Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Will no longer shop at Giant- annoying checkout machine" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster is upset because the checkout lines at Giant that have cashiers are long and slow and the self-checkout machines are annoying and don't always work properly. While the original poster is specifically referring to the Giant in McLean, other posters report similar frustrations with Giants all over the DC region, at other grocery stores such as Harris Teeter and Wegmans, and at stores outside the area. Some posters report having better luck using a hand-scanner, but apparently those are not available at all stores. The positive stories about hand-scanners led to several requests for instructions about how to use them. However, other posters said that the hand-scanners are beginning to disappear because of increased theft. One poster said that the hand-scanners themselves were being stolen. A dispute broke out about whether Giant's increased use of self-scanners is due to theft or a desire to reduce staff and rid the company of a union contract. In contrast to the complaints about self-checkout, a number of posters were fans of the system with some even saying they go to Giant specifically because of the self-scanners which they find easy and quick to use. But far more posters report avoiding Giant due to the scanners. One strange thing I noticed was a poster who showed up posting several posts supporting Giant and its self-scanners. The poster would ultimately post 9 mostly consecutive posts defending Giant, mocking the complaints of others, and accusing them of whining. I normally don't take accusations of posters being corporate shills very seriously, but this poster certainly raises suspicions. Other posters find the in-store shopping experience so frustrating that they have resorted to ordering online and using curbside pickup. It is amazing how so many current issues impacting society are all represented in this thread. There is automation versus human staff, accusations of political tolerance of theft, inflationary prices during a time of rising corporate profits, differing comfort levels with technology, and a general dislike of change all impacting the common experience of grocery shopping. On a more basic level, I think this also reflects the impact of corporate MBAs in windowless offices fixated on spreadsheets and profit margins. The idea of increasing automation and reducing a unionized workforce probably sends those bar charts rocketing upwards. When the actual result is increased theft, they simply make the process more onerous for their customers. Their solutions always seem to result in transferring more responsibility to the customer. But, at what point will the customers no longer tolerate their grocery shopping experience turning into a miserable ordeal? For several posters in this thread, that point has already been reached.

The next most active thread yesterday was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "FINALLY - Trump is going to be indicted for January 6th", the thread was started after former President Donald Trump posted a message on his Truth Social network saying that he expected to be indicted by special council Jack Smith on charges related to the January 6th attacks on the US Capitol Building. Despite the length of this thread, there is very little of substance in it. There is not much news related to the event so posters are mostly left reiterating previously held positions. Trump critics are thrilled about the prospective indictment and hoping to see him perp walked into jail and forced to stand for a mugshot. Trump defenders view the process as purely political and having no legal basis. About the only new wrinkle to this thread is a discussion about Trump supporters and whether they are powerless desparate people who are ignored by Democrats or whether they are simply terrible people. It is pretty clear that there are a large number of Trump supporters who, justified or not, are resentful due to what they perceive as their unfair circumstances. Republicans actively exploit and feed that resentment, blaming and making enemies of immigrants, the LGBT community, liberals, the media, and countless others. Democrats may well be guilty of ignoring the underlying causes of this resentment. But, it is still surprising that between the enthusiastic feeding of this group's anger by Republicans on the one hand and apathy by Democrats on the other, Democrats end up being the ones who get the blame. A January 6th-related indictment should present a bit of a dilemma for Republicans. One of the reasons several Republican Senators gave for opposing Trump's second impeachment is that the legal system presented a means of holding him accountable. Now that the legal system appears to be doing exactly that, Republicans are arguing that the system is corrupt and that indicting Trump undermines faith in the justice system. In the most recent posts, Trump supporters are arguing that it is impossible for him to get a fair trial in DC because the juror pool will likely be overwhelmingly anti-Trump. Those making this argument appear to have already concluded that there is no possibility that Trump is actually guilty. So, without having seen the actual indictment, not to mention the evidence supporting it, they are arguing that other people will not properly consider the facts. These folks might be well advised to spend less time worrying about DC jurys and more time looking in the mirror.

The third thread that I will discuss today was titled, "Stupid question, but can I leave my baby in the car for this?" and posted in the "Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers" forum. The original poster is expecting her second child soon. Her first child goes to preschool and the rules for drop-off require her to walk the child to the door about 30 feet from her car. She is wondering if she can leave the baby in the car while she walks the other child to the door. The area is safe and it is unlikely the car will be stolen and it will never be out of sight. The first poster to respond agreed that leaving the baby in the car was completely reasonable. However, just about every poster after that on the first page argued strenuously against leaving the baby. The response was so overwhelmingly one-sided that the original poster quickly responded to say that she will plan to take the baby with her every time and not leave the baby in the car. Another poster said that leaving the baby would be perfectly fine and it is what most people during a different time in the US or outside the US now would do. But, currently in the US, the climate is such that the original poster would be called into the daycare director's office and chastised, other mothers would gossip about her, and there is a chance she would be reported to Child Protective Services. So, the poster reluctantly concluded that the original poster will have to carry the baby to the door, not for the baby's protection, but for her own. As the thread continues, however, several more posters favor leaving the baby in the car. By the end of the thread, opinion is split much more evenly. A number of posters weighed-in with cautionary tales of parents being locked out of their cars while babies were in them. However, one poster to whom this actually happened said that while she was panicked at the time, it turned out not to be a big deal.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Do You Really Need a ‘Hook’ to Get Into a Top School Nowadays?", the original poster wants to know what advice to give a kid who is hoping to be admitted to a top school but doesn't have a hook. For those not a familiar with the term, a "hook" is something specific about an applicant that gives them an extra edge. The most common hooks these days are legacy status, athletic talent, children of staff, or relatives of a large donor. The general feeling among those responding is that admissions to top schools are very competitive and as more schools become test optional, the number of applications will only increase. Hence a very low percentage of students are accepted by the most competitive schools. In this case, hooks are very important. Surprisingly, a number of posters continue to argue that underrepresented minority status is still a hook, despite the Supreme Court prohibiting race from being a factor in admissions. Some posters who appeared to have firsthand knowledge of students recently accepted by top colleges argued that unhooked students who are able to distinguish themselves as special were more likely to be admitted. They emphasized that this was not simply a matter of stats. I'm going to quote one poster at length who explains this well:

And ‘very good’ is not synonymous with 4.0 and 1600 SAT—I think that’s actually what’s causing people to go crazy and assume you can’t get in unhooked. ‘Very good’ increasingly seems synonymous with ‘special,’ meaning distinct/appealing in the combination of attributes an applicant brings—leadership, intellectual acumen, curiosity, engagement, work ethic, ability to make a meaningful contribution to the campus community, etc.

There is some discussion about whether what is considered to be a hook might be expanding to include things such top grades, top test scores, awards, volunteer experience, demonstrated leadership, etc. Several posters argue that those are achievements rather than hooks. But, as the poster I quoted explained, all are very important to applications. It is easily predictable that "hooks" will become the focus of complaints about unfair college admissions now that affirmative action has been prohibited. Students with great stats will still fail to be accepted and look for things to blame it on. Hooks will be the obvious candidate.