2023

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "If adults kids don’t have kids what’s the point?" and posted in the "Adult Children" forum. The original poster laments that she gave up 22 years of her life for her kids and apparently has no grand children. Therefore, she questions the point of her sacrifice and dreads what he expects to be a lonely, sad life with empty Thanksgiving tables. I am familiar with parents who live their lives vicariously through their children, but this was the first time I can recall encountering this phenomenon with regard to grandchildren. However, since a few other posters agreed with the original poster, I guess it is not uncommon. From these posters' perspective, all that they worked for in their lives was not for themselves, nor even for their children, but for their grandchildren. Without grandchildren, it was all for naught. For some of these posters this is an issue of "keeping their line going". One poster claims to be from an aristocratic family to whom a "line" is very important. On the other hand, some posters mocked the idea of a "line" that had any value. For the original poster's part, I don't think she was all that concerned about her "line". Rather, she seems to view grandchildren as something that would give value to her life. She is not interested in future generations after she's gone, but simply the remaining years of her life. Many posters disagree with the original posters' thinking. They argue that having children is a personal decision that should be done because the parents want the experience of raising children, not as a duty to their own parents. Many are critical of the original poster for not finding other things of value in her life. Almost universally, those posters who expect grandchildren react by threatening not to leave money to their children. More than one poster describes having worked diligently to amass fortunes big or small with the plan to pass them on to grandchildren, but will now find ways to spend the money. Not too many posters find this decision to be problematic and they agree that parents have no obligation to leave inheritances to their children. Generally, I found this thread to be very bizarre and, based on several responses, so did a number of other posters.

The most active thread yesterday was once again the thread in the "Political Discussion" forum about the indictment of former President Donald Trump. But, I've already discussed that thread so I will start with a thread titled, "What Schools Do You Consider ‘Prestigious?’" which was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster asks what universities people in the DC metropolitan area consider to be prestigious. Ater reading this thread, it occurred to me that this thread would be great research material for both a psychologist and a sociologist. But, sadly, those are both fields that I suspect are terribly unappreciated by the participants in this thread and, as such, any findings by those professionals would be ignored. Nevertheless, of interest to a psychologist would be the original poster himself. The poster's main interest in the thread appears to be to include Duke University among elite colleges. The poster posted multiple lists of schools he believes to be prestigious, always including Duke. The poster then repeatedly sock puppeted responses to his own posts expressing approval of his own lists. The poster would respond to other posters' lists suggeting that entries on their lists be replaced with Duke. The poster also posted standalone posts arguing that Duke was an elite school. At one point the poster favorably compared Duke to Stanford University. I am not sure if "delusions of grandeur" would be the correct diagnosis here, but probably not too far off. A second participant in the thread with whom a psychologist might be intrigued is a poster whose obsessions is with "ALDC" applicants. That refers to "recruited athletes, legacies, those on the Dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff", or those who are often granted advantages in college admissions. This poster posted at least 20 times in the thread, almost always either mentioning "ALDC" or replying to posts that did. The poster seems to consider "ALDC" synonymous with "rich white people" and implies that they are academically weak relative to other students. The poster also argues that the entire concept of "prestigious" universities is an effort by rich white people to make themselves feel good. The poster writes off entire universities due to their perceived popularity with ALDC students and dismisses certain majors as being the choices of ALDC admits. A sociologist might be interested in how this thread illustrates the decreased lack of esteem in which DCUM posters seem to hold traditional liberal arts educations. There is an argument throughout the thread about whether Yale University should be included among elite colleges, apparently due to its perceived weakness in STEM fields. Traditional liberal arts majors such as English are downplayed, even if taken at Harvard. Poster after poster suggests greater prestige for schools with strong STEM programs rather than those that have strong liberal arts offerings.

