Thursday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Boomers can’t downsize" and posted in the "Real Estate" forum. As I have written many times, I hate generational labels which I consider to have little validity and generally to be unhelpful. In this case, the original poster is a self-described boomer who is upset that he cannot find an affordable house in which to retire in one of his preferred locations. I really don't understand why, in a forum that is full of boomer-haters, one of them would put a big huge target on their butt with a giant "kick me" sign above it. But that's essentially what this poster did. His post leaves him open to many obvious criticisms and few posters miss such inviting opportunties. Younger posters have long complained that "boomers" refuse to retire and, therefore, prevent younger employees from taking their jobs. In addition, some have complained that boomers refusing to move out of their houses have constrained the housing supply and driven up prices. Generally, younger posters have complained that boomers should get off the lawns that the younger posters would like to acquire (and then build auxiliary housing units on). The original poster's point is that suitable retirement houses in Rehoboth Beach, the Hamptons, the beaches of the Carolinas, or the "good" parts of Florida are too expensive. As such, he can't afford to sell his current house and move to one of those places. One might think that this is due to other boomers who have also wanted to move to those places and, therefore, driven up demand while supply remains limited. But, no, the original poster doesn't blame other boomers. Instead, he blames younger people who are working remotely while living in those coveted locations. The original poster's solution, therefore, is to require employees to return to the office so that these younger work-from-home types will be forced to move out and he can buy one of their places cheaply. Most of this thread consists of posters of various ages calling each other "entitled" and selfish. Even though practically every member of every generation wants access to affordable housing in desirable locations, each sees their own aspirations as reasonable while the other generations' as entitled. Eventually this discussion expanded from its focus on housing and, instead just became an argument about boomers. There are debates about the college tuition boomers paid, whether or not they have pensions, and other generalizations often made about boomers. This supports my dislike of these labels. They are broad generalizations that have so many exceptions as to have little utility. In this thread there is even an argument about in which years boomers were born.

The next most active thread yesterday was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This forum seems to have been almost completely taken over by posters who are convinced that the admissions policies of elite universities are totally biased against White and Asian applicants. It is hard to escape the perception that these folks sincerely miss the day when being wealthy and White or being an Asian with good test scores was enough to ensure entry to any top college. Now, thread after thread is dedicated to showing how much better the poor and minorities have it than the rich White folks. This installment of this series of posts was titled, "Princeton class of 2027". The original poster notes that two-thirds of Princeton University's incoming class is receiving financial aid. Nearly a quarter is receiving Pell Grants. The original poster doubts that this reflects the "best of the best" and is concerned that there are not enough opportunities for "extremely bright upper middle class kids". Several posters agree with the original poster, but others point out that even upper middle class families could be getting financial aid given the cost of the school. Indeed, one poster who describes her daughter as "an extremely bright, upper middle class" Princeton student says that her daughter receives financial aid. But, this point never quite penetrates the original poster's consciousness. In subsequent posts, the original poster continues to insist that financial aid recipients are poor and unprivileged students who are less well prepared, and therefore, less capable than the "extremely nurtured" upper middle class kids. I have to say, based on the original poster's comprehension of the article to which he linked, he does very little to demonstrate the alleged strengths of this upper middle class demographic. The article clearly states that even families with incomes "beyond $300,000" receive financial aid grants. So plenty of those aid recipients are far from being poor and disadvantaged. If we consider that to have been the reading part of the original poster's SAT, I am sorry to say that his performance on the math section was not much better. He combined the percentage of aid recipients with the percentage of Pell Grant recipients to deduce that only 15% of the students were full pay (and these students being the most capable). However, given that Pell Grants max out at less than $7,500, grant recipients most assuredly receive additional aid. Therefore, the two groups that the original poster combined actually overlap. As a result, the number of full pay students is likely double the original poster's estimation. One of those responding did make this point but apparently too subtlety since the original poster failed to notice it. Essentially, the Princeton stats show that approximately a third of the incoming class is wealthy enough to pay the entire cost of the school which is more than $70k annually and a quarter is poor. That leaves more than a third — the largest group — being middle class. That doesn't seem like too bad of a distribution to me.

The third most active thread yesterday was titled, "Johns Hopkins is a Leader in Undergrad Diversity" and, like the previous thread, posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread is very much like the previous one but, instead of focusing on income levels, discusses race and ethnicity. The original poster linked to an article showing that 34 percent of Johns Hopkins University's freshman class is black or Hispanic. This is among the highest percentage of any selective university. The original posters seems to view this as a laudable achievement. However, those responding, at least at first, don't share the original poster's enthusiasm. Several say the school has a reputation of being "a miserable grind for undergrads" and suggest that only the uninformed would want to go there. This deprecation of the incoming students continues with the suggestion that minority students were admitted due to the school lowering its standards. Several posters, some with firsthand experience at the school, describe Johns Hopkins as having a cutthroat atmosphere in which students are overly competitive. This leads to posts suggesting that the minority students won't be able to cut it and one poster even questions whether they graduate. Another poster provided statistics showing that the Black graduation rate matched the Asian rate, both leading the White graduation rate with the Hispanic rate only 2 points below the White rate. Basically all race and ethnic groups have high graduation rates at the university. Nevertheless, the thread soon devolved to, as one poster put it, "grievance and paranoia". Posters claim that the minority admissions numbers were a result of admissions being test optional. This relies on the assumptions that the minority applicants would have had lower test scores and that test scores are an accurate metric for academic ability. As in the previous thread, many posters assume that the minority students are less prepared and will not be as strong of students. The thread is a strange mixture of posters saying the school is too difficult and too competitive so they don't recommend it and those complaining about alleged underprepared minorities being accepted due to lowered standards. Is the argument here that the school should be made easier or that underprepared White kids should be accepted? But, the thread reaches true absurdity when it gets bogged down in a debate about whether residents of Argentina are "Hispanic" or not. Apparently there is a belief that Johns Hopkins might be bostering its minority numbers by admitting Argentineans who are actually Europeans.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Titled, "Why do antivaxxers say Covid is nbd but vax injuries are", the original poster points out the contradiction among some anti-vaccination folks who downplay Covid deaths and mock those concerned about the spread of Covid, yet hype any negative outcome of vaccinations. I managed to read this thread until about the third post, at which time I realized this would be a complete waste of my time. The posts I read were all justifications for not receiving the Covid vaccine, one of which declared that neither the Covid vaccine nor the flu vaccine are actually vaccines. It is shocking to me how prevalent anti-vaccination posters are on our forum. I want to think that these are posters from outside the DC area and not reflective of DCUM's traditional audience, but I've never checked. I am not sure that the original poster is correct that the same people who are saying "Covid is just the flu" are the same ones who are screaming their heads off about the dangers of the vax every time a sports figure or celebrity has a health issue. But, I would not be surprised. At any rate, all of this stuff has long since left the realm of logic, despite the insistance of both sides that they are "following the science". I can't stop these posters from arguing with each other. But, they can't make me read their threads.