Monday's Most Active Posts

I often comment about how I haven't read the threads that lead the list of most active topics. More than that, I often don't even know about the threads until I look at them in order to summarize them for these posts. Such was the case with a thread titled, "Wealthy family sent their teen to $50K day school, every travel league, most weekends and all summer" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. I discovered this thread, which was first in number of views and second in number of replies yesterday, for the first time just now. If you haven't already read the thread, you won't be able to because I've removed it. The thread was a nasty, ill-conceived criticism of a family with whom the original poster is acquainted. Much of the original poster's critique of the family revolves around the family's commitment to their daughter's pursuit of soccer. Some time ago, I began limiting posts in our soccer forum to those by registered users. Motivating this change was the constant negative, rude, and downright mean posts that dominated that forum. The original poster's obvious glee in what she sees as the family's daughter's failure to be accepted into a top college soccer program is extremely distasteful. But, exactly the sort of thing to be expected based on my experience with the soccer forum. To our posters' credit, virtually all of those who responded lambasted the original poster, suggesting that she was simply jealous of the other family and disputing the implication that the daughter had somehow failed. The original poster, apparently realizing the hole in to which she had dug herself, attempted to reframe her post as an argument against overemphasizing sports. Most of the responders were still not having it and defended participation in sports regardless of the level.

Leading in number of replies yesterday and third in views was a thread in the "Family Relationships" forum titled, "How annoyed would you be on a scale of 1-10." The original poster explains that she and her husband are expecting their first baby in late December. This will be their first and maybe only child and the original poster has informed both her mother and mother-in-law that they preferred not to have visitors until a few weeks after the birth. Nevertheless, the original poster's mother-in-law has scheduled a flight and asked to stay with them for a month beginning the week in which the original poster is due. The original poster's husband has agreed to his mother's staying with them. The original poster adds that their condominium is small and the mother-in-law does not cook, drive, or provide much assistance of any sort. She asks how annoyed others would be in this situation. Most of the responders say that they would be off the scale annoyed, but many placed equal if not more blame on the original poster's husband. Posters argued that this was the husband's problem and he would have to deal with it, either by getting his mother to change or cancel her flight, finding an alternative living arrangement for her, or being completely responsible for her during her stay. If her mother-in-law could not be dissuaded from visiting, the original poster was advised about strategies for getting her to be helpful rather than an unwanted burden. Pointing to some minor inconsistencies in the original poster's posts, some responders suggested that the original poster might be trolling. While I can't prove it, this might well be the case. There are indications that the same poster was active in the travel forum discussing her kids' experience on various vacations. Again, I can't say with any certainty that it was the same poster, but I would say it is a better than 50 percent chance that it is.

Speaking both of trolls and threads that you won't be able to read because I have just deleted them, the thread that was second in number of views and third in number of replies fits both categories. Titled, "Should I be worried about au pair?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum, the original poster says that a new au pair who recently started working for them is very pretty with a great figure. The original poster has noticed her husband looking at the au pair and asks whether she should be worried because she has to leave on a work trip next week. Several posters immediately called the original poster a troll — for the record, I would much rather that you report the thread rather than posting your suspicions within it — and the original poster seemed dejected and bothered by the troll allegations. While I can't prove that it is the original poster, a poster that very much appears to be her later posted what appear to be several sock puppet responses. Most of those posts encouraged the belief that the husband and au pair would not be able to keep their hands off of each other. There were also many responses along those lines from posters who were clearly not the original poster, as well as many posts saying that the original poster shouldn't automatically be concerned about the situation. As I said, I've deleted the thread given the fact that the original poster has either abandoned it or been trolling from the get go. Either way, the thread is no longer of much use.

A thread in the "Beauty and Fashion" was fourth in both number of views and number of replies yesterday. The thread, titled, "Is it okay to buy/wear Balenciaga given the controversy related to children? They have apologized." discusses the recent controversies surrounding the Balenciaga fashion brand. A series of advertisements pictured young children with teddy bear bags dressed in bondage gear. Another advertisement had a page from the Supreme Court decision prohibiting child pornography partially visible in the background. Given QAnon child sex trafficking conspiracies, right-wing fueled fears of "grooming" children, and normal sensibilities that are offended by sexualizing children, these ads were basically throwing a lit match into a tank of gasoline, surrounded by sticks of dynamite, at the bottom of a nuclear reactor. The original poster asked if it is permissible to still wear Balenciaga fashions given this controversy. It should be noted that Balenciaga is suing the production company responsible for the ad with the court ruling in it. Most posters argued that the company should be cancelled and that wearing its fashions would signal support for sexually exploiting children. There is some debate about Balenciaga's responsibility for the ads, with most posters coming down with the buck stopping at Balenciaga rather than it's ad makers. There is also some discussion about different attitudes between the US and Europe regarding both art and the sexualization of children. But, few, if any, posters were persuaded by such posts. Some posters pointed out that boycotting would be easy since they could not afford the brand's products in any case. A couple of posters took hard lines against Balenciaga until they learned that the corporation also owned several of their favorite brands. At that point, the posters sought wiggle room and loopholes that would exempt them from tossing out their wardrobes.