Thursday's Most Active Threads

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 second most active thread yesterday was posted in the "Schools and Education General Discussion" forum. Titled, "Is this CRT?", the original poster refers to recent changes in Minnesota's teaching requirements discussing teaching about "power, privilege, intersectionality, and systemic oppression in the context of various communities and empowers learners to be agents of social change to promote equity." I've noticed that posters across the political spectrum are frequently triggered by certain buzzwords (of which "triggered" itself is one example). The fact that these buzzwords are often misunderstood and misused does not help things. "CRT", referring to Critical Race Theory, is itself an example of this. But, the quoted passage which mentions "privilege", "intersectionality", and "equity" among other things is a motherlode of triggers. As many of those responding point out, nobody seems to agree on a definition of CRT. Therefore, "CRT" has become something that exists in the eye of the beholder. As such, some think the changes are an example of CRT and some responders think that they aren't. I have read thread after thread similar to this one. The divisions always appear to be between those who believe that structural and historic discrimination that has resulted in advantages to some and disadvantages to others deserves redress while others think that we should have complete equality starting at today's baseline. All other arguments, in my opinion, simply flow from these two viewpoints.

The next thread was posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. Titled, "PreK teacher recommending redshirting my son", the original poster goes into great detail about her son and a recommendation that he be held back a year in pre-K. I mentioned a few days ago that redshirting is a hot button issue on DCUM that always brings out a few posters obsessed with the issue. This thread is no exception. While a few posters do address the specific situation described by the original poster, much of the thread is devoted to the broader issue of redshirting. One twist that I don't remember seeing before is the accusation that redshirting is primarily done by upper middle class white families who redshirt perfectly normal children which results in skewing norms and expectations for other children in the same grade. This creates disadvantages for children of color. I don't know whether or not this is true but the poster displays two of the characteristics often demonstrated by those opposed to redshirting. The first is the belief that redshirting is commonly, if not mostly undertaken when it is not developmentally necessary and the second is a focus on who might be disadvantaged rather than who might be helped. The original poster of this thread appears to be entirely focused on what is best for her child and uninterested in obtaining an unfair advantage. This is likely how most parents approach this topic.

The final thread of the day was titled, "Why do kids here in the US spend so much time and effort on sports?" and posted in the "Sports General Discussion" forum. The original poster describes herself as having been raised in a different culture. Now that her kids are getting into sports, she is surprised at how much time and effort it requires. She says that her kids are involved in some sort of athletic activity almost daily year round. This leaves little time for academic enrichment. The original poster wonders about the reasons for such commitment. Many of those responding suggest that the reasons are not that complicated. It's simply fun. Other posters are more skeptical and believe that other families may be hoping to enhance college acceptance or scholarship opportunities. Some posters blame the "sports-industrial complex" which is motivated by the financial benefits of encouraging such involvement. Some posters point to the benefits of sports in terms of character building and addressing desires for competition. But, there are significant differences of opinion about the real value of expensive and time-consuming sports.