The Most Active Threads since Friday

As is my habit now, I skipped blogging for the weekend. Therefore, today I'll review the most active threads since Friday. During that period, the most active thread was titled, "Why don’t U.S. hospitals let women sleep quietly for the night in the hospital after giving birth?" and posted in the "Expectant and Postpartum Moms" forum. The original poster argues that hospitals should allow postpartum mothers to sleep through the night while the baby is put in a nursery. The poster says that recovery should be treated like recovery from a surgery with no interrupted sleep. A nurse immediately corrects the original poster to say that patients recovering from surgery are also awaken several times per night to take vitals, administer medicine, and draw blood. Nevertheless, several posters agree with the original poster that new moms should be allowed to sleep. Multiple posters explain that this is what is known as "baby-friendly" care aimed at encouraging breastfeeding and bonding. The majority of those responding clearly consider it "mother unfriendly". This is a 21 page thread so I can't read it all, or even very much of it. But, from what I see, posters have strong opinions about the best way to treat mothers who have just given birth. Most, like the original poster, would be happy to get a good night's sleep after hours of labor. A few don't want to give up their babies for even a minute and prefer the baby be left with them. While the original poster was addressing the immediate aftermath of giving birth, quite a few of the responders looked at the topic more broadly. Several described checking out of the hospital within 24 hours and recovering at home. There are clear socio-economic and cultural factors at play. Posters with means were able to hire postpartum doulas and other homecare professionals. Obviously, not every woman could afford to do this. There is considerable discussion of birth and recovery practices in other cultures and countries. The US healthcare system is subjected to considerable criticism. Much of the discussion stems from the fact that medical care in the US is largely treated as a business. Therefore, hospitals strive for efficiency and cost-savings and adequate staffing is often an issue. In other countries, healthcare is viewed as a service and emphasis is placed on its quality and efficacy, resulting in what many posters view as more appropriate practices. One of the biggest differences of opinion concerns whether the baby should be treated as a patient with staff dedicated to its care or whether care of the baby should be primarily left to the mother and whatever support she can muster (the father being the most common suggestion). Advocates of both viewpoints weigh-in vociferously.

I'm a bit conflicted about whether or not I should write about this next thread. Posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum and titled, "Did college turn your kids, especially daughters, into political radicals? If so, which college". The original poster wants to avoid any college that caused students to turn into "political radicals". This thread was pretty trollish from the start and, as a result, most of those responding didn't take it very seriously. Moreover, it turned off-topic fairly quickly. Most of us who have been involved in Internet discussions for any length of time are familiar with Godwin's Law, the adage that as an Internet discussion grows longer, regardless of its initial topic, it will eventually result in a comparison to Nazis or Hitler. I now propose a similar rule, let's call it Steele's Law, that all Internet discussions, regardless of topic, will eventually end up talking about transgender topics. This thread got diverted to a long discussion about JK Rowling, Matt Walsh, and their views about transgender people. When I removed those posts, it reduced the number of responses by 40 and dropping the thread from the most active list. But, since I had to spend so much time on the thread, I'll go ahead and include it. While it is implied that the original poster was most concerned about liberal influence of universities, some posters pointed to colleges such as Liberty University that tend toward conservative values. Quite a few posters described experiences of moderate liberals turning more conservative while attending liberal universities. Several posters are reigned to the fact that their children will return from college more liberal than they had previously had been and others describe their disappointment that has already been their experience. The thread goes off-topic in many different ways and so many posts are simply political statements with no real relationship with the topic that I locked the thread this morning. One thing I noticed from this thread is that both those on the left and those on the right claim to support and desire free expression. At the same time, each accuses the other of trying to suppress free expression. On top of that, there is a group of posters who insist on labeling anything short of blatant white supremacy as "woke". While many posters are supportive of their children opening their minds and adopting new ideas, the thread is full of parents living in abject fear that their children may return from college supporting equality and being concern about climate change, or in what they clearly consider the worst case, a transgender person.

Third was a thread titled, "24-yo Sofia Richie ties the knot in France. Marrying in your early 20s is trendy!" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. When I saw this topic on the most active list this morning, I wondered way there was so much interest in the wedding of someone of whom I've never heard. I eventually learned that I have heard of her father but the length of the thread has less to do with Sofia Richie and more of a result of the second part of the title about marrying young. For some reason, DCUM is full of posters who insist on arguing about the proper age at which to get married. Those in favor of getting married older argue about everything from brain development to their belief that young marriages don't last. Those in favor of marrying young point out that has been the historic norm and claim that waiting too long results in only the "left-overs" being available. I am entirely open to blaming this on my own short-comings, but none of the posters in this thread come off looking particularly good to me. First, all of them get the side eye from me just for participating in this thread. Honestly, some of the posters arguing for marrying just out of college personify the "Mrs. Degree" stereotype. Many of those who favor marrying older appear jealous and resentful. Happily, there are a few who reject the notion of there being a "right" age and support people doing what is best for their circumstances. These posters, at least, get a thumbs up from me. If there is anything on which most of the posters agree, it's that Sofia Richie's youth is less important because she will be protected from negative repercussions, if any, by her wealth. One other thing I have to criticize about this thread — and indeed most threads about celebrities — are the posters who seem to believe they are privy to a celebrity's most intimate thoughts and are completely competent to speak on their behalf. Call me skeptical of these poster's abilities.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Shouldn't university be free for some students?", the original poster argues that providing free university education to black and American indian students would be an appropriate measure of reparations. Most of the replies tend to fall in one of several categories. There are posters that support the OP's idea. There are posters who completely oppose it. There are posters who think financial aid and scholarships already serve the purpose of this idea. There are posters who think this idea should be applied based on financial status rather than race. There are posters who think that nobody should have to pay for college. Finally, there are posters who think the idea is good in theory but wouldn't work in practice. Replies that don't fit one of those patterns tend to be off-topic posts arguing about public education. Such posts comprise a significant percentage of the responses. Other off-topic posts discuss the general idea of reparations. Of course, no such thread would be complete without a number of posts from outraged white people who get upset by the entire topic. Hopefully, I have removed all of those. Eventually, the thread lost any connection to the original topic and I ended up locking it.