Monday's Most Active Threads

The two most active threads yesterday were the thread about the apparent assassination attempt of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and the thread about Taylor Swift. Because I discussed both of these threads yesterday, I'll skip them today. The next most active thread was titled, "Overweight boys- constructive help only, please" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster says that she has 8 and 10 year old sons who are both overweight. She says the boys are active and that the family eats healthy foods and has no junk food in the house. But the boys just eat a lot. The original poster is seeking advice about how to help her sons control their weight while not causing "some disordered eating craziness". Most of those responding feel that the original poster is already doing most of the right things. Therefore, several posters suggest that this might be a phase in which the boys are "growing out" instead of "growing up", meaning that they have gained weight quicker than they have gained height and that this will likely change when the boys hit spurts of growth in height. Posters also question whether any family members, even extended ones, have larger body types which could mean that the boys' weight is simply genetic. The original poster does have a brother who went through a chubby phase and has a larger build then she does. Anything involving weight is of course controversial on DCUM. One reason for this is that many posters have very strong opinions which conflict with the equally strong opinions of other posters. One common division involves limiting eating as a means to control weight. For some posters, the sole answer to every question about how to lose weight is "eat less". No surprise then that several posters immediately began advising the original poster to limit her sons' eating. The original poster has cut back snacks based on advice from the kids' pediatrician. However, other posters argue almost the exact opposite. They suggest providing more, but different, types of snacks and food. They contend that if the boys are hungry, they will eat more when the opportunity presents itself. They suggest that a better strategy is to provide healthy snacks, especially those high in protein, more frequently so that the boys don't feel starved when they sit down for a meal. Some posters believe that since the original poster seems to have diet and exercise covered, the problem might be hormonal. They suggest that the original poster have blood panels done to see if anything is affecting the boys' metabolism. Some posters argue the boys weight should not be much of a concern if they are active and eating good diets. Being healthy is more important than their weight, these posters suggest.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum and titled, "King Charles and Prince William wished Harry a Happy 40th Birthday!". If British Royal Family threads were capable of jumping the shark — which they aren't — this would have been the thread in which the shark was jumped. Just how significant is it that a father wished his son a happy birthday or that his other son wished the same to his brother? Moreover, the original poster failed to provide any sort of link to a story that might explain the significance of this had their been any. Instead, she just said that it warmed her heart. The only apparent importance of this mundane act is that Harry, Duke of Sussex, has had a strained relationship with his father and brother. But, this minimal gesture is hardly a strong signal that the relationship is warming. Instead, several posters point out, because this was Harry's 40th birthday, ignoring it would have been a public relations spectacle. The birthday wishes, these posters argued, were nothing more than protocol-driven formalties with little significance. Discussion then turned to the fact that Harry will inherit 8 million pounds that his great grandmother left him. Inexplicably, some posters began speculating that Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, are divorcing. It takes divination skills far beyond mine to connect happy birthday wishes to a pending divorce. This thread soon devolved to simply bashing Meghan for a number of transgressions, both real and imagined. The forum is famous for its Kate vs Meghan slugfests, but this thread wasn't one of those. This was a one-sided onslaught of hate towards Meghan. Harry and Meghan had their defenders who also were not above throwing a punch or two. But, they mostly left Catherine, Princess of Wales, alone and focused their anger at King Charles. These threads tend to follow a familiar and predictable pattern. Regardless of how the threads start out, they turn into battles between supporters of the two branches of the family. But very shortly posters begin to direct their attacks at each other. Sussex supporters make allegations about the Wales, King Charles, and Queen Camilla, whose supporters, in turn, make similar allegations about the Sussexes. I don't see a lot of value in a thread that generally contains little more than posts saying, "you're a hater", "no you are the hater". But this thread reached 14 pages before I locked it so what do I know?

