Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "My boyfriend steals groceries", which was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that her boyfriend routinely only rings up 75% of the items when he goes through self-checkout. His justification is that stores assume that people are stealing and have baked that into the price. He also claims that most men do this. There is pretty solid agreement among those responding that most men do not do this. Moreover, several posters claim that this in an indication of a lack of ethics on the original poster's boyfriend's behalf and that they would not want to be involved with such a man. One poster suggested that if the original poster were with her boyfriend while he was stealing and he got caught, she could also be arrested. In a follow-up post, the original poster said that was something which she had not considered. In an even later follow-up, the original poster said that her boyfriend is a government lawyer with a security clearance which makes the theft even more confounding. The general consensus among those responding is that the original poster should break up with this guy because of this huge moral lapse which, many argue, is probably an indication of other serious flaws. One interesting thing that came out in this thread is the sort of sliding moral compasses many posters seem to have. While almost everyone is appalled that the original poster's boyfriend routinely steals 25% of his groceries, several admit to their own more limited theft. Multiple posters claim that they intentionally ring up items incorrectly to save money. For instance, identifying one type of apple as a less expensive apple. Others say that if an item doesn't ring up after an attempt or two, they will go ahead and put it in their bag. Therefore, the issue is not that the boyfriend is stealing, but that he is stealing too much. I wonder what would be the acceptable limit? For instance if he paid for 90% or even 98% of his groceries, would there be less condemnation? Most of the posters don't have to struggle with this question, however. For them, any theft is wrong. Some even describe extra efforts they've made to pay for items that they could otherwise have gotten away with for free. As more than one poster noted, it is rare for a DCUM thread to have such unanimity in responses. Nobody found the theft to be acceptable and nobody thought that men are more apt to shoplift than women (some argued that the opposite is true). A few posters struggled to find explanations that would make the stealing more understandable, hinting, for instance, that the guy might be a minority in an urban area. But, the opposite turned out to be true, which, sadly, probably did nothing to cause these posters to rethink their prejudices.

The next most active thread was the one about masking that I discussed yesterday and, therefore, will skip today. After that was a thread posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum titled, "when does being ‘the smart one’ stop being a social liability?" The original poster says that her 11-year-old son is constantly being made fun of and she wonders when things will get better. A number of posters suggest that the teasing will decrease if not cease altogether in high school. Others argue that this is a function of the school and that at schools with an abundance of high-achieving students, being smart is a social asset. A number of posters argue that this is really not an issue if being smart, but rather social skills. Some of these question whether the boy might be doing something to provoke the teasing. Much of this does seem to have to do with the particular school. The original poster says that the school does not have many high-achieving students and there is no "nerd" group. Her son has friends, though they also tease him. When they had the opportunity to move her son to another school with a gifted program, he begged to stay at his current school. So, things must not be that bad for him. Posters repeatedly explicitly argue or at least imply that the original poster's son is responsible for the teasing and that it reflects some sort of shortcoming on his part. One poster was quite explicit in this regard, writing, "Her kid is the problem." A significant number of posters claim to have the smartest kid in the school with the highest number of smart kids and, because their child is perfect in every way, they don't have this issue. I was amazed by the number of posters who insisted that their own intelligence has never been a barrier because they have such well-developed social skills, yet were completely unable to realize how unhelpful their own posts were in this thread. I had to agree with the poster who wrote, "What a bunch of smug women you all are." The original poster says that they used to live in the DC area and she is familiar with the types of schools described by the "smug" posters. However, they have moved to a much different environment. The original poster's son swims and plays golf and is a good athlete. However, in his school football is the prized sport and he happens to not be very good at that. Because his sports are played out of school, his classmates judge his athletic ability based on his lack of football skills. Most of those responding don't seem to be able to relate to this situation. The thread was somewhat salvaged by a number of posters who showed up to confront the "smug" posters.

Next was a thread titled, "When is it okay for rich people to spend money?" and posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. The original poster says her family is wealthy. However, she and her husband try to instill good values and humility in their children and support their community through volunteering and donations. But the original poster has seen criticism on DCUM of those who flaunt their money. She wonders in which circumstances it is acceptable for them to spend amounts commensurate with their means. For the most part, this thread consists of posters articulating their personal resentments about people with wealth, or more specifically, more wealth than them. Some posters are bothered by those who talk about their money all the time. Another poster believes it is acceptable to spend money hiring a tutor to teach about poverty. One poster suggests spending money on quality items instead of quantity, so for instance a few good pairs of shoes instead of a closet full. Others argue that the criticism is borne of jealousy and should simply be ignored. What is particularly ironic in this thread is that I suspect none of those responding are actually poor and few are probably even lower middle class. Much of the discussion has some similarity to the "sliding moral scale" I mentioned above in the shoplifting thread. For instance, spending on international travel is acceptable unless it is too much international travel. What is "too much"? Well, that changes, probably upon how much international travel the person making the judgement can afford. Also, almost any amount of international travel might be acceptable as long as you don't post about it on Instagram or Facebook. But, even one trip that is Instagramed is too much. Many posters argue that the original poster's question is pointless because those with less money will never find the original poster's spending to be acceptable. Therefore, the original poster should not pay heed to the criticism. Some posters interpreted the original poster as trying to gain sympathy and weren't having it. "Nobody is crying for you, you poor little rich girl", wrote one poster. But I don't think that was the original poster's intention. Rather, she seems forthright and well-grounded. She is probably overthinking this and should simply follow her own inclinations. Moreover, a significant number of posters said that they don't care how others spend their money. So, the original poster doesn't have to worry about criticism from them in any case.

The last thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Religion" forum. Titled, "I don't understand asking for prayer. Why does God need prayer?", the original poster asks why, if God is supposed to be all-knowing, people need to pray to him to, for instance, heal someone who is sick. She sees value in prayer as a form of mediation, but wants someone to explain why prayer is necessary to prompt God to intercede. Most of the responses are very unsatisfying, either unintentionally conceding that God is not all-knowing and, therefore, might miss whatever it is that someone is praying about, or that prayers actually are for the benefit of the one doing the praying and not necessary to get the attention of God. One more compelling response argued that people pray because that is how God instructed them to communicate with him in the scriptures and that prayer is used for much more than asking for things. For instance, prayers can be used to give thanks and while prayer may be a form of mediation, it is "meditation with meaning and significance". I enjoyed a post by a Muslim poster who explained the practical benefits of the prayer ritual in her tradition. This includes everything from light exercise to mental agility to social connections. Ultimately it seems that very few people view prayer exactly in the manner that the original poster described it. For many, asking God for something is not as simple as God hearing and providing. Rather the act of praying has benefits for the one praying and by asking for prayers from the wider community, the chances that the prayers will reach someone who has a solution is increased. The thread was somewhat diverted into discussions of other eternal questions such as "why does God allow bad things to happen?" The problem at the root of this discussion is that prayer is an element of faith and, faith, almost by definition is not something that can be proven. As such, no answer is going to be definitive. One poster challenged anyone who does not believe in the power of prayer to try praying for 40 days. The poster promised the life of anyone who did so would be changed. Perhaps, but changed in what way? The poster doesn't say that it will be for the better. But even this poster seems to imply that the main benefit of prayer is that it is contemplative and meditative.