2023

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "President Biden acknowledged 4 year old granddaughter" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started after President Joe Biden and First Lady Dr. Jill Biden provided a statement to People Magazine discussing the daughter of Hunter Biden and Lunden Roberts about whom the Bidens had previously been silent. The child has been the subject of considerable legal contention between Hunter Biden and Roberts and Republicans have been vociferous in their criticism of President Biden for not having previously acknowledged the girl. As could be expected in today's political environment, the statement did nothing to stem the flood of Republican attacks on Biden. Indeed, even the original poster claimed, "The statement today seems politically motivated". In addition, Republicans simply moved the goalposts. When a Biden-supporter pointed out that Republicans had complained that Biden had not acknowledged the child and were now complaining that he had discussed her, a Biden-critic replied saying, "Biden hasn’t laid out plans to welcome her to either the [White House] or the Biden family home". As anti-Biden posters sought to portray the controversy surrounding the child as a significant moral failure by President Biden, pro-Biden posters suggested that the moral outrage was selective given the moral shortcomings evidenced by former President Donald Trump. For instance, Trump reportedly urged his former wife Marla Maples to get an abortion when she was pregnant with Tiffany and Trump has often given significantly less attention to Tiffany than his other children. Similarly, Biden supporters reminded Republicans of the support demonstrated for Herschel Walker even after all of his paternity issues were revealed. In a classic case of hair-splitting, a Biden-critic responded asking, "Was he running for president?" The more relavent question would have been, "is he a Democrat?" given that Republican morality concerns tend to be entirely partisan in nature. On the other hand, a small number of Democrats in the thread expressed discomfort with the way the Bidens have handled this issue. But, one poster in the thread described themselves as "a person born to an unwed mother" and expressed considerable understanding for Joe and Jill Biden. In this poster's view, it was entirely appropriate for the President and Fist Lady to remain aloof from the conflict between Hunter and Roberts. As the poster explained, "if Hunter has no relationship with the child then the Bidens can't either."

Last Friday a thread about swim teams was among the most active threads that I discussed. I believe that was the first time that a swimming thread made this blog. But, not only has a swim team thread made the most active list again, this time it leads the list as yesterday's most active thread. This one was titled, "Swim Team Drama" and was posted in the "Sports General Discussion" forum. Since I have never been involved with swim teams, I don't understand much of what posters are talking about, including the original poster. The drama cited by that poster involved parents being upset about the times used for divisional lineups. Whatever this was, it stirred up drama in the thread itself as parents debated the rules back and forth. Other drama discussed often involved coaches, especially younger ones who seemed to disappear when needed. But, other than these examples, most of the dramas mentioned involved parents. Parents trash talking, parents arguing with each other, parents having issues with coaches, and even parents suing their pools. There also seemed to be a lot of drama surrounding team lineups. A number of posters reported drama-free seasons. Several others said the only drama on their teams was of the competitive type involving close races or slower swimmers improving and over-performing in the heat of a match. Based on this thread, I would guess that the bulk of the drama is caused by parents not understanding the rules, or — more likely — thinking they understand the rules when they don't. The original poster's example of drama was still being discussed 17 pages later, but apparently much of this is due to differences between leagues. There is also ongoing discussion about how to dress for the team banquet. I'm not sure if that actually counts as "drama", but plenty of posters have something to say about it.

