Monday's Most Active Threads

In yesterday's wrap-up of 2023 I described how the Gaza war threads have dominated the most active lists since October 7. I appear to have almost jinxed the lastest iteration of the thread as it fell all the way to 10th on the list, almost not making it at all. The most active thread of the first day of the new year was titled, "Be honest. Would you marry a guy making $160K at 55?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster initially provided very little information, simply saying that the man in question should be assumed to be attractive and normal. Most of those responding think that a salary of $160k being held against an attractive and normal man who was otherwise an acceptable partner to the original poster is ridiculous and that the original poster's concern reflects poorly on her. Somewhat surprising to me, a number of posters expressed opposition to 55 year olds getting married regardless of their salaries. A small number of posters warned that the guy might be after the original poster for her money, though the original poster had not provided any information about her own wealth. Quite a few posters argued that salary was not the important factor, but rather the man's net worth which would influence retirement possibilities. Later the original poster clarified that she is in the "top 5%" and had previously been married to someone in the top 1%. She is concerned that her wealthy friends would look down on the guy due to his salary. Perhaps feeling that opinion was strongly against her, the original poster began responding in the third person, though not exactly sock puppeting. There was at least one poster who shared the original poster's salary concerns, writing "[m]en who make that little at that stage in their lives have failed". This attitude was far from the norm in the thread. Most posters either found the salary entirely acceptable or thought that other characteristics were more important when considering marriage. A number of posters listed professions in which individuals made significant contributions to society but were not likely to make much more than $160k, if that. Similarly, some posters questioned the values of the extremely wealthy, suggesting that they were likely fixated on accumulating wealth and might not be the best relationship candidates. Throughout the thread posters questioned whether the original poster deserved the guy she was describing or whether he would even be interested in marrying her. In a subsequent post, the original poster said that the man had "asked me today what it would take for me to marry him". Presumably she answered, "doubling your salary".

The second most active thread yesterday was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Is it me or are test scores now more important than ever?", the original poster posits that "test optional" college admissions helps "hooked" students for whom the original poster doesn't believe test scores are a factor, but has the effect of making scores even more important for "unhooked" students. The original poster assumes that unhooked students will need high test scores to distinguish themselves. However, since only applicants with high test scores submit them, all the submitted results are high and, therefore, minor differences of a point or two end up being very important. The original poster is somewhat dismayed by this development. For the benefit of those not fluent in "college application" lingo, "hooked" refers to students that have some sort of non-academic advantage such as being a recruited athlete, legacy status, beneficiary of a wealthy contributor, or a member of an underrepresented minority. While the opposition to tests originally came from those who saw the tests as poor predictors of academic success and biased towards the wealthy, on DCUM it is conventional wisdom that tests have been made optional in order to enable discrimination. As one early poster writes, colleges have made tests optional in order to "shape the class they want without providing ammunition for lawsuits by Asian students". Another says that test optional admissions is "a mechanism to facilitate [Diversity, equity, and inclusion] type goals". The contrary view is offered by a poster who writes, "[t]he highly selective schools have their pick of the students they want to shape the class they want in any given admissions cycle - test optional or not." The primary dispute in this thread is about the importance of test scores in applications. Among those posters who see scores as being decisive, most agree with the original poster that small differences in scores have gained more significance than is deserved. But, many posters, maybe even most, don't see test results as being of paramount importance. Because they don't see tests having all that much importance, the original poster's point about small differences in scores being significant is irrelevant to them. Throughout this thread there is a parallel debate running about whether schools are moving away from test optional admissions. One or more posters, relying heavily on a podcast involving two Ivy League admissions officers, insist that schools do want to receive test results, regardless of their stated policies.

Third was a thread titled, "19 Yo son (college freshman home) never came home last night" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster is extremely angry because her college freshman son who is home for the break had not come home as of 10 am after going out to celebrate the new year. Life 360 had shown him to be in a car at 3:50 am, but then his phone apparently died. The original poster had previously told him the importance of texting to let her know his whereabouts and plans for returning home. His failure to do this has not only caused her to worry, but made her consider creating rules for when he must be home. Most of those responding agree that the original poster has the right to be concerned and angry. Only a small minority seems to think she should simply ignore the situation. Several posters argue that this behavior doesn't really concern rules, but rather a simple lack of respect. They believe that the son is just not being considerate. Others are concerned with what appears to be his heavy drinking and are worried about drunk driving. There is disagreement among those responding about the appropriate consequences. Some posters argue that the son should lose driving privileges while others reject serious punishment. Those posters contend that rude behavior by college freshman is unfortunately very common and that the original poster shouldn't overreact. As one poster puts it, "19 year olds are buttheads". A number of posters with sons of similar ages report having the same experience of their kids being out all night and urge the original poster not to worry. Some posters were surprised that the original poster noticed what her son was doing in the early hours because they simply go to sleep rather than tracking their kids all night. At almost 1 pm, the original poster posted to say that she had heard from her son and he was okay, having stayed at a friend's house. General sentiment among those responding was that staying out all night was not the problem, but rather the lack of communication. Several posters again emphasized that this is simply a matter of being considerate and that creating a sense of consideration for others was not impinging on the original poster's son's freedom. There is some dispute about how much control the original poster should expect over her son with one side arguing that he is an adult and can do what he wants and the other side contending that the original poster pays her sons expenses and, therefore, has a say over his behavior.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. Titled, "Hydroflask", the original poster says that her 14-year-old daughter claims to have found a Hydroflask discarded in a planter at the mall and brought it home. The daughter says that she washed it in the dishwasher and wants to keep it and continue using it. The original poster argues that it is not right to take things that don't belong to you and seems to have health concerns about using it. Furthermore, the original poster doesn't understand the attraction to Hydroflask's. There are days like this when I feel horribly out of touch because I had no idea what a Hydroflask is. A quick Internet search revealed that it is a water bottle that "is particularly well known among millennials and zoomers, as well as college students and the ‘VSCO girl’ subculture". I am sure that this explanation would have been more helpful had I not been similarly unfamiliar with "VSCO girl" subculture. I had just recently learned from another DCUM thread that Stanley Tumblers are all the rage when it comes to water bottles and, as such, am finding the water bottle phenomenon to be complex and confusing. Meanwhile, I am perfectly happy with my Klean Kanteen. Nevertheless, this thread is not a deep dig into the sociology of water bottle preferences, though it certainly doesn't ignore that topic. To the contrary, there is considerable debate about the ages of kids with which various brands of water bottles are popular (one poster considers the original poster's daughter to be too old for a Hydroflask) and which brands are preferred. But, most of the discussion regards the appropriateness of bringing the water bottle home and of using someone else's water bottle. With regard to the first issue, responses range all the way from one saying that the daughter was resourceful to one calling her a thief. Posters were divided about whether anyone would return to look for a lost water bottle. Some posters said "no" while others said that at the cost of a Hydroflask, someone would certainly look for it. As for the issue of drinking from a used water bottle, some posters would not want to do it while others were fine with it as long as the bottle had been sufficiently washed. If nothing else, the fact that this thread is 10 pages long assures me that 2024 DCUM is no different than any other year's DCUM. There is no horse dead enough not to be further beat by DCUM posters.