DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Alec Baldwin now charged with involuntary manslaughter by New Mexico authorities" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. A few days ago, someone started a thread in the "Website Feedback" forum asking which topics were the most popular. I checked and found that Hilaria Baldwin topics were the most popular. As this thread — which reached 12 pages in less than a day — demonstrates, her husband is a similarly popular topic for discussion. This thread discusses charges lodged against Hilaria Baldwin's husband arising from an incident on set of "Rust" in which Hilaria's husband fired what he believed to be harmless prop gun and killed Halyna Hutchins, the movie's director of photography. Posters are divided between whether these are delayed but warranted charges or the act of an overzealous prosecutor. Many posters compare the incident to former Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of a hunting companion. Not only was Cheney not charged, the shooting victim actually apologized to him. While the details of this tragic event are of course important, posters were also eager to discuss how Hilaria was dressed and how many times she appeared before the camera. Her unzipped coat came under particular scrutiny. I would guess that we are only a few hours away from a poster suggesting that Hilaria arranged the shooting as an opportunity to get media exposure.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Private Schools Wokeness Over the Top" and posted in the "Private/Independent Schools" forum. The topic of "wokeness" in schools in general and private schools in particular has been well-covered but those interested in the topic never seem to tire of it. This thread managed to reach 19 pages in less than a day. As the title suggests, the original poster is concerned about "wokeness" in private schools. The original poster admits that since her children are young, she hasn't experienced any of the things about which she is worried. Nevertheless, she feels lost and not sure where she fits in. The poster, who describes herself as "Muslim" and "Arab" and explicitly attributes her views on imperialism to her ethnicity condemns identity politics while simultaneously engaging in it. Moreover, as early as the first page of the thread, the original poster prefaced one of her posts by saying, "Not OP but...". I am not sure whether the original poster identifies as a sock puppet, but the label would appear to fit. The original poster's primary gripe about "wokeness" is that, in her understanding at least, it ignores class. I am not sure why the original poster is surprised that institutions that charge more per year than most people can afford to spend on a car and for whom a primary selling point is the opportunity to avoid public school riffraff are not focused on class. Then again, I don't know why a poster who proclaims herself a staunch proponent of mass solidarity would be interested in the selective environments of private schools in the first place. The original poster goes on to provide reductive and simplistic interpretations of the writings of progressive authors which she criticizes as being reductive and simplistic. Eventually this thread got hijacked by debates about transgender people and Barri Weiss. So, a discussion that wasn't that interesting to begin with got even worse. I suspect that I'll need to lock this thread before long.

Leaving out threads that have already been discussed, the most active thread yesterday was titled, "Question for those opposed to legacy status" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The poster poses several questions to those who oppose legacy preferences for college admissions. When I read this post I thought that the original poster must not understand the topic of legacy admissions because the poster seemed oblivious to what legacy preferences provide. The first poster to respond to the thread seemed to be thinking along the same lines, beginning the post, "Not rocket science." For the benefit of those who, like the original poster, may be confused about this topic, a legacy preference is a preference given to college applicants who have a parent that attended the institution. This is often seen as a type of affirmative action for the wealthy, white, and well-connected. While the original poster seems to believe that responses to legacy admissions would be complex and potentially unworkable, opponents of legacy preferences view the issue quite simply: just ignore legacy status. This thread is 10 pages long and I don't have time to read much of it. But, from what I have seen, most of those responding oppose legacy preferences. Many explanations are offered to explain what is wrong with the practice. The only defense of legacy admissions that I noticed was sort of half-hearted, just pointing out that universities rely on alumni for fundraising and wondering how that might be impacted. Essentially, it looks like the original poster lobbed a softball directly over the plate and posters couldn't wait to step up and hit it out of the park. Hence, lots of responses mostly saying the same thing.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "NYTs: if affirmative action goes, say buy-bye to legacy, EA/ED, and most athletic preferences" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster links to an article in the New York Times that discusses possible outcomes of an expected overturn or roll back of affirmative action by the Supreme Court. The article warns that the impact of such a decision would be wide-ranging and not entirely predictable. Many programs aimed at building diverse student bodies could be halted, resulting in a decline in college attendance by students of color. The article suggests that in order to maintain diverse student bodies, universities might end programs that have traditionally benefitted the well-to-do such as preferences for children of alumni, early decision admissions, and admissions test requirements. The original poster claims that athletic preferences would also be at risk, but I didn't see any mention of that in the article. There are 19 pages of discussion and I'm not up for reading many of them. This topic has been debated ad nauseam and, as is true of most DCUM threads dealing with race, I generally feel worse off for having read them.

Today I'll look at the most active threads over the weekend, starting with a thread titled, "2023 - 2024 school calendar" and posted in the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum. School calendars are a surprisingly controversial issue and each of our various school forums tends to have multiple contentious threads on the topic. In this case, the calendars in question are draft proposals for Fairfax County Public Schools which were published last week. School calendars must address a daunting number of often conflicting priorities. For many, the most important factor is for school calendars to align with work calendars so that parents and children are off at the same times. Others prioritize religious or cultural holidays. Some value long breaks that allow time for travel while others prefer short breaks that cause less interruption to the learning process. Everyone thinks there are too many days off while still demanding that their favorite days off remain. FCPS has presented four draft calendars that attempt to reconcile these differing preferences in alternative ways. Not surprisingly, all of the drafts have their fans and detractors. Probably the most intersting aspect of this thread is the justifications posters concoct for their preferred days off. For instance, I can't imagine that a large number of FCPS families are travelling cross-country by car lugging a cooler full of food and staying at Motel 6s along the way, which was why one poster claimed to require a two-week Christmas break. A few, maybe, but enough to justify planning a calendar around? Doubtful.

