2023

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "what is with parents serving alcohol at parties for kids who are 15 and 16?" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. The original poster says that she has kids in two different "Big 3" priviate schools and in the past week both kids have been invited to parties marking either the end of the school year or graduation at which alcohol has been served by parents. The kids range in age from 15 - 18. When the original poster asked one of her children about this, she was told, "it's a private school thing mom. All the parents do it." The original poster asks if this is really true and if she is just out of touch. The responses to this post are, in my opinion, odd. This is basically a "yes" or "no" question, but rather than provide such answers, posters point out that drinking by teenagers is common in Europe, that drinking occurs at public school parties also, and that Americans are puritanical. So, I guess the answer is "yes" and these kinds of parties are common. In spite of this, several posters side with the original poster in thinking these parties are not a good idea. Some are simply opposed to young people drinking, but others are more concerned about legal liability and kids possibly driving home drunk. Comparing attitudes about drinking between the US and Europe is common throughout this thread, though even some Europeans opposed these type of parties. One topic of contention is what this behavior indicates about parenting. Several posters insist that adults who serve alchohol at parties are trying to be "cool" or friends with their kids. These posters argue that kids need "parents", not "friends" and consider this to be terrible parenting. Several posters said that they no longer let their children visit homes of parents that are known to serve alcohol to those who are under-aged. I didn't read every post in this thread, but I didn't see any posts from parents saying that they actually hosted such events and offering a defense of their behavior. Generally, justifications were of the "it's common in Europe" type.

Today I'll look at the most active threads since Friday. During that period, the most active thread was titled, "Why don’t college students understand that they’re supposed to preserve optionality?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Somehow this thread managed to escape my notice until just now and at 14 pages in length, I'm not able to do more than skim a few pages. Because I am unfamiliar with the term "optionality", I was immediately confused by the title. After reading the original post, I realized that the original poster simply meant "options". I see that the first poster to respond had almost idenical thinking. The original poster strongly believes that college majors and even first jobs should be chosen with the goal of preserving options. The poster recommends pursuing STEM majors and then working in the fields of investment banking or management consulting. Several of those responding have little regard for those fields and don't seem to believe any number of options would be worth preserving if working in such jobs were a requirement. Skimming this thread, it appears to be a rehash of a common theme of the college forum. The original poster sees the primary goal of college to be upward mobility, preparing students for a job which should put them firmly on a path for financial success (where "financial success" is defined as "wealthy"). Not explicitly said, but clearly implied, is that these students must, of course, attend elite colleges. The path of top high school -> elite college -> Goldman Sachs or McKinsey is somewhat of a DCUM archetype, aspired to if not always achieved by a number of posters. In contrast to this idea of the road to success is the view that the point of college is to get an education and that success is achieved through happiness and a range of goals beyond the purely financial. In some ways, this debate is a version of the STEM vs humanities clash that seem ever present in the college forum, but with a twist because the goal of the STEM degree is investment banking or management consulting rather than in a FAANG company. There are representatives of both sides of this dispute in the thread with many who see some truth in the original poster's position, either claiming to have followed a similar path or known those who did. In contrast are posters who are working in fields that they love and wouldn't wanted to have done things differently. As one of them says, "I’m 50 with a successful career and I can’t imagine anything worse than working for one of the Big 4 or similar types of consulting firm."

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Who are foreign people always talking to?" which was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that whether she is in a taxi, an Uber, or a nail salon, she encounters people speaking loudly on their telephones in foreign languages. The poster thinks this is strange behavior and wonders to whom these people are talking. When I first saw this thread yesterday, I assumed that it would be offensive and result in lots of upset posters. But, for the post part, that was not the case. Even those who objected to the original poster's observations kept their responses calm and substantive. I don't think any noteworthy fights broke out in the thread which is a pleasant surprise. Instead, those responding took the topic seriously and tried to provide useful responses. For instance, one of the first to respond said that her foreign-born mother is just gossiping with anyone available to take a call. Another poster who describes herself as an immigrant admits to being guilty of this and explains that she talks to a broad range of friends and relatives. She says that it is a cultural norm for them to keep in close touch and that they communicate about about a wide variety of topics. Several posters bring up the culture aspects and say that they come from much more communal cultures where people are rarely alone. Talking on the phone replaces the in-person communication to which they were accustomed. Several posters mentioned that they speak foreign languages and can often understand those on the phone. They report hearing themselves being talked about in many cases. On the other hand, a poster who described herself as a foreigner said that neither she nor her husband spend much time on the phone. She suggests that the original poster has "observational bias" and is simply more likely to notice and remember those speaking in foreign languages. Similarly, another poster has encountered many non-foreigners speaking loudly on their phones in the grocery store. One poster says her husband, who has no foreign ties, is also always on the phone and has a need to constantly be chatting. For some posters, the language being used on a call was of little matter. They hate hearing people talking on their phones regardless of the language.

