The Most Active Threads Since Friday

The most active thread over the weekend was the Gaza war thread which I've already discussed and will skip today. The second most active thread was titled, "Why do some women think it's acceptable to get engaged without a ring?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Before getting to a discussion of that that thread, my last post in which I changed the format to include more paragraph breaks was universally disliked. So, I am returning to the previous one paragraph per post format. The original poster of this thread says that both her sister and a friend recently got engaged and neither received a ring. The original poster believes that an engagement ring has important symbolic importance and thinks that getting engaged without a ring suggests that the guy is not taking the engagement seriously. Those responding suggest that the couples may be planning to purchase rings later which allows them to pick them out together and get the rings sized correctly. The original poster says that the couples in this case have no plans to purchase rings. Several posters say that they did not want engagement rings for various reasons and others who did receive rings don't wear them. Some of these posters do wear wedding bands. However, a number of posters don't wear engagement or wedding rings even if they have them, which several don't. They have decades or longer marriages and simply don't like rings or jewelry. These posters don't see any connection between a ring and commitment to marriage. A number of posters don't think it is really the original poster's business what other couples choose to do about rings and consider any concern that original poster has about it to be an issue with her rather than the others. To some extent, attitudes towards rings were related to ideas about feminism. Some posters believe that feminism is incompatible the the suggestion that a women deserves an engagement ring simply because of her gender. Others argued that they could be feminists while still following some traditional gender norms. Another reason cited for passing on engagement rings was some posters' dislike for the diamond industry. Much of this thread was sidetracked to off-topic discussions such living together rather than getting married, what women get out of marriage in exchange for what they give up, and the aforementioned debates about feminism.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and titled, "People who would not vote for Biden, what is your alternative?" The entire content of the first post is simply, "Trump?" There have been multiple threads on similar topics and, frankly, had I noticed this lackadaisical initial post, I probably would have removed the thread. But I didn't notice and the thread continued for 13 pages so far. Direct responses to the question in the title included answers of not voting or various third parties. But the vast majority of the thread ignored the specific question and, instead, engaged in a heated discussion of the wisdom of such choices. On one side were posters who believe that not voting or voting for a third party is effectively a vote for former President Donald Trump. They see Trump as such a threat that not voting for President Joe Biden is extremely irresponsible. Moreover, they argue that Trump will be even worse than Biden with regard to the specific issues that have upset those who refuse to vote for Biden. They particularly argue that this is the case with Gaza where they see Trump as clearly being worse than Biden. On the other side are posters who argue that it is not their responsibility to elect a candidate, but rather for candidates to act in ways to attract voters. They believe that ignoring the disagreements and still voting for the candidate will result in a mandate for actions they oppose. The first group tends to look at this in terms of trade-offs. For instance, they argue that not voting for Biden because of Gaza will likely threaten women's healthcare including abortion and IVF. These posters ask the anti-Biden posters if they really want to see a nationwide abortion ban because of Gaza when Trump will be even worse regarding Gaza. To them, this seems irrational. I've written before about the perspective of those who oppose Biden because of Gaza. For them, this is not disappointment due to a simple disagreement over a political issue such as taxes or student loans. Rather, Biden's complete support for Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seen as a betrayal of a community that had been loyal to him. In their eyes, there is no redeeming his actions. The idea that Biden can simply throw them a bone with a minor and ineffective policy change with no real impact is insulting to them and actually increases their determination not to vote for him. If not voting for Biden ends up electing Trump and Trump does damage to America, they don't care. More commonly, they believe that such a course is necessary to convince politicians to take them seriously and to make real policy changes. Famously during the Vietnam war a US general claimed that it was necessary to burn down a village in order to save it. These voters similarly believe that it may be necessary to allow Trump to burn down America in order to save it.

Next was a thread titled, "How religious is Sidwell?" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. The original poster says that she understands that Sidwell Friends School is a Quaker school but wonders if others consider the school to be religious. Annually at this time of the year, the private schools forum turns into a dumpster fire. This is when acceptance notices come out and the forum is full of stressed out parents wondering if they have made the right application choices and worried about whether their kids will get into their dream schools. Even some of those accepted have doubts. This leads to an atmosphere in which tempers flare easily and which is ripe for trolling. Nearly every thread is seen as part of a conspiracy theory, started by a school admissions officer to either encourage applications to their school or to tarnish the reputation of a competitor. Similarly, any negative post about a school is thought to either come from a disgruntled parent whose child was turned down or a waitlisted parent trying to get others to choose another school. On top of all of that, the forum has accumulated a number of trolls who obsess, normally negatively, about certain schools and destroy thread after thread with their incessant rants. As a result, even a fairly innocuous question such as this can create controversy. Several of the first posters to respond treat the question with disdain. Among those who address it seriously, most confirm that it is a religious schools with religious-oriented requirements. However, some of those posters, as well as others, stress that the religious components are not onerous and are easily tolerated by non-Quakers. Several posters describe their respect and admiration for the religious aspects. Some posters argue that Sidwell is such a great school that it wouldn't matter how prominent the role of religious might be, they would still choose it. However, before the second page was even finished a fight between two posters had already broken out, complete with name-calling and accusations of holding various agendas. This was followed by page after page of arguing, calling each other trolls or haters, and generally useless posts. Occasionally there was a helpful and informative post, but even some of those are repetitive to the point of being annoying. Just how many times do we need to be told about the website? Eventually I locked this thread, one of many in this forum that I locked or deleted over the weekend.

The final thread that I will discuss today was also posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. Titled, "Swag - USPS Informed 📦 ", I was confused about what the title was meant to say. The entire content of the original post was "Well, I’m guessing we are in at least one place. LOL". So, my best guess was that the original poster had learned through the US Post Office's Informed Delivery service that there was a package on the way from a private school. Since this was a package rather than a letter, the original poster must have assumed that her child was accepted at that school. This is the old, "big envelope" vs "small envelope" distinction often employed in the college forum. What followed were a series of posts congratulating the original poster, other posters expressing concern that they didn't similarly see anything in the mail, and requests to identify the school. Other posters cautioned those who were not aware of incoming mail to not be concerned because some schools may notify by email or their acceptance letters might not have been sent yet. In addition, some posters said that in past years the packages to them did not show up in Informed Delivery or the FedEx or UPS websites. Some posters didn't believe that a school had actually mailed an acceptance yet and suspected that the original poster was trolling. As one poster wrote, "Troll post. Even if it’s true, it’s designed to rile you guys up. Find a meditation video on YouTube and chill." The environment in the forum these days is such that even authentically expressing happiness is considered trolling. As the thread continued, additional posters reported seeing notices in Informed Delivery and others said that they had actually received packages. By this time, I figured out that "swag" is referring to items related to the school rather than a wild guess which was the other possible interpretation I had. Posters received all sorts of things from the schools including a Teddy Bear, a tie (with instructions about how to tie it), a water bottle, and even pictures of the parents when they were students at the school. Some posters said that their schools didn't send swag leading to disappointment in some cases and appreciation that the schools demonstrated "stewardship for the environment" in other cases. It looks like this year competition between private schools is starting with which one provided the best swag.