Thursday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Wedding offenses: rank according to badness" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Lately there have been multiple threads about posters objecting to one aspect or another of a wedding. Perhaps inspired by such threads, the original poster of this thread wants to rank items in terms of how "bad" they are considered. Her own list starts with "no kids" weddings and ends with "Weddings of couples who ask for cash". But, I don't know which of those is supposed to be the worst offense. She also lists "No +1 weddings", "Destination weddings", "Dry weddings", and "No open bar weddings". My first reaction when preparing to write about this thread is that I don't like summarizing threads that consist mostly of lists. But, then I noticed that the thread was 17 pages long and I knew there is no way that posters had stuck to the program for that many pages. Sure enough, while the initial responders did  pretty much keep to ranking their wedding peeves as the original poster requested, by the third page posters starting ignoring the rankings and just expressing their opinions about things others had listed. As could be expected, this caused the thread to devolve fairly quickly as others responded to those posts and the thread was overwhelmed by debates about wedding choices. The first poster to deviate from the assigned task of ranking offenses defended the practice of not inviting kids which was one of the leading wedding peeves. This provoked a rebuttal from a poster whose kids are always well-behaved at weddings. Of course everything that was listed as an "offense" had defenders. Otherwise, none of those things would ever be done at weddings. Some posters rejected other's lists completely, supporting every practice that was ranked as an offense. This seems to be a very popular thread but the topic is lost on me. I barely remember any wedding to which I've been, including my own. I couldn't tell you which ones had cash bars or were dry and I've never been to a destination wedding. My list of offenses would probably be "too long", "uncomfortable seats", and "bad music at the reception".

The next most active thread was originally posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum but I moved it to the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum. I am not entirely certain that is the correct forum, but since the thread was titled, "Anyone here opting their kids out of sex ed in Virginia?", that seemed like a good bet. The original poster says that she and her husband are Democrats who hate Former President Donald Trump and voted for President Joe Biden, but they disagree with the "extreme positions Democrats have staked out on some of these sexuality and gender debates". Therefore, they will opt out their kids from sex education classes. I've been forced to read a number of threads about changes in the Fairfax County Public Schools Family Life Education classes and would be hard pressed to identify anything that is extreme. Therefore, my immediate reaction is that this poster's concerns might not be entirely based in reality. The poster later clarified that she did not think that elementary kids needed to learn about "trans/non-binary stuff". In another follow-up the poster objected to older elementary grades having combined gender classes in which boys would learn about menstruation and genders would be referred to as "assigned male at birth" and "assigned female at birth". The vast majority of those posting are either not bothered by these lessons or fully supportive them. Whenever a topic like this comes up, it reinforces my view that transgender issues have opened a Pandora's Box of opposition to a range of sexual topics. Most obvious has been the conflation of trans issues with sexual orientation which results in, as multiple posts in this thread demonstrate, posters opposing discussion of homosexuality in schools. I've pointed out before that the "Heather Has Two Mommies" controversy was decades ago and with the legalization of same sex marriage, I would have thought we would be well past this being an issue. The original poster opposes boys learning about menstruation, but I learned about women's periods in a combined-sex class in grade school. That was in the 1970s! The fear of exposure to transgender topics has traumatized some of these folks to the point that they want to return to prehistoric times.

The next thread that I will discuss is titled, "He doesn’t want to see me after I disclosed health results" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that after she informed the guy she has been seeing that she has a non-cancerous strain of HPV, he said that he doesn't want to see her. He wants to get his doctor's advice on how to proceed. The original poster is hurt, ashamed, and feels rejected. Those responding are divided between those who believe the guy is overreacting and those who think the boyfriend is acting reasonably. Many of the posters in the first camp argue that HPV is very widespread and the guy likely has HPV himself. He may even have been the one to give it to the original poster. These posters have very little patience for the guy and some suggest that the original poster end things with him. The original poster herself leans to this view and favors ending the relationship. Posters in the second camp think it is reasonable for the boyfriend to take time to think the situation over and get advice from his doctor. They suggest that he might not be well-informed on the topic and might not understand the situation clearly. The original poster and several of those supporting her are concerned that the guy has apparently cut off all contact with her entirely. The original poster says that she would still like to spend time with him even it they weren't intimate, but he is treating her like a leper. The original poster is clearly, and understandably, distraught. Perhaps in an effort to give herself a boost, she began sock puppeting responses supporting herself. At first these sock puppeted responses were few and sporadic, but by page 14 they make up fully one half of the page. At any rate, it hasn't even been a day yet since the thread started and I can't imagine the guy has had time to see his doctor. So, if the original poster hopes to stay together — and based on her posts she doesn't — she will probably need to be patient for a while.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum and titled, "Why is Cornell called ‘lower Ivy’". The original poster just reiterates the question in the thread's title, asking why Cornel is called a "lower Ivy". This thread reminded me of Senator Ted Cruz's refusal to study with students from "minor Ivies". I guess asking him to study with a student from Cornell would have been a complete non-starter. After a few snarky replies, a poster explained that it is because Cornell is located in a rural area and was originally a land-grant college and farming is not what immediately comes to mind when thinking of Ivy League schools. Moreover, some of the undergraduate colleges are publicly-funded and have some attributes of state schools. Other posters point to its size — it is large compared to other Ivies — and their opinion that it is easier to get into than the others. Another poster pointed out that it was founded almost 100 years after then next youngest Ivy League university. Several posters argued that Cornell doesn't deserve this moniker and doesn't deserve such second-class status. Some believe this categorization emanates from those who are jealous of or were rejected by the school. At any rate, there are 7 pages of people arguing the pros and cons of the school. This thread would likely have been higher on the most active list but I removed multiple pages of off-topic posts. For reasons that are unclear to me, the thread was hijacked by posters arguing about Emory University and the Georgia Institute of Technology. Someone clearly believes that magnolias are the equal of ivy.