Monday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was the thread about the murder of the UnitedHealthCare CEO, which I've already discussed. After that was a thread titled, "The insanity of 1%er East Coast parents and college", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she has been observing several "1%ers" — meaning families in the top 1% of income levels — go through the college admissions process and "It is INSANE". She then went on to say that the families should calm down because their kids are "super privileged" and will be fine regardless of the college they end up attending. Simply in terms of technicalities, according to current data I just Googled, the top 1% in the U.S. consists of those with incomes above $819,324. While it is never possible to be completely sure, it is likely that some DCUM posters are in that group, and certainly there are plenty of 1%ers in the DC area. The top 5% includes those with incomes above $335,891 and probably describes significantly more DCUM posters. While many posters agreed with the original poster, others objected and suggested that she was simply jealous. One poster was apparently so upset by the original poster's very mild criticism of the top 1% that the poster suggested that the original poster deserved physical harm. That, of course, proved the original poster's point that some of these folks need to mellow out. Fundamentally, there is a difference of perspective about how the college admissions process is viewed. The original poster and those who agree with her believe that 1%ers look at elite college admissions as something that they deserve because of their wealth. They have always tried to provide the best for their children, and only an elite college will suffice as the best in this instance. According to the original poster, such families are stressed and panicking, even going "stark raving mad" in fear that their kids will not be accepted by a top school. The view held by the top 1% — or top 5% as it may actually be on DCUM — is that the panic is entirely justified. These families believe that, far from being privileged, they are actually disadvantaged when it comes to college admissions. As they see it, unless their kids are legacies, athletes, or have some other hook for admissions, their chances of admission are slim because the elite universities are looking for diversity and more likely to choose a poor farm kid from the plains or a racial or ethnic minority applicant. Added to this is the view — explicitly stated in the thread — that while state universities might be okay for others, such schools would be a humiliation for elite families. When the original poster says that these kids will be fine regardless of where they go to school, a poster replied back saying, "Fine is for normies". As always, generalizations have their limits. I doubt that every 1% family panics over college admissions and there are probably some who are perfectly happy to see their children attend state universities. Moreover, the panic over admissions is not limited to the top income families. We see it at all income levels on DCUM. But there is something particularly galling about those who have had every advantage complaining that they lack privilege all of a sudden.

The next most active thread was the thread I've already discussed about the age bracket changes in the ECNL soccer league. After that was a thread posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum which was titled, "22 Year Old Flirting With My 50 Year Old DH". The original poster says that she and her husband attended a large gathering of family and friends. During the event, a 22-year-old woman, who is a friend of the original poster's niece, "pretty much threw herself at" the original poster's husband. While the original poster's husband found it funny, the original poster was irritated. They will be attending a similar event in the near future, and the original poster wants to know if she would look insane if she said something to the woman. I don't think anyone thought that saying something to the woman would be a good idea. Rather, several posters suggested that the original poster talk to her husband about it and ask him to shut things down if it happens again. A number of posters didn't think that the situation merited any action whatsoever. The way that they saw things, the husband had not been attracted, simply seeing the attention as funny, and the original poster was being insecure. Others disagreed with this, saying that, funny or not, the husband ate up the attention and probably looked bad to others at the event. Most of the discussion revolved around why the woman would have behaved in such a way. The most common suggestion was that she was hoping to get career assistance from the original poster's husband. However, the original poster said that they are in completely different types of careers. Some posters said that someone might have dared the woman or that she was doing it as a joke. Other posters theorized that the woman might have been an introvert, or been tipsy, or for some other reason was uncomfortable at the party but felt safe with the original poster's husband and, therefore, clung to him. This idea that the original poster's husband was "safe" came up repeatedly. The suggestion was that precisely because the 22-year-old would have no interest in sleeping with a 50-year-old, he was a safe target for flirting or other attention-seeking behavior. A male poster who said that he has been the recipient of unwanted flirting said that his wife simply comes and stands near him when it occurs. They sometimes hold hands or link arms and this normally brings an end to the flirting. He advises this sort of behavior rather than saying something to the woman. Another theory was that the woman was not actually flirting, but simply engaging in polite conversation and that the original poster overreacted due to the woman being young and pretty (though I don't believe the original poster ever commented on the woman's appearance). There were a bunch of other suggestions such as the 22-year-old not realizing the husband's age, that she had "daddy issues", or that she might be neurologically atypical and not realize that what she was doing was socially awkward.

