disappear and that poor families struggle just as much, and in most cases even more, than so-called donut hole families. A few posters have little sympathy for families in this situation, describing this as a failure to save and misplaced priorities. Quite a few posters do circle back to the original poster's point that many affordable options do exist if people would choose to pursue them. As one posters writes, "Why isn’t in-state good enough for people? Stop going after prestige and prestigious institutions."

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Just for fun: like the full name but not the nickname, like the nickname but not the full name" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Threads about names — normally asking for suggestions in the "Expectant and Postpartum Moms" forum — are very common. So, I guess it was just a matter of time until one made the most active list. The purpose of this thread is clear from it's title. One example provided by the original poster is liking Tamara but not Tammy. There are two types of responses that can be expected in name threads. One is posters inventing names that they believe are funny. Most often they are not. The other is posters getting offended, generally when their own name or a name they love is criticized. I haven't read all of this thread but several posts were reported so I know that offense was taken in at least a few cases. I am not sure if any made up names were posted but I certainly wouldn't be surprised. For the most part is appears that posters stayed on topic and stuck to the original poster's intention for the thread. Some posters posted their own names, which they love, and nicknames that they hate and hope that nobody uses. Others posted their children's names and nicknames they either liked or disliked. I wouldn't expect to learn anything new from this type of thread but actually found out for the first time that "Topher" is a nickname for "Christopher". Heretofore, I thought it was its own name and it did not occur to me that it is a nickname. Based on this thread, one would conclude that the name "Rebecca" is the name with the most associated nicknames, but nearly all of them are hated.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "The Tucker Carlson videos are dropping" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As you can guess from the subject line, this thread was about video footage of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol by supporters of former President Donald J. Trump. Speaker of the House Keven McCarthy gave Fox News host Tucker Carlson exclusive access to the footage and Carlson has been presenting select portions of it to his audience. The discussion in this thread is divided between those who believe that it completely exonerates the January 6 insurrectionists and those who argue that it is deceptively edited and that the facts of January 6 are well-known and indisputable. The thread is 21 pages long so I can't summarize much of it, but it looks like many of the posts consist simply of embedded tweets that support the poster's viewpoint. Many of the pro-Trump posters argue that the videos show that the public has been mislead by Democrats and believe that those convicted of January 6 offenses deserve new trials. Posters with opposing viewpoints insist that the lawyers of those convicted had access to the video and could have used it as part of the defense had they so chosen. The January 6 Congressional Committee was also the target of considerable criticism, particularly from posters who seemed to confuse its role with that of the Justice Department and the Courts. It is notable that Carlson's presentation has not only been criticized by Democrats, but also by leading Republicans including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. As is so often the case these days, discussions like this one do little to inform or educate, but instead are simply venues for amplifying previously held viewpoints.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Spikes and hooks are the least 'equitable' things out there? Why are Ivies so into them?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread is really another in a very long series of threads resulting from the trend among colleges and universities to make standardized tests optional for admissions applications. The original poster argues that "musical ability, theatre, and esoteric extracurricular and leadership accomplishment" are functions of privilege and, in fact, more inequitable than standardized tests. One of the criticisms of standardized tests is that they favor those privileged to have undergone intensive test preparation. The original poster turns this argument around and argues that factors that are highly regarded in holistic admissions policies such as musical or theatrical talent are developed through significant investment of parents' time and money which requires even more privilege. I've only read the first page of responses, but those posts show that some posters refute the original poster's argument and claim that their kids' talents were developed mostly through the children's own initiative with minimal parental support. The original poster is unrelenting in her insistance that only privileged children are capable of such accomplishments and that this exposes the hypocrisy of test optional admissions policies. Admittedly, I am not an expert in the topic, but based on my own observations, top athletes, musicians, or actors all have innate abilities. Yes, those talents must be developed for the individuals to reach top levels, but that does not always require the sort of investment the original poster imagines. Soccer and baseball, to name just two sports, are full of athletes from very humble origins. What privilege those individuals have is mostly a result of talent and hard work. Moreover, the original poster accepts as fact that dropping test requirements is purely motivated by "equity" concerns. I am not sure that argument is as well-founded as the original poster imagines. Similarly, the original poster implies that top athletes, musicians, and actors only pursue those activities in order to enhance college applications. In other words, in this poster's mind, there is no difference between a test preparation course and piano lessons. I think many would disagree with that assessment.

Because I didn't post over the weekend, today I'll look at the most active threads over the past three days. In the Relationship forum, regardless of the question, the answer is always "divorce". Increasingly in the College forum, no matter the question, the answer is "test optional". That was the case with the most active thread over the past three days which was titled, "Why is it so much harder to get into a top school now?" and, of course, posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster believes that selective colleges are harder to get into these days and that there is a larger pool of qualified candidates and wants to know why. While some of the first to respond mention the availability of student loans which enable more students to pursue such colleges and the presence of international students who are full pay and, as such, financially attractive to schools, much of the discussion focuses on test optional admissions. The argument goes that due to grade inflation everyone has a high grade point average and standardized tests scores are no longer available to distinguish the top students. These means that there is a large pool of applicants with similar qualifications. Some posters go further and suggest that colleges and universities also focus on minority applicants who are less qualified, making things even more difficult for non-minority candidates. However other posters throw cold water on this suggestion by providing statistics showing that the minority acceptance rate has been stabile for some time. I just skimmed the 22 page thread and it looks like arguments about the validity of various tests dominates discussion and leads to several off-topic tangents. This thread again illustrates what I am officially dubbing "The DCUM Paradox". Families move to highly-educated, affluent areas where they target the best schools in hope that this creates a direct line to the top universities. However, come college application time, they find that they are competing with students from the same school in the same highly-educated, affluent area who all want to attend the same group of top universities. Because the top universities are not going to accept the entire senior class of the best high school in this highly-educated, affluent area, what was supposed to be a direct line is is anything but that. The family would have been better off choosing an economically depressed area with rundown schools and having the student become the high school valedictorian. Or, at least this is the impression one gets from reading threads like this. Frankly, I have no idea if the DCUM Paradox is grounded in reality or not. But repeated anecdotes in threads of this sort certainly support the idea.