The most active thread over the weekend was the thread about Virginia's new policies regarding transgender students about which I already wrote. So, I'll move to the next most active thread which was titled, "Gosselins" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. I have led a fairly fulfilling life to this point with little to no exposure to the Gosselins. I would have been quite happy to keep things that way. I have heard the family's name in passing and I understand that there was a reality television show called "Kate Plus 8". But, beyond that, I know virtually nothing about them. So, this thread is very confusing to me with lots of names being cast about by posters who seem to have very detailed knowledge of everyone involved. The thread was started back on May 15 by a poster who simply asked if the "the twins" were graduating from college and where "the septuplets" were going to go to college. This was a major gaff by the original poster that was quickly pointed out. The Gosslins have "sextuplets", not "septuplets". The thread sort of languished until the past few days when, apparently, various members of the family began giving interviews criticizing each other. That reignited the thread which gained 12 pages over the weekend. I, of course, am not going to read the entire 28 pages of this thread or even the new pages. The only thing I could conclude from skimming some of the recent discussion is that this is not a thread that I am going to be able summarize. Posters have different opinions about different family members, but there is too much that I don't understand for me to have any idea about what anyone is talking. All I can say is that the family is divided and, similarly, posters are divided. I have been happy living in blissful ignorance regarding this family and I prefer to continue to do so. Therefore, rather than delve into the details of what is going on, I am just going to throw up my arms in resignation and leave it to those of you who are interested to read the thread for yourselves.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "New VA trans policies for schools" and posted in the "VA Public Schools other than FCPS" forum. The thread addresses new model policies issued by the Virginia Department of Education regarding the treatment of transgender students in schools. The new model policies require students to use facilities that match their biological sex and require referring to students by names matching the sex on their official record unless parents request something different in writing, It will be up to local school systems to adopt policies consistent with the new models. As would be expected, posters are strongly divided about the new guidelines. For instance, regarding the role of parents in a student's social transition, posters favoring parental rights strongly agree that parents should be informed if their children are using different names or pronouns at school. They consider a failure by schools to inform parents of such matters as "conspiring" against parents and, in the most extreme cases, examples of "grooming". The new model policies go beyond merely informing parents, however, and prevent schools from using names or pronouns that differ from the sex contained in the official records. Parents opposed to these policies want schools to be safe places for students in which children can confide in trusted adults without fear of repudiation by their parents. There is also considerable disagreement about the guidelines concerning bathrooms and locker rooms. There is a lot of fear and anxiety among some posters concerning students assigned as male at birth sharing girls facilities. These parents welcome the new guidelines that prohibit this. On the other hand are parents who view this as discriminatory. While I did not see it mentioned in the thread, my understanding is that this issue has already been decided legally in favor of transgender students. Ironically, this is based on legal proceedings that took place in Virginia. A transgender student, Gavin Grimm, sued the Gloucester County School Board when he was prohibited from using male bathrooms. Both the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rule in Grimm's favor and the US Supreme Court chose not to hear the case, leaving those rulings in place. This would seem to mean the new guidelines are in contradiction to legal findings. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin may welcome a legal battle on this issue given the political advantages he seems to see in attacking transgender rights. Moreover, the current Supreme Court Justices may not be as sympathetic to transgender students as in the past. At any rate, transgender issues remain among the most divisive topics on DCUM.

The Carlee Russell thread was back as the most active thread yesterday after local officials held a press conference. But, again, since I've covered that thread I'll move on to the next most active. That one was titled, "What do the non mask wearers think today when they see someone wearing a mask" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that she is a healthcare worker and still wears a mask when she goes out. She is glad that a few others do as well so that she won't stand out as much. Responses fall into roughly three categories. Many posters believe that those wearing masks may be ill, recovering from an illness, or live with folks who have health concerns. Several others simply don't care or assume whatever reasons the mask-wearer has are personal and not their business. The third category attributes mask wearing as a sign of anxiety or mental health problems. Eventually, a group of posters emerge who don't really address what they think about those who wear masks, but proudly and defiantly announce their own unwillingness to wear masks. Some nostalgically recount not masking at the height of the pandemic and feeling pleasure about the discomfort they caused in others. There is also a number of posters who see masks as political symbols and believe that those who wear them are engaging in political symbolism. Of course the mask debate is not new on DCUM. Far from it. But one thing that has changed in these discussions is that there is no longer much of an effort to persuade others to wear masks. To be sure, posters who still wear masks are willing to explain their reasons and defend themselves. But, almost no one is telling others that they should mask. But, past efforts to encourage masking seem to have left a number of posters traumatized to the point that they react to the mere sight of a mask as if it is an attempt to oppress them. There is a certain irony in seeing those who are riled to the point of anger by someone else wearing a mask questioning the mask wearer's mental health. For every overly-anxious mask wearer that probably needs to spend some time in a therapist's office (note, this applies to very few mask wearers) there is probably a rabid anti-masker who should be sitting right next to them. A new development in this discussion is that some posters have started using masks due to poor air quality, particularly on code red days caused by smoke from Canadian wildfires. Whereas in the past people might commonly be maskless outside but don a mask when entering a building, now the opposite happens with people wearing masks outside and removing them upon entering.