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 yesterday was titled, "I said something really stupid/insensitive to gf and now she’s given me an ultimatum" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. I am not going to bother describing the topic of the thread because the poster was likely trolling and definitely sock puppeted throughout the thread. I had actually meant to check this thread yesterday because it came to by attention for some reason, but I didn't get around to it until this morning. Fairly quickly in the thread posters believed that they recognized the writing style of the poster and began linking to other threads that they suspected were from the same poster. The original poster denied being the author of the other threads and even challenged posters to ask me so that I could disprove the allegation. I think that there are significant elements in common between this thread and many of those believed by others to be from the same poster. But, it would take more effort than I am prepared to commit to confirm they are all from the same poster. The sock puppeting in this thread alone is enough to put the thread's authenticity in doubt. For instance, in one post, the original poster writes, "OP is a jerk" and in a subsequent post writes, "OP was already a jerk to begin with." This poster seems to be suffering from both identity and self-esteem issues. For whatever reason, the relationship forum has attracted a lot of drama seekers. The result is thread after thread of likely imaginary relationship conflict. Trolling the forum is a strange pastime if you ask me. I have to admit some amazement with the posters who are able to remember threads from, in some cases, years ago and match them to the poster of a current thread. Trolling an anonymous forum may seem like the easiest thing ever, but be warned. These posters will catch you. I don't know how they do it, but they do it.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Asian American student with 1590 SAT score blames affirmative action for rejections from 6 colleges" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original post consists entirely of a quote from an article about an Asian American college applicant who was turned down by six top colleges despite outstanding test scores and grade point average. The student blames affirmative action for these results and has joined in two lawsuits that are trying to end affirmative action. The original poster did not include any of his own thoughts, but they were apparently not needed to provoke discussion on this topic. The topics of affirmative action, discrimination against Asian Americans in college admissions, and the court cases have all been well-covered in our college forum. The court cases, which are currently before the Supreme Court, could literally be decided any day now. A significant number of posters believe the decisions will be favorable to Asian Americans and are looking forward to such an outcome with high expectations. Other posters appear to be getting frustrated with the entire subject and this student's plight was not met with as much sympathy as it might once have been. As posters were quick to point out, two of the schools are "test blind" and, therefore, his test scores wouldn't have been a factor. In addition, while the University of California, Berkeley was one of the colleges that rejected him, California has banned affirmative action in college admissions. The student alleges that he would have had a significantly higher chance of being accepted if he were Black rather than Asian. But, the lawsuit against Harvard alleges discrimination against Asian Americans in favor of White applicants. As such, many of those responding view the student's joining the legal action as performative without a lot of legal justification. Those responding are able to point to multiple factors that they believe make college admissions inherently unfair and don't seem to accept that the process is any more unfair for this student or Asian Americans in general. Despite this student's outstanding stats, many posters are not impressed and claim that such test scores and GPAs are not uncommon. For the most part, this thread simply rehashes the same old arguments about affirmative action and other factors that impact college admissions. There is debate about the value of test scores and GPA versus less objective factors that might indicate an ability to succeed. Everyone seems to agree that the admissions process is unfair, but they all also think it is biased against them. So, they disagree on the nature of the unfairness.

Once again the two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed and, therefore, I'll start with yesterday's third most active thread. That thread was titled, "Sharing pronouns at work" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster says that she just attended inclusivity training at her company and, for the second time, employees were asked to include their pronouns in their email signatures and when they introduce themselves in meetings. The original poster did not comply the first time that employees were asked to do this and doesn't understand why her not doing so would offend others. She asks to be enlightened about the importance of sharing pronouns. The announcing of pronouns in work and social situations has been controversial on DCUM for a while. I am not sure that this thread advances the conversation in any meaningful way. As usual, there are posters who support sharing pronouns in order to be inclusive of those whose pronouns might not be obvious. They say that providing pronouns avoids those whose pronouns might not match their gender expression being singled out and it proactively signals acceptance to them. On the other hand, there are posters who consider listing pronouns to be nothing more than woke virtue singling. Some of them get irrationally angry over the subject and one poster considers a requirement to include pronouns to be a threat to democracy. Some posters don't care about the culture war aspects of pronouns. They just want to know how to address someone properly. For others, this is simply an issue of adhering to company standards. Some of the female posters who work in male-dominated industries have a different perspective. They prefer that their gender not be obvious because they feel they are taking more seriously if they are mistakenly considered to be male. Some will even make an effort to identify themselves ambiguously in order to make their gender less obvious. Whether true or not, there is a perception that the current emphasis on pronouns is being driven by youth. As a result, some of the resentment about sharing pronouns is mixed with disdain for young people. More than one poster would love for Zoomers to get of their lawn and take their pronouns with them.