Next was a thread titled, "Stop Judging and Disrespecting All Republican and Conservative Policies and Values", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster describes herself as a moderately-conservative, Republican-leaning, first generation woman in her 50s. She goes to great length to explain how she inherited conservative values from her immigrant parents. Due to those values, she strongly opposes undocumented migrants, including those granted asylum, and opposes most liberal social programs. She agrees with Vice President Kamala Harris on only one thing, abortion rights. The importance of that issue is such that she will vote for Harris, but she wants her conservative values and positions to be respected and not criticized. I have not read, and will not read, this thread. The problems with the original poster's initial post are significant. The original poster appears to have assimilated almost every right-wing critique, accurate or not, of liberals. Her perception of both liberals and migrants is based entirely on right-wing narratives. She does not seem to be aware of the existence of moderate Democrats. Instead, every liberal is, in her mind, a far left extremist and every policy supported by far left extremists is claimed by the original poster to be mainstream Democratic policy. For instance, she equates "universal healthcare" with "socialized healthcare" despite those being two different things. She then critiques "universal healthcare", which mainstream Democrats support, with criticisms that apply to "socialized healthcare", something mainstream Democrats don't support. My advice to the original poster is to earn respect by first giving respect. Moreover, the original poster might lay off the lecturing and spend a bit more time listening and learning. If the original poster is not willing to respect Democrats across the spectrum, she should hardly expect respect in return. More problematic is that the original poster suggests that she considers criticism of conservative values as a lack of respect. She has no problem criticizing a range of liberal values and policies and does not seem to view that as being disrespectful. Yet, she clearly views similar criticism aimed at policies she supports as a failure to show respect. Summed up, her post seems to say, "I am going to vote for Harris because I agree with her about abortion rights but, in return, all Democrats should accept my conservatives beliefs without question." This ignores the nature of politics. Liberals don't agree with conservative policies. That is why they are liberals. Just as the original poster has criticism of liberal policies — criticisms that she did not hesitate to state in her post — liberals have criticisms of conservative policies. This should not be a surprise to anyone. The original poster should understand that liberals are not going to set aside their criticisms simply because she has decided to cast her vote for Harris. Obviously those criticisms should be offered respectfully, but in no way should Democrats be expected to drop their concerns about conservative policies becasuse the original poster is too sensitive to tolerate them.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Entry into Student run Clubs at Ivy", the original poster says that her child is a freshman at an Ivy League university and has found that the clubs all require applications and interviews and that there is very little chance of being accepted. This has discouraged the original poster's child and it is not what was expected of the Ivy experience. Many posters agree that what the original poster describes is accurate. Apparently there have been several DCUM threads over the years discussing this situation. Several posters, however, explain that not all clubs on campus are so competitive. There are other clubs that are easy to join. What becomes apparent pretty quickly, however, is that the competitive clubs are viewed as important for future employment. That is what drives the competitiveness. Reading this thread I wondered about the stress levels of these posters. They must have stressed about their children's high schools, then stressed about their kids' college opportunities. Now, seeing their kids in Ivy League schools, they stress about clubs. In a few years, I expect they will be stressing about jobs. These poster's blood pressure must be unbelievable. At any rate, most of the posts in the thread are from posters reporting their kids' experience with clubs at their schools. The original poster specifically asked about Ivy League schools — it's even in the thread's title — but posters provided anecdotes about schools all over the map. Posters explained that some schools have a culture that values exclusiveness and a club that doesn't have a very select membership is not held in esteem. However, other campuses don't have such a culture and clubs tend to be easier to join at such schools. Getting back to the competitive clubs, posters argued over what is required to get into the clubs. Some attributed it to connections, others to private high school pedigrees, others to accomplishments at the college. One poster managed to work grade inflation into the discussion, arguing that grade inflation at universities has made distinguishing the most qualified prospective club members difficult because everyone has good grades. At any rate, to the uninitiated such as myself, this is an eye-opening look at both the importance attached to some clubs and the difficulty of getting into them. I would never have thought that someone could be accepted by an Ivy League school and then have that experience ruined because they were not accepted by a campus club. But, I guess that happens.