The most active thread since my last post on Friday morning was titled, "Woman missing after reporting seeing a toddler on the highway" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. This thread was started Saturday based on a report that 25-year-old Carlee Russell had gone missing in Alabama in mysterious circumstances. While driving home Thursday night on Interstate 459, Russell had phoned 911 to report that a toddler was walking alone on the side of the road. Russell then pulled over and phoned a family member. Russell was heard asking someone if they were okay and then screamed, after which only noise from the road was heard. Police arrived to find Russell's car running with the door open and her phone and other belongings near by. But, there was no sign of her. Posters in the thread seemed convinced that Russell had been a victim of human traffickers who may have used a toddler as bait. A few posters found the idea that Russell was lured in to stopping unbelievable and proposed alternative ideas such as she was running away, had stumbled into a bad situation of sorts, or had even been attacked by a bear. Eventually the thread was mostly taken over by armchair detectives who appeared convinced that the mystery could be solved through Internet discussions. They would hustle back and forth between the WebSleuths website, Reddit, and DCUM, posting information from WebSleuths and Reddit without an ounce of skepticism. This led to considerable discusion of topics that don't appear to have any source beyond "a poster on Reddit" or similar. Seventeen pages into the thread, reports emerged that Russell had returned home and been taken to a hospital. The police eventually released a statement confirming that Russell was safe, but saying that they were holding off on questioning her in order to give the family some space. As such, almost nothing is known about what happened while Russell was missing or the circumstances under which she arrived at her home. This led to 20 more pages of theories and allegations, basically none of which had any factual basis. While many posters expressed joy that Russell had returned home safely and quite a few praised the handling of the situation by the police, a number of posters seemed determined to paint Russell as a sort of culprit in this situation. As of this morning, almost nothing has been released publicly about what happened to Russell, but that is not stopping rampant speculation.

