May

The most active thread yesterday was the one about Fairfax County Public Schools boundary changes in which posters are stridently debating boundary changes that haven't been proposed. I'll skip that thread since I have already discussed it. The most active thread after that was titled, "Do many people pick publics because of money?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she chose to attend a private university and because her family did not pay for it, she used a combination of loans and financial aid. After graduation, she worked in investment banking with a salary high enough to pay off her loans quickly. Now she is surprised that many students are choosing state universities rather than private colleges. She wonders if this is due to financial concerns and implies that, if so, that would be a bad decision. Whether by accident or intention, this poster managed to offend many other posters. She had very strong opinions, starting with her contention that private universities are almost by definition better than state universities. Next was her belief that attending a prestigious private university would immediately lead to a high-paying job. Her overall tone suggested that attending a state university is misguided and short-sighted, something with which fans of state universities did not agree. In response, posters pointed out that college costs are significantly higher now than they were when the original poster was a student and, hence, loans tend to be larger and not as easy to pay off. Several posters argued that state schools such as the University of Virginia provide a better education than many private universities and, for in-state residents, at a much lower cost. The original poster's attitude was influenced by the fact that because she and her husband have significant income, the can easily afford the high costs of a prestigious private university. Her suggestion that others should just as easily be able to pay — or, if not, could take out loans that wouldn't end up presenting a financial burden — put her pretty firmly in Marie Antoinette territory. Many posters were quite unapologetic about the fact that they were choosing state colleges for financial reasons. The University of Virginia in particular has many fans on DCUM and posters argued that being able to get an education that rivaled that provided by many top private schools at a much lower cost made a lot sense. Moreover, posters pointed out that not everyone wants the same experience for college. Some much prefer the environment of large state universities. As I have noted in several earlier blog posts, there has been an anti-Ivy League trend on DCUM recently and this has developed into disenchantment with many top private universities. This played into the thread as well as many posters displayed hostile attitudes towards top private universities and clearly didn't share the original poster's respect for them.

The most active thread over the weekend was the one that I've previous discussed about Fairfax County Public schools boundaries. Posters in that thread have worked themselves up into a frenzy and have now started a petition to oppose a boundary change that nobody had proposed. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Can we analyze jennifer lopez?" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. While the competition is fierce, this thread might be the most absurd that I've come across in this forum. The original poster accuses Jennifer Lopez of having a level of narcissism beyond anything that she has ever seen and, based on the title, is inviting other posters to analyze Lopez. I am sure that I can think of something more ridiculous than asking a bunch of people who almost universally lack any relevant qualifications and do not have first-hand access to the subject to conduct psychological analysis, but I would have to really work at it. Obviously, this a clear cut situation in which the responses will say more about the posters writing them than about Lopez. The first poster to respond more or less turns the tables on the original poster, writing, "She’s got you so hooked that you want to analyze her even though she allegedly repulses you." Another poster presented my own view fairly accurately, saying, "Nonsense post. Projecting based on what you think people are feeling based on photos?" A number of posters either don't view JLo as narcissistic or are willing to forgive her for it. They see her as a hard worker who has earned what she has. As one poster put it, "She looks incredible and to look like that you must be extremely self-disciplined." There are differences of opinion about her abilities as an actress or a singer, with most posters, even some who generally don't have a lot of appreciation for her, concede that she has at least some talent. But others aren't even willing to grant that to Lopez. Before long the thread turned into a discusion of Lopez's relationship with Ben Affleck, to whom she has been married for nearly two years. Lopez has had a rocky road when it comes to relationships and was engaged to Affleck over 20 years ago. Now there are apparently rumors that their marriage might not last. Posters were busy analyzing photos to see whether or not Affleck was wearing a wedding ring and debatting the significance of the couple arriving individually to an event be leaving together. One indicator of the quality of the "analysis" generally conducted in this thread is that any photo that showed JLo appearing happy was immediately alleged to be "staged" whereas any photo showing her to look like a normal person trying to get someplace without being hassled was used as incontrovertible evidence that her life is a disaster. With all of her wealth, I am sure that JLo can easily afford top notch mental healthcare. But, if it is ever needed, she can obtain psychological care free of charge from a host of eager DCUM therapists. What they lack in qualifications is certainly make up in obsessiveness.