Most of yesterday's most active threads might cause feelings of déjà vu. The first of those was titled, "$300k house near swim and tennis clubs, sports facilities, and great schools and jobs anywhere in the US" and posted in the "Real Estate" forum. I recently discussed a very similar thread in which the poster had a somewhat higher budget of $500,000. The original poster of this thread is recently divorced and must downsize. The poster has a child who is about to enter high school and who is a gifted athlete. The poster says where they live now is too expensive and she would like recommendations for a place where a house can be purchased for $300,000 and has good schools, available sports activities, and good jobs. The responses in many cases remind me of the expression, "good, fast, cheap, pick two" meaning that you can't get all three of those things. In this case, those responding suggest the list is more like, "affordable, quality schools, good jobs, pick two" because as the availability of good jobs and good schools goes up, so does the price of housing. Even so, many responders have suggestions. However, most of the suggestions actually come from the original poster herself who has independently identified potentially suitable cities and asks for opinions about the high schools. Other posters caution about high property taxes in some areas that have otherwise affordable housing. The original poster also seems to prioritize the weather, ruling out several places because they are too cold and also worrying about the bugs and humidity in southern states. Suggestions from other posters as well as from the original poster herself are for locations all over the place with little coherence. One repeated suggestion that also came up in the earlier thread was to look for college towns based on the assumption that the professors would demand good schools.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Large early inheritance to only 1 of 3 siblings?" and posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. It's always somewhat surprising to me when the most active thread is one of which I was completely unaware. That is the case here, with the thread reaching 8 pages without me knowing about it. The original poster describes a scenario in which elderly parents have three children who are all married and professionally employed. One of the three siblings works in a church and, while financially comfortable, is less well off than the other two siblings. That sibling was the beneficiary of a $1 million gift from the parents that allowed them to live at a higher standard of living than the others, purchasing a large house in the most desirable neighborhood of the city and sending their children to private school. The parents do not plan to provide similar gifts to the two other siblings and any future inheritance will, presumably, be split evenly. The original poster asks for thoughts or advice about this situation. I almost immediately noticed that the original poster was sock puppeting on a fairly large scale. Most of those responding argue that the parents can do whatever they want with their money. The original poster, without identifying herself, doesn't disagree with that but describes it as "a bad idea" that is "strange" and "awkward". That provokes a question about why it is a bad idea. To which the original poster replies, again without identifying herself, "I’ve got three kids and it certainly seems like a bad idea to me." This sort of back and forth is a pattern throughout the thread. The original poster tries to support her original post surreptitiously, but only creates more questions and backlash. Other posters, not really engaged with the original poster's narrative, explain what they would have done in the parent's place or describe their own plans for dividing money between their own children. Several posters argue that good relations among siblings are more important than money and urge the original poster to focus on that. One poster finds the dispute so pathetic that she promises to give any estate she has to charity rather than have her children argue over money. The original poster, still not identifying herself, agrees that would make more sense than giving it to one child.

What would have been yesterday's most active thread is one that I ended up deleting. I'll talk more about that later, but the next most active thread was titled, "I do not want to see an NP!" and posted in the "Health and Medicine" forum. The original poster is upset because she wants to see an MD during her medical visits but is continually provided a Nurse Practitioner or other Advanced Practice Provider instead. Surprisingly to me, this thread reached 10 pages. That puts it beyond my reading stamina, so I'm not going to be able to say much about the thread. But, skimming the post, I see that a number of posters agree with the original poster, preferring MDs. On the other hand, multiple responders argue that the best nurses are promoted to Nurse Practitioners so they are happy to meet with them. There is some discussion about the reasons it has become so difficult to meet with a doctor. There is apparently a shortage. Posters complained about long wait times for appointments and then, like the original poster, having the doctor replaced by a Nurse Practitioner at the last minute. I believe the length of the thread can be attributed to debate over the qualifications and skills of nurse practitioners. Claims are made about training requirements and then those claims are disputed. I noticed at least one self-described nurse giving the idea that nurse practitioners are particularly skilled the side-eye. Her argument was that the increasing prevalence of online schools means that there are vast differences between programs and many nurse practitioners have not had experience as a nurse. Some see this primarily as a money issue with cheaper nurse practitioners replacing expensive MDs. Related to that, a poster argues that if they see a Nurse Practitioner, it shouldn't cost them as much but they get charged the same as if they were seeing an MD.

Today I'll look at the most active threads over the past three days. The most active thread during that period was the thread asking whether private colleges and universities are only for poor people about which I wrote on Friday. So, I'll skip that one today and go to the next most active thread which was also about colleges. Titled, "Colleges removing useless majors" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum, the original poster happily reports that a number of colleges and universities have dropped majors that the original poster considers "useless". Most of these are humanities majors, though one of the universities mentioned is also dropping mathematics. This phenomenon, as well as the original poster's joy over the development, highlights a long-running division in the DCUM college forum and in the discussion of education generally. An increasingly vocal and influential group increasingly views college and university, in the words of one of those responding, as little more than glorified vocational school. There is little appreciation of knowledge for the sake of knowlege or any major that might not immediately lead to lucrative employment. STEM skills are emphasized instead of the humanities which once provided the foundation of advanced education. DCUM has always had a significant number of attorneys participating and a number of them provide responses in this thread in defense of some of the majors being dropped, especially English, arguing that communications is an important skill for many fields. Personally, I am very concerned about this trend, if it is indeed a trend. I am a firm believer in a well-rounded education and I have a great appreciation for the humanities. During a time in which basic facts of history cannot be agreed upon, it is disconcerting that the US may be educating fewer historians. An art major may not develop the next life-changing invention, but life would certainly be changed by the absence of art. I really have a hard time understanding those like the original poster who express actual happiness about these majors being dropped. Obviously, if she doesn't want to study those fields, nobody is forcing her to do so. But why does she take pleasure in fewer opportunities for others ? This is a strange type of thinking that suggests the original poster might benefit from increased exposure to the humanities and a broadened mind.