Once again I am beginning this blog by talking about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. This was easily predictable as soon as the thread titled, "Prince Harry’s Latest Private Struggle: Hollywood or Home?" was created in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The original poster quotes an article suggesting that as Megan Markle is planning her next venture, Harry is considering a more subdued role. The original poster concludes by asking, "Is Harry ditching Hollywood?" I must say that the sourcing for this story in impecable, relying on the HeadlineReporter which, in turn, cites the Daily Mail. But, frankly, the source could have been the bathroom wall of an Irish pub and few of those responding would have cared. Clearly, most of those participating in this thread know the couple better than they know themselves. For instance, multiple posters claim that Megan wants to get a divorce but Harry doesn't. However, later in thread, posters claim that Harry is the one considering divorce. Despite their knowledge of the Sussex's, several of the posters struggle with geography. There is an initial dispute over whether the couple lives in Los Angeles. They don't, but rather in Montecito which is slightly over 90 miles from Los Angeles. Of course, everything west of the Rockies looks the same to us east coasters. Beyond this, there is little to differentiate this thread from the countless other Harry and Megan threads. Like those, this one will likely be locked soon. There is really no other topic that attracts obsessive posters like the Sussexes. Moreover, the posters spend a tremendous amount of time arguing about whether the fans or the detractors of the couple are the most obsessed. While I can understand fans wanting to post incessantly, I really don't understand the haters. Why do they find it impossible to simply ignore these two? It's really strange.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "The admissions change we can maybe all agree on . . ." and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The admissions change that the original poster proposes is to limit international students at US universities to no more than 5% of the class, creating more space for US citizens. At least at first, this suggestion is not well-received. Several posters argue that international students normally are full-pay and sometimes even pay higher tuition rates. That money helps universities meet financial needs that would otherwise have to be covered by increasing costs to other students. Other posters argue that universities have an interest in attracting the brightest minds and that often requires recruiting foreign students. Just about every assertion that the original poster included in the original post was contested. For instance, the original poster's claim about elite colleges having significant foreign enrollment was shown to be false. Similarly the claim that financial aid for international students is rare was challenged with data showing otherwise. One of the arguments in favor of international students was that they increase diversity on campus. The entire concept of "diversity" is controversial these days, especially after the Supreme Court's ruling about affirmative action. Many posters predict that Asians and Asian-Americans will dominate admissions at elite universities going forward. Some look forward to this development while others raise it as a concern. As a result, some of those responding interpret the original poster's argument as an simply another attempt to reduce the number of Asian students. The debate over whether this proposal was primarily aimed at Asians became so heated that I eventually locked the thread. While off-topic, another idea that received considerable attention in the thread was that we should expand our thinking about which universities are considered "elite". This argument is that universities beyond those currently considered to be among the top should be thought of as being of similar caliber and also targeted by top students.

Yesterday's most active thread was the redshirting thread that I discussed yesterday. So, I'll skip that one and go to the next most active thread which was titled, "Keenan Anderson - black teacher killed by LAPD" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Anderson is a DC school teacher who was visiting Los Angeles. After becoming involved in a traffic accident, Anderson flagged down a police car. According to the police, Anderson began behaving erratically and multiple officers attempted to restrain him. Ultimately, the police would taser him seven times and, four hours later, Anderson suffered cardiac arrest and died. The use of force by police against black men is obviously a very contentious issue that has been much debated. As such, many posters have reflexive responses to incidents such as this. Some posters immediately blamed the police and the tasering, despite the fact the impact of the tasering is not yet clear. For other posters, there is apparently nothing that could convince them that the police acted wrongly. These posters are big on advising others to "just comply" and demonstrate no sympathy or understanding for those undergoing mental health crises. What is probably most striking is how different posters could watch the same video and come away with markedly different perceptions. Some saw a man in distress being confronted by police whose actions escalated things. Others viewed it as Anderson resisting attempts to prevent him from harming himself or others. Similarly, there are striking disagreements about the racial aspects involved, with some seeing racism as self-evident and others going to great lengths to deny that race had any role in the event.

Yesterday's most active thread was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The thread was titled, "WARNING before you send your child to an upper Midwest cold weather college" and quotes from an article lamenting the lack of sunshine in Michigan in early January. The poster warns about the dangers of Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) and cautions about all Midwestern states. As a native of the Midwest and graduate of the University of Illinois, I find the original poster's concern to be ludicrous in the extreme. Mark Twain is often credited with the saying, "If you don’t like our weather, just wait a few minutes", but at least one quote investigator has traced that expression to an anonymous resident of Chicago, a place where the sentiment is certainly fitting. The original poster may be shocked to learn that there are people who actually enjoy seasonal weather changes. Some of those responding share the original poster's antipathy for the cold and sometimes gloomy weather of the north, but others recall pleasant experiences in such places. Other posters note that the Pacific Northwest and parts of northern New York state also have similar weather. This thread is part of a trend where posters have fixated on weather as a major factor in college choice. This is the second thread about cold weather colleges that has been among the most active and weather was a big part of another most active thread about southern universities. The thread is also part of a second trend involving posters obsessed with the University of Michigan, which — as a proud Illini alumn — I am contractually obligated to hate. But, I actually have fairly fond feelings for the school.