Yesterday I finally locked the transgender athletes thread that has been the most active thread for several days. Even so, it tied for the top spot yesterday. The other top thread was titled, "Met Gala 2023" and posted in the "Beauty and Fashion" forum. As you can surmise, the thread was about the Met Gala. There is not a lot for me to say about this thread. I know very little about the event and have no opinions about it. The thread itself is mostly a series of pictures showing exotically dressed celebrities with posters raving about how good they look. I have not read much of this thread but it seems that those responding appreciated everything they saw. The one notable exception that I came across was Brittany Mahomes, a former professional soccer player and founder of the Kansas City Current professional women's soccer team. The fitness entrepreneur, who is married to NFL Quarterback Patrick Mahomes, was criticized both personally and for her choice of dress. But most of those mentioned in the thread received postitive reviews. If this sort of thing interests you, there are 18 pages for your viewing pleasure.

Today I'll look at the yesterday's most active threads. The leader continues to be the transgender athletes thread that I've already discussed and which has been the most active topic for several days now. I'll skip that and look at a thread titled, "I feel bad for low-income/first-gen students at elite schools" which was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. One theme that is frequently apparent in the college forum, as well as some of the school forums, is that efforts to increase diversity of schools result in less qualified students taking the places of those who are more deserving. This thread is another of that genre with the original poster taking a rather unique angle. Instead of merely criticizing the performance of low-income and first generation students — most of whom are likely racial or ethnic minorities — the original poster expresses sorrow for them. The original poster provides data compiled by the The Daily Princetonian — the student newspaper of Princeton University — from a survey of graduating students. Based on that data, the original poster finds that low-income and first generation students (those who are the first generation in their family to attend college) lag behind their peers in several metrics. The original poster wonders why Princeton is seeing such discrepancies if education is supposed to be the great equalizer. Some posters point out that low-income and first generation students still face significant disadvantages — for instance low-income students may have to work while their wealthier peers participate in free internships. Others point out that the gaps are not really that large and, moreover, the opportunties for these students likely exceed what would have been available to them if they had attended less prestigious colleges. But, as can be expected, there are posters who claim that this is evidence that universities are admitting unqualified students for ideological reasons. One poster suggested that the original poster was feeling sorry for these students for the wrong reasons, pointing out that these students often doen't get much support from home because nobody understands their experience and at school they are painfully aware that they are not part of the "elite". As such, their experience can be isolating. Later the thread devolves into a lot of discusion about the quality of k-12 education provided to low-income students and how that allegedly leaves them unqualified for college.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Spikes and hooks are the least 'equitable' things out there? Why are Ivies so into them?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread is really another in a very long series of threads resulting from the trend among colleges and universities to make standardized tests optional for admissions applications. The original poster argues that "musical ability, theatre, and esoteric extracurricular and leadership accomplishment" are functions of privilege and, in fact, more inequitable than standardized tests. One of the criticisms of standardized tests is that they favor those privileged to have undergone intensive test preparation. The original poster turns this argument around and argues that factors that are highly regarded in holistic admissions policies such as musical or theatrical talent are developed through significant investment of parents' time and money which requires even more privilege. I've only read the first page of responses, but those posts show that some posters refute the original poster's argument and claim that their kids' talents were developed mostly through the children's own initiative with minimal parental support. The original poster is unrelenting in her insistance that only privileged children are capable of such accomplishments and that this exposes the hypocrisy of test optional admissions policies. Admittedly, I am not an expert in the topic, but based on my own observations, top athletes, musicians, or actors all have innate abilities. Yes, those talents must be developed for the individuals to reach top levels, but that does not always require the sort of investment the original poster imagines. Soccer and baseball, to name just two sports, are full of athletes from very humble origins. What privilege those individuals have is mostly a result of talent and hard work. Moreover, the original poster accepts as fact that dropping test requirements is purely motivated by "equity" concerns. I am not sure that argument is as well-founded as the original poster imagines. Similarly, the original poster implies that top athletes, musicians, and actors only pursue those activities in order to enhance college applications. In other words, in this poster's mind, there is no difference between a test preparation course and piano lessons. I think many would disagree with that assessment.

