Monday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread seems perfectly designed to drive me insane. Hence, it is a good thing that I did not become aware of it until just now because the irritation it has provoked has not yet blossomed to full on rage. The thread, which is posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum, seems innocent enough at first glance. Titled "Disappointed in junior staff". the original poster explains that her staff works from home most days but recently there have been two non-mandatory social events organized by her boss for which staff was requested to come to the office. Two junior staff members failed to attend either event and a third junior staffer also missed one. The original poster's boss was upset and mentioned noticing who missed the events and the original poster asks whether this should be brought up during year end reviews. It seems obvious to me that missing non-mandatory events does not rise to review material but the original poster would be doing her junior staffers a favor by informally letting them know how their office politics appears to work and that facetime at social events would benefit them professionally. Obvious as the answer may seem to me, the thread is currently at 9 pages. The reason the thread has reached that length is because posters have brought up every issue that is likely to drive me crazy. The second response says that Millennials lack work ethics. This is all of my pet peeves about generational labels wrapped up in one. First, not all Millennials, or members of any other generation for that matter, are the same. Second, while nobody can really agree on when generations begin and end, junior staffers these days are just as likely to be Gen-Z as they are Millennials. I guess when you've been using the same derogatory for a decade, it becomes a habit that is hard to break. Then, as if we have not discussed Covid enough, that became part of the discussion as a reason to avoid group events. Several posts diverge to debate the current threat presented by the virus. Intermixed in the generational bashing and Covid analysis are a bunch of posters explaining why they would also have skipped the social events. A word of advice from a grumpy old guy who hasn't worked in an office in years. If you have a chance to get free food and drink and butter up your bosses, take it.

Speaking of Covid, the second most active thread yesterday was titled, "If you are someone who 'warns' people of the dangers of COVID on social media" and posted in the "Health and Medicine" forum. As the title makes clear, the original poster asks about the goals of those who post Covid-related warnings on social media. The immediate replies all claim that these warnings are nothing but virtue signaling. "Virtue signaling" becoming an insult is another of my pet peeves, but I'll leave that for another time. One poster who apparently works in a hospital explains that she posts warnings because she is tired of being overrun at work with patients sick with Covid. The thread rapidly becomes a sort of virtual version of posters sticking their fingers in their ears and telling each other "I can't hear you". The original poster is bothered by warnings posted in social media. Several posters are bothered by the original poster's thread. They all tell each other to skip or ignore the things that bother them and ask why they read things that upset them. Those who take precautions against Covid are accused of being hypochondriacs, attention seeking, mentally ill, and a host of other negative things. Posters who proclaim that Covid is over and they are living their lives are told that they are selfish, contributing to death and illness, the reason that Covid is still spreading, angry, and on and on. There are a few posters who describe finding a middle ground in which they practice some risk management but don't go to extremes. These posters adhere fairly closely to the recommendations of the hospital poster I mentioned earlier. But, these voices of moderation get lost in the debate between those who seem to believe they are completely immune to Covid and those who appear convinced they will become deathly ill from a single breath of unfiltered air. Covid threads all seem to be roughly the same and never of much real value.

Another popular thread yesterday was titled, "Per Harvard: Gen X is 1965-1984, Millennials is 1986- 2004, Boomers 1945-1964. Thoughts?" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture". As I have repeatedly written, I hate the entire topic of generational labels. So I sort of feel this was an attempt to troll me, and a successful one at that. Thirteen pages of posters arguing about when generations begin and end — a debate complicated by the original poster having a typo in the subject line misstating when the Millennial Generation is said to have begun. Some posters say that they relate better to members of a generation different from the one in which they were born — demonstrating one of the most obvious flaws of these labels. How much in common are two people, one born in Manhattan and one born in rural Wyoming, likely to have just because they were both born in 1988? How much would either of them have in common with someone born the same year in China? To their credit, many of those responding in this thread attempt to discredit the validity of generational labels. Among my favorite replies was one saying, "identity by arbitrary generational categories is about as insightful as identity by astrology sign". I learned from this thread that, according to some commentators, I am personally a member of a generation of which I had not previously even heard: Generation Jones. So, now I guess I am a "Joneser", the sound of which I am ashamed to admit, I sort of like. I've often noticed that it is the simple and mundane topics that often get a lot of traction on DCUM. I suppose the reason is that complex issues require a significant knowledge in order to have a valid opinion so few are prepared to discuss such things. For instance, how many of us are eager to strongly contest our opinions of asset turnover vs fixed asset turnover? But all of us can argue about our own personal opinions and the year in which we were born. However just because we can debate these things doesn't mean we should. It's still not very worthwhile. Leave it us Jonesers to explain these things because we know.

Caping off a day of basically useless threads was one in the "College and University Discussion" forum titled, "Do kids really withdraw all other applications when they get in ED?" Let me start by explaining that "ED" can have very different meanings depending on the forum in which it is used. In the college forum, it refers to "early decision" whereas in the Health or Relationship forums it is likely to refer to something else entirely. ED is one of several forms of college admissions that is common these days. Students accepted through the ED process are supposed to commit to the school, whereas someone who is accepted EA or early action can still consider other opportunties. There is also apparently something known as ED2 another called REA, but despite having a child going through the college application process, I don't know anything about those. At any rate, this thread consists of mostly what appears to be posters talking in secret code such as things like "BC UVA EA not out yet" and "I figured they were REA/SCEA - so not required to withdraw other applications." Opinions vary about whether or not it is common to withdraw other applications after beng accepted ED. This appears to be based on the honor system and honor may not be in big supply when it comes to cutthroat college admissions, not to mention tens of thousands of dollars in tuition fees. In addition to citing various examples, posters debate what is and is not permissible relative to the various admission types. The entire thing gave me a headache so I don't recommend this thread unless you have a particularly special interest in the topic.