Thursday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Svelte teen girls -- being the ugly duckling in a school of swans" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster says that her daughter just started as a freshman at a new private high school. The family is towards the lower end of the economic spectrum of the school's students, something that is apparent due to the family's older cars and the fact that both parents work. But what really appears to be bothering the original poster's daughter is her weight. Most of the girls in the school, according to the original poster, are uniformly thin and athletic. The original poster's daughter, on the other hand, has a body mass index of 25 and is not interested in sports. The original poster asks for advice about how to encourage her daughter to be more active and eat healthier. I am not sure what to make of this thread because almost immediately the original poster, without mentioning that she was the original poster, posted a message saying that the daughter shouldn't try to complete with the other girls. In another follow-up post, again without identifying herself, the original poster blamed weight gain on "endocrine disruptors" rather than over-eating. Even in posts in which she indicated that she was the original poster, the original poster didn't seen particularly receptive to advice. So this thread may have been a waste of everyone's time. The advice that was offered was mainly to convince her daughter to participate in at least one sport. Some posters suggested that if the girl didn't want to participate in school sports, she might pick up an activity after school such as dance. Other posters questioned whether this school is the right environment for the original poster's daughter. They suggested that the issue is not her daughter's weight, but how she fits in. The original poster had cited a number of issues that might cause fitting in to be difficult beyond weight. As a result, posters had advice concerning how to help her daughter fit in better. Others suggested changing schools. Some posters were suspicious of how the other girls were all remaining so thin, suggesting that it might be attributed to eating disorders, ADHD medicine, or controlling mothers. The topic of weight is always controversial on DCUM, especially when involving children and even more when involving girls. As such, posters had strong disagreements about what to do about the girl's weight. Some argued that she was not overweight and, therefore, this didn't need to be addressed. Others, as is common, attributed weight gain purely to eating and suggested that the original poster's daughter should simply eat less. Other posters had complex theories about diet and what should or shouldn't be eaten. Some posters strongly urged the original poster to do all that she can to avoid having her daughter becoming obsessed with her image, her size, or her eating. Instead they suggested keeping her busy with various activities and off the Internet.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum and titled, "90th percentile". Frankly, I couldn't understand the original poster's question. Other posters seemed to get it, or at least part of it, so maybe that was more of a "me" issue. At any rate, the original poster followed-up to clarify, so I'll just summarize what she said there. According to the original poster, if a student scores in the 90th percentile on the SAT and also has straight As in school, people often attribute the straight As to grade inflation because they don't think a 90th percentile SAT score is consistent with straight As. The original poster believes that a 90th percentile score does justify straight As and should not lead to accusations of grade inflation. This thread has a bit of everything in it. Unfortunately for me, all of those things are topics that have been beaten to death. I really couldn't force myself to read much of the thread. There are explanations of what percentiles mean, there accusations about grade inflation, and discussion of just about every other pet topic that has ever come up in the college forum. Posters argue about test optional admissions policies. They debated the validity of standardized tests and whether they accurately measure intelligence or are influenced by the amount of preparation a student has done. Posters argued that grades are similarly distorted by policies that allow test retaking or other measures that make achieving an A easier. There is a debate about the connection between SAT and ACT scores and IQ and exactly what that connection is. Posters argue about the qualifications necessary to succeed at a top school. Some posters described a situation in which top stats are required to get into highly-ranked school but the classes are actually fairly easy and and high grades are not hard to obtain. Others attributed this to grade inflation at the universities. Posters went so far down the rabbit hole of percentiles and test scores that the the original poster eventually found the discussion hilarious. In a way, this thread represents the underlying theme of the entire college forum boiled down to the bare essentials. Many of the forum participants are obsessed with ranking students from the smartest to the least smart. However, none of them can agree on the best means of judging intelligence. Many have fixated on standardized test scores. Others find fault with standardized tests. Posters demand that top universities enroll only the "best and the brightest", yet cannot agree on who represents the best and the brightest or how they are identified. The only thing that they can agree on is that the current system of college admissions is deficient, though their criticisms are different and often conflict with one another.

