Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "The Blind Side scandal" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. This thread has been going for a while but apparently took off yesterday, adding 15 pages to reach 25 pages in total. As most can probably guess, this thread is about the lawsuit filed by former NFL player Michael Oher against Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy. Oher and the Tuohys were the subject of the 2009 movie "The Blind Side" starring Sandra Bullock. Oher claims that he just learned in February that he had not been adopted by the Tuohys as he apparently believed. Not being a family member, Oher says he did not receive payments from the movie that were provided to the couple's children. The entertainment forum seems to have attracted a number of obsessive posters who often appear deeply knowledgeable (though that appearance is often misleading) and are capable of a prodigious number of posts per day. We have seen this in threads about Meghan Markle and Taylor Swift. In this case, I don't think these posters are longtime fans of either Oher or the Tuohys, though it is pretty clear that many posters have been influenced by Bullock's portrayal of Leigh Anne Tuohy. Indeed, quite a few of those posting seem to have gotten most of their information from either the movie or the book on which the movie was based. Many of the posters in the thread are suspicious of the Tuohy's motives and accept Oher's contention that he was misled into thinking that he had been adopted when, in fact, he had not been. Some of these posters believe that the Tuohys exploited Oher, were only interested in him due to his football skills, and had no interest in making him a formal member of their family. Other posters side with the Tuohys, arguing that a conservatorship was more practical than an adoption and that Oher should have been aware of the legal implications. One argument made by Tuohy supporters is that they have not actually received that much money as a result of the book and movie and that the money they spent raising Oher exceeded any income. So they don't expect him to receive anything from the lawsuit even if it is successful. One particularly strong supporter of the Tuohys continually launched attacks on Oher that appear based on nothing more than conjecture. She suggested that Oher is out of money and going after the Tuohys as a money grab. Moreover, she alleged that this was being done at the best of Oher's wife, contending that this was mostly a mother-in-law vs. daughter-in-law conflict. I haven't seen anything to support this view, but given the innumerable mother-in-law/daughter-in-law conflicts that are routinely fought in our Family Relationships forum, it would fit right in on DCUM.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. Titled, "Reagan Airport - ‘Refuse to Move’ Citation", the original poster complains that she received a citation after refusing to move her car from the pick-up lane at Reagan National Airport. According to the original poster, she was only parked for 3 minutes while she waited for her child to direct her aging mother to the car. The original poster was so upset by the ticket that she called the officer's supervisor, but received no satisfaction. Therefore, she asks if she must pay the ticket. Very few of those responding are sympathetic to the original poster. Many suspect that she was parked for longer than 3 minutes. Others tell her that the lane is not meant for dropping someone off to go in and return with another person. Instead, the original poster should have circled around until her mother and child were waiting at the curb. At least two other posters, however, report that they too were treated unnecessarily harshly by police when they were trying to pick up arrivals at the airport. While posters have strong feelings about this topic, much of the length of the thread is attributable to an off-topic divergence involving the name of the airport. As Washington natives and long-time residents know, the airport was historically named "Washington National Airport". In 1998, Congress legislated that the name be changed to "Reagan National Airport". Most DC residents detest Congressional involvement in the District's affairs and have little fondness for Ronald Reagan. So, to say that many District residents were displeased to see "Washington" replaced by "Ronald Reagan", especially at behest of Congress, is a major understatement. Fairly early in this thread, a poster who may well share that displeasure attempted to correct the original poster's reference to "Reagan Airport" by saying that the airport is called "National Airport". This unleashed a debate that continued throughout the thread. Some posters argued in favor of "National Airport", some in favor of "Reagan National Airport", and some argued that this is a stupid debate and people can call it whatever they want. Sadly, nobody stood up for "Washington National".

Next was actually the thread about former President Donald Trump's indictment in Georgia which I've already covered. Therefore, I'll move on to a thread titled, "Son is too embarrassed to return to campus to finish BA as a 5th year" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that "shaky" grades prevented her son from graduating this year with the rest of his clase. He is embarrassed about returning to the school for another year because he thinks others will mock him behind his back and he will face a lot of questions. Therefore, her son is discussing transferring and graduating from another college. Those responding are fairly unanimous in urging the original poster to encourage her son to return for the 5th year. Many point out that it is very common to take more than 4 years to graduate and that this is even more true as a result of COVID. Several suggest dealing with some embarrassment will be a character-building experience and will be good for him. A number of posters advised against transferring because he would likely lose a lot of credits and end taking even longer to graduate. There is a bit of a divergence due to a poster speculating that the school in question might be Wesleyan University. This leads to a long and heated discussion about Wesleyan's graduation rate. One relevant point that arises from that discussion is that graduation rates are normally measured over 6 years. The original poster had mentioned that her son's school has an excellent graduation rate but other posters suggested that she consider that graduation rate was likely over 6 years rather than 4.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum and titled, "FCPS not following the new state models". Avid readers of this blog (both of you) may remember a recent post about the Virginia Department of Education releasing new model policies addressing transgender issues and other topics related to sex education. The original poster says that the state models require obtaining parental permission before administering surveys. Apparently she has previously opted out her child from a Sexual and Emotional Learning (SEL) survey and expected the child would be excused this year as well. Instead, the original poster learned that she will have to opt-out again this year. She believes that this is a violation of the models. That contention is later disputed by other posters. Much of the discussion revolves around what is involved with the so-called SEL screener. Apparently it is not just the subject matter of the survey, but what is done with the resulting data that bothers some posters. Moreover, some posters are deeply suspicious of the company that conducts the survey. However, it appears that many posters are confusing the SEL screener with another survey, so much of the opposition to the screener is based on misinformation. In the midst of this thread, FCPS announced that it would not adopt the state models but, instead, would continue to allow transgender students to access bathroom and locker rooms of the gender with which they identify. It turns out that the state models are advisory and school systems are free to ignore them. As a result, over half the thread is devoted to arguing about transgender issues. This thread is long, many of the responses are incomprehensible, and a bunch of different topics are discussed in no apparent order. As a result, I am at a near total loss as to explaining what the thread is about after about page 7. There are many references to boys in girls bathrooms, but otherwise, I am not completely sure what is being discussed.