I'm sorry to say that the British Royal Family has again reared its head, or more accurately, its head has been reared, in yesterday's most active thread. Titled, "King Charles evicts Harry and Meghan from Frogmore" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum, the original poster offers little beyond the subject line and a hope that Meghan and Harry get reimbursed for renovations for which they paid. But, that was enough to launch this thread to the top of our charts. Obviously I am not going to read this thread and therefore have nothing to say about it. I was surprised to find just now that the thread is locked because I have no memory of locking it. If I have somehow developed the ability to lock Royal Family threads in my sleep, I will count it among my greatest achievements. For those of you with, shall we say, more refined tastes than me, you can still read 11 pages of what I am sure are scintillating posts.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "13yr old's pediatrician just told her she is overweight and I am pissed" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster says that during her daughter's well visit, the pediatrician talked to her about beng overweight based on her body mass index (BMI). The original poster, who provided her daughter's height, weight, and clothing sizes, is convinced her daughter is of normal weight and was very offended by the doctor's comments. I've mentioned before that weight, especially where girls and women are concerned, is a hot button issue on DCUM. Still the 23 pages of replies that this thread garnered in less than a day is extraordinary. There was no way that I was going to read that many pages this morning, so I just started searching for the original poster's posts, thinking that might give me an idea of how the discussion developed. Instead, I immediately discovered repeated sock puppeting by the original poster throughout the thread. Because of that, I've just locked it. I won't spend time discussing the thread because now I don't care about it. But, this is another example of why I think DCUM needs a fulltime psychologist on staff. Not only to provide help for the large number of posters who are clearly in mental distress, but to analyze this sort of behavior. Frequently the goal of sock puppets is simply to prolong a thread, sometimes fairly innocently because they think their thread is being ignored and they want to encourage legitimate replies, but other times as a form of trolling. In this case, I feel like the poster was not getting the support that she was seeking and couldn't stand being told she was wrong. Therefore, she came to her own defense. This was not a close call in regard to sock puppeting. The poster literally posted replies agreeing with her own previous posts. Even on the 22nd page, she was posting messages addressed to the original poster and arguing that the original poster was correct and everyone else was wrong. In all, the original poster posted at least 24 times in thread.

The two most active threads yesterday were both threads included in yesterday's blog post. So, I'll skip to the third most active thread to start this post. That thread was titled, "Jessa Duggar had an abortion" and was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As a topic, the revelation that Jessa Duggar — a rabidly anti-abortion reality TV star — had undergone a dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure following a miscarriage, probably was the most active because there was a second thread about it in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum which I locked. Pro-choice posters in this thread were quick to describe the procedure as an "abortion" and criticize Duggar and her supporters as hypocrites. Duggar backers, on the other hand, argued that the miscarriage caused the death of the fetus and therefore, no abortion had occurred. I haven't read all 14 pages of this thread, but from what I have read, most of it consists of variations of these two arguments. What the thread highlights is the unclear legal environment in which the overturning of Roe vs Wade has left much of the country. Duggar is a resident of Arkansas which prohibits abortion and has strict limitations on D&C procedures. Because so much of the law surrounding abortion relies on individuals' interpretation and judgement, making absolute determinations in cases such as this is difficult. Duggar's supporters were quick to interpret things in her favor while those viewing her as a hypocrite did exactly the opposite. What is clear is that other women in exactly Duggar's condition have been denied the same procedure. Moreover, this highlights another complaint by the pro-choice movement: the wealthy and connected will generally find a way to access such procedures either by favorable interpretations by their doctors or through travel to another state, or even country. The rest, however, won't be so fortunate as we are already learning.

Because I didn't write blog posts for a couple of days, today I'll cover the top threads for the past three days. The most active thread during that period was titled, "Man killed in Tyson’s Corner shooting" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Crime in general has been getting a lot of publicity lately and violent incidents in or near the Typson's Corner mall have been popular, if heated at times, topics of discussion on DCUM. As such, this thread fits perfectly with this trend. The thread was first started on March 22 with a post linking to a WTOP article about the police shooting a suspected shoplifter. Very few details beyond that were available and, apparently bereft of anything more important to debate, posters immediately engaged in an argument about whether a strand of trees where the incident occurred could properly be described as "woods", Beyond that, some posters, despite not knowing any important details of the shooting, immediately weighed in to claim that the police had acted correctly. Others questioned why shoplifting, especially if it is only suspected, should result in the use of deadly force. As more information came out, many of the pro-police posters held firm in their conviction that the shooting was completely proper and that, hopefully in their view, it would act as a deterrent to future crimes. Other posters, however, insisted that they support the police but were still uneasy about an unarmed shoplifter being shot while running away. Those who thought the shooting was unjustified presented a variety of arguments to support their case, but most vocally argued that those who thought death was the proper punishment for a property crime should move to Saudi Arabia. Some posters justified the shooting after the fact by pointing to the victim's criminal history, suggesting that he presented a violent threat. Of course, the police officers would not have known that at the time.