Next was a thread titled, "Trump says he will not debate Harris again", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The background here is that almost everyone believes that Vice President Kamala Harris clearly won this week's presidential debate with former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Not only do Democrats believe this, but the same has been argued by Fox News personalities, former Republican strategist Karl Rove, GOP pollster Frank Luntz, and many objective observers. Just about the only ones who don't believe that Harris came out ahead appear to be Trump himself and a few diehard supporters. Almost immediately upon the conclusion of the debate, the Harris campaign began arguing for another debate. Meanwhile, Trump and his supporters devoted their efforts to whining about the moderators. However, yesterday Trump posted a message on his Truth Social social media network in which he said that there would be no further presidential debates this election. Conventional wisdom is that debates are of most benefit to whomever is trailing in a campaign. Trump attempted to convey that he was acting consistent with this wisdom, claiming that polls showed that he had won the debate by a large margin and that he was also ahead in the election. In fact, almost all polls other than Trump's own poll show that he lost the debate. Rather than analyzing Trump's reluctance to debate again and Harris' eagerness to do just that in the context of conventional wisdom, it is probably more accurate to assume those positions reflect the true judgements by the campaigns concerning performance in the previous debate. There is no doubt that the election is close. Harris clearly sees additional debates as opportunities for her to improve her odds over Trump. The Trump campaign must be worried that performances like the last one will only hurt him. Therefore, the two positions make perfect sense. The problem for Trump will come if polls begin to show him falling behind Harris, something that is very possible in light of the last debate. In that case, the Trump campaign may feel that there is nothing to lose and that another debate might be in Trump's interest. Therefore, Trump's statement that there would be no more debates may be subject to change. The question then will be whether Harris remains confident that she can defeat Trump again or whether she will be reluctant to provide Trump an opening. I suspect that Harris will relish the opportunity to face Trump again on a debate state.

The next most active thread was the Dave Grohl thread that I've already discussed and will skip today. After that was a thread posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and titled, "Kamala Harris owns a gun. Are you surprised or mad?". The original poster simply asks if others have changed either their view of guns or their view of Vice President Kamala Harris due to the revelation that she owns a gun. The subtext here, not necessarily believed by the original poster, is that liberals are supposed to hate guns and hate anyone who owns a gun. No matter how many times liberals explain that they are not against guns in general but favor gun regulation and perhaps the elimination of specific types of guns, conservatives remain convinced that we are one election away from jack booted storm troopers arriving at their homes to seize their .22 caliber varmint shooters. Therefore, it is probably no surprise to anyone other than a few delusional conservatives that basically nobody in this thread has changed their views. Some conservatives refused to believe that a liberal such as Harris would truly own a gun and declared the whole thing to be a lie. This thread quickly devolved into a debate about gun control and Harris' positions regarding guns. A common allegation about Harris that has been made by former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and several posters in this thread is that Harris will confiscate guns. In fact, Harris has in the past supported buybacks of assault rifles, but not guns in general. One of the most tiring tactics of anti-gun control posters — other than telling outright lies — is their resort to what they believe is their superior knowledge of guns. Woe be to the gun control proponent who says "machine gun" when referring to a "semi-automatic rifle" or calls a "magazine" a "clip". Such transgressions will cause conservative heads to explode and be used to discredit any other gun-related opinions by that individual. To hear the anti-gun control crowd tell it, nobody lacking the ability to field strip both handguns and rifles while blindfolded and with both hands tied behind their backs is qualified to give an opinion about guns or gun control. As a result, when posters suggest controls on assault rifles, anti-gun control posters derail them by claiming that assault rifles are already illegal, equating "assault rife" with fully automatic weapons. This is tedious. The U.S. had an assault weapons ban for 10 years and, for purposes of that law, was able to define exactly which weapons were prohibited. Possibly that definition can be improved, but to act like it is impossible to define which weapons should be subject to a ban is ridiculous. Moreover, the similar argument that other guns that don't meet the definition have the same capabilities also rings hollow. If that is true, why do gun nuts oppose an assault rifle ban so strongly? They would be able to use one of those other guns to do whatever it is they want to do.