Next was a thread titled, "Beyoncé’s husband Jay Z accused of raping 13-year-old girl with Diddy" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The original poster embedded a tweet saying that in a civil lawsuit singer Jay Z is accused of raping a 13-year-old girl in 2000, along with Sean "Diddy" Combs. The original poster immediately followed up with an excerpt from a news article that provided more details. According to the lawsuit, the girl was given a drink at a party that made her feel woozy and needed to lie down. She went into another room to rest, at which point Jay Z and Combs entered, along with an unidentified woman, and raped her. Some posters were upset that the original poster mentioned Beyoncé in the thread's title because there is no suggestion that she is alleged to have been involved. As such, this just seems like an attempt to spear her or tarnish her by association. Moreover, many posts in the thread are devoted to bashing Beyoncé rather than addressing the topic of the thread. Therefore, if that was the original poster's intention, she succeeded. Beyond that, many posters claim that they are not surprised by this allegation because Jay Z apparently attended many of Combs's parties. Combs is currently in jail due to allegations of sexual abuse that occurred at his parties. I am particularly ill-prepared to discuss this topic as I am barely familiar with any of the personalities involved and have not paid any attention to the controversies surrounding Combs. Nor am I familiar with the gossip about these celebrities, something with which many of the posters appear to be well-versed. Very few posts address the alleged facts in the case, though one poster did do a laudable job of laying things out. Most of the discussion is about which other sexual predators Jay Z has associated. Many posters say that he was close to R Kelly, who, like Combs, is currently in jail. There is also considerable discussion about the age at which Jay Z began dating Beyoncé, with many suggestions that she may have been as young as 15. For his part, Jay Z responded with a statement saying that the allegations were so severe that anyone who would commit them should be locked away. Therefore, he urged that criminal charges be pressed instead of a civil case. He considers the allegations to be nothing more than a blackmail attempt. While Jay Z accused the lawyer, Tony Buzbee, of being an "ambulance chaser in a cheap suit", a poster in the thread who said he went to law school with Buzbee defended him as a legitimate lawyer who is wealthy and doesn't need to extort anyone. Quite a bit of this thread is devoted to attacking rap music and rappers, a musical genre with which a number of posters seem to have a problem. Posters are upset by the lyrics, the personalities involved, and the lifestyles that are glamorized. On the other hand, there are posters who are convinced that most DCUM posters would likely have no idea who Jay Z even is. That point is disputed by other posters who point out that he has been on mainstream radio for years.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. Titled, "If you have more than a million in investments, have you purchased BITCOIN in any form? If so, how much?", the original poster asks for very specific details about any bitcoin investments. He asks posters to outline their "age, size of your portfolio, and % allocation to Bitcoin". If the replies in this thread can be believed, the DCUM finance forum is full of older, very rich people who put my relatively meager investments to shame. Forget about the million dollars the original poster asked about. Responses in the thread discuss amounts several times that. A number of posters say their investments are in the "millions" and others describe amounts from 8 to 10 million. Also, based on the responses, DCUM posters are pretty cryptocurrency-shy. If they have any investments at all, they are very minor and only "play money". More common are investments in EFTs or mutual funds that have some amount of crypto. I personally have a very dim view of cryptocurrency and I am happy to see my opinions widely shared among these posters who — if we can take them at their word — are financially much more successful and knowledgeable than me. Fairly early on, the thread turned into a discussion of cryptocurrencies themselves, rather than posters' investments in them. The posters make many good points and, if you are interested in this topic, I encourage you to read the thread. However, I am running late today and want to finish this post. It is quicker and easier for me to just spout off with my own views, worthless though they may be, than try to read and summarize several pages of detailed and, in cases, complex posts. I also may be wrong because I am far from an expert on this topic. But my view is that cryptocurrencies are like a balloon. It is easy to blow them up, but you have to be very careful letting the air out. This has created a problem for big crypto investors. On paper, they have a lot of wealth in crypto. In reality, they own air. If they try to get the air out of the balloon, the balloon deflates quickly, possibly outside their control. It wasn't talked about much, but this was a problem that crypto investors were trying to solve with the last election. Millions were invested supporting candidates on both sides of the aisle, and a great many of those elected are now beholden to the crypto industry. There will now be pressure on Congress to enact measures to solve this dilemma, as well as other hurdles, for crypto investors. As for the administration of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, he has become a crypto believer himself and has First Lady Elon Musk in