Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Being denied my earned leave because I’m covering due to maternity leave" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. When I read this title, I wondered what would cause a thread on this topic to become the most active of the day. Once I read it, I understood. The original poster is complaining that she has accrued vacation leave that she will lose if she doesn't use. She applied for vacation time off for later in the year, but was denied because she is scheduled to cover for someone who will be out on maternity leave. But, rather than simply stopping at this point, the original poster claimed that she was being punished due to not having children and asks why people without kids are being punished like this. Turning this issue into a fight between parents and non-parents is a sure way to stir controversy on a parenting website. Hence, ten pages of responses. The original poster's claim that she is being punished for not having children gets plenty of pushback as would be expected. Posters point out that the original poster would have been denied leave even if the other employee was childless and simply on vacation. Similarly, the original poster would be denied leave even if she had children. Someone has to be there to cover. The most common response was to tell the original poster that she had submitted her leave request too late and that she should request time off before the other employee begins maternity leave. As one poster writes, "She can take leave, she just can't take it when she wants." The original poster seems to go out of her way to alienate just about everyone. She accuses other posters for being in favor of compensation theft, ignores any helpful advice, and attacks her employer for being "cheap". One poster responded by saying "+1 you sound like a very nasty person." The original poster is likely trolling because some of her responses are just too obtuse to be real. For instance, at one point she writes, "Maybe the person who got pregnant did it too early to allow me my leave." By the end of the thread, the original poster has provoked such a negative response that the response itself leads to a backlash as new posters wonder why nobody has sympathy for the original poster. That is explained by one poster who says, "This is a solvable problem but OP doesn't want to solve it. She just wants to melt down." The problem may not actually be solvable to the original poster's satisfaction, but it definitely won't be solved by throwing a temper tantrum on DCUM.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Titled, "Controversy : Actor Kristen Bell Shares Photo Of Star-Studded Dinner Party — And Not Everyone's Impressed..", the original poster links to a HuffPost article about an Instagram slideshow published by actress Kristen Bell. Bell's photos included one showing a long dinner table at which were seated many Hollywood stars including Jennifer Aniston and Courteney Cox. However, as many Twitter users noticed, there did not appear to be a single person of color among the fairly large group. Apparently a controversy has resulted from this, or at least a sufficient number of tweets to convince HuffPost that an article about it could generate clicks. Few of those responding seem to share the concerns of the Twitter users who complained about the photo. One says she is tired of this "diversity sh*t" and another proudly says that her parties also only include white people. Others pointed out that there are two Asians in the photo, though it later turns out that one of those is actually half-Asian. It was later revealed that the party was hosted by Jimmy Kimmel, so Bell probably should be bearing the brunt of the criticism in any case. Several posters dispute the claim that the group was "star-studded" and say they recognize few, of any, of those in the photo. Another poster showed a photo of the HuffPost's editorial board which, if possible, was even less diverse than the dinner party, suggesting the publication had little room to talk. I understand the complaints by some posters about forced diversity. I am sure that nobody wants to invite someone else to dinner simply because of that person's race and I am equally sure that nobody wants to be invited on that basis either. But, what I don't understand his how anyone who lives and works in as diverse an environment as Jimmy Kimmel or most of the others there would not end up just naturally inviting people of color. To that extent, I do think that whoever put together the guest list probably could do with a bit of introspection. On the other hand, the party was apparently held in Idaho and the explanation could be as simple as people of color not being interested in visiting a state whose white population exceeds 92% with a Black population of only 1%.

The third most active thread was titled, "When the whole family is good at swimming" and posted in the "Sports General Discussion" forum. The original poster says that her family belongs to a community pool with a large swim team. She has noticed families in which all of the children are very good swimmers and wonders what, genetically, is responsible for this. Several posters attribute swimming skills to spending money to allow year-round swimming and paying for private instructors. Others agree that this may be true at young ages, but argue by high school genetics begins to be more important. The debate between training and experience versus genetics runs throughout the thread. Several posters provide anecdotal examples supporting both sides of the dispute. For instance, one poster describes her husband who learned to swim at a young age as being competitive in swimming, but not athletic otherwise. On the other hand, another poster's husband was naturally athletic but started swimming quite late and, nevertheless, became a standout swimmer. Some posters explain these differing experiences by claiming that it depends on the type of swimming event. According to them ome types of swimming are easier for natural athletes while others require extensive skill and experience.

The final thread at which I'll look was posted in the "Lacrosse" forum. Titled, "Capitol tryouts", this thread was started back on July 3 by a poster asking whether trying out for the Capital Lacrosse Club is worth it for a player who is not already on one of the teams. But, the thread added several pages of new discussion yesterday. I don't really know anything about lacrosse but I've read enough about it while moderating this forum to know that it is something I'd prefer to stay away from. Apparently the club's tryouts were held shortly after the original post. Therefore, the thread quickly moved on from the original question to disscuss the tryouts and the eventual results in general. From reading DCUM's lacrosse forum, one would get the impression that lacrosse is basically a social phenomenon in which folks are grouped together in order to engage in petty rivalries, childish behavior, relationships riven by resentment, envy, and unhealthy competitiveness, and dominated by those trapped in arrested adolescence. Occasionally, these interactions are interrupted by girls or boys running up and down a field with sticks. As such, very little of this thread deals with the actual playing aspects of the sport. Instead, the discussion is dominated by conspiracy theories and allegations of bias regarding the outcome of the tryouts. In addition, there are frequent allegations that one club or another is on its deathbed and all of its players are fleeing. As near as I can tell, this allegation is broadly made about a number of clubs. As a result, disputes are often not about which team or club is better, but rather about which is sinking the fastest. One more impression that I get from this thread and others like it is that nobody really cares about having fun playing this sport. It's supposed to be a path to the an elite college. Anything more than that is just luck, I guess. Therefore, there are heated arguments about what contributes to college recruitment. Posters are foaming at the mouth and calling each other names because they disagree about whether being a member of one club instead of another will help or hurt getting on a college team. Just amazing really.