On Sundays my practice has been to review the most active threads from the previous week. Out of the top 15 threads from the past week, 11 have already been discussed in daily posts. So, I will just go over the four remaining threads. The first of those was titled, "Travel on Social Media" and posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. The original poster simply asks if others post their travel photos on social media and whether they enjoy seeing other's travel pictures on social media. As can be expected, posting travel pictures has its fans and detractors. One of the reasons frequently cited for not posting such photos was safety. Posters don't want the world knowing when they are out of town. Others described posting travel photos as "gauche". On the "pro" side were posters that said they received ideas and inspiration from travel photos posted by their friends and hope that their own photos gave ideas to others. An interesting development in this thread was how much of the discussion was not about posting travel photos specifically, but rather the reaction by others to such posting. For instance, there were disputes about whether posting travel photos made others jealous. Posters detailed how they might mock those who posted travel photos behind their backs, provoking responses calling them "unhinged" or "seething". Posters debated whether unfollowing or muting posters who post travel photos is rude or a reasonable reaction. Some posters attempted to draw distinctions between posting one or two photos of an occasional trip and posting full-fledged photo albums constantly. The first could be tolerated but not the second.

Yesterday's most active thread was the redshirting thread that I discussed yesterday. So, I'll skip that one and go to the next most active thread which was titled, "Keenan Anderson - black teacher killed by LAPD" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Anderson is a DC school teacher who was visiting Los Angeles. After becoming involved in a traffic accident, Anderson flagged down a police car. According to the police, Anderson began behaving erratically and multiple officers attempted to restrain him. Ultimately, the police would taser him seven times and, four hours later, Anderson suffered cardiac arrest and died. The use of force by police against black men is obviously a very contentious issue that has been much debated. As such, many posters have reflexive responses to incidents such as this. Some posters immediately blamed the police and the tasering, despite the fact the impact of the tasering is not yet clear. For other posters, there is apparently nothing that could convince them that the police acted wrongly. These posters are big on advising others to "just comply" and demonstrate no sympathy or understanding for those undergoing mental health crises. What is probably most striking is how different posters could watch the same video and come away with markedly different perceptions. Some saw a man in distress being confronted by police whose actions escalated things. Others viewed it as Anderson resisting attempts to prevent him from harming himself or others. Similarly, there are striking disagreements about the racial aspects involved, with some seeing racism as self-evident and others going to great lengths to deny that race had any role in the event.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Redshirting August boy?" and posted in the "Private/Independent Schools". The thread might be better suited for the "Schools and Education General Discussion" forum since the topic is not necessarily specific to private schools. Nevertheless, the original poster is considering redshirting her son who has a late August birthday and would be the youngest in his class. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, "redshirting" refers to having a child repeat a grade of school. Redshirting is a controversial topic on DCUM with a few posters absolutely obsessed with the issue. While the practice has traditionally been used to accomodate children with late birthdays or who may lag somewhat behind their peers in learning or maturity, some parents suspect that it is used to give unfair advantages to children who otherwise don't need to repeat a year. In the dog eat dog world of alpha parents whose entire self-value is tied to the academic and athletic achievements of their children, the thought of a rival child obtaining an advantage through redshirting is more than they can countenance. In less than 24 hours, this thread reached a whopping 23 pages, none of which I've read. I've seen enough of these threads to know that they offer little more than a depressing view into the perception of some parents that education is a zero-sum game.

Yesterday's most active thread was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The thread was titled, "WARNING before you send your child to an upper Midwest cold weather college" and quotes from an article lamenting the lack of sunshine in Michigan in early January. The poster warns about the dangers of Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) and cautions about all Midwestern states. As a native of the Midwest and graduate of the University of Illinois, I find the original poster's concern to be ludicrous in the extreme. Mark Twain is often credited with the saying, "If you don’t like our weather, just wait a few minutes", but at least one quote investigator has traced that expression to an anonymous resident of Chicago, a place where the sentiment is certainly fitting. The original poster may be shocked to learn that there are people who actually enjoy seasonal weather changes. Some of those responding share the original poster's antipathy for the cold and sometimes gloomy weather of the north, but others recall pleasant experiences in such places. Other posters note that the Pacific Northwest and parts of northern New York state also have similar weather. This thread is part of a trend where posters have fixated on weather as a major factor in college choice. This is the second thread about cold weather colleges that has been among the most active and weather was a big part of another most active thread about southern universities. The thread is also part of a second trend involving posters obsessed with the University of Michigan, which — as a proud Illini alumn — I am contractually obligated to hate. But, I actually have fairly fond feelings for the school.

Once again the most active thread of the previous day was related to the British Royal Family. This one, titled "PR lessons from Buckingham Palace" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum, addressed the topic from a different perspective. The original poster assured us that her intent was not to bash anyone, but to simply explore the public relations response by Buckingham Palace. In the view of the original poster, the response has been "never complain, never explain" by the Royals themselves, while their "servants" have been sent out to talk to the media. The original poster asks whether this has been an effective response. Many of those who respond believe the strategy to be effective. Others didn't comment on the efficacy of the response, but offered opinions about why such a response might be chosen. It really is impossible to prevent any thread about the Royal Family from turning into a hatefest and before the first page was even complete, multiple posters had ignored the topic of PR and simply posted criticisms of Harry and Meghan. Eventually, the thread was completely hijacked into a general discussion of the Royal Family with no connection to the original topic at all. As a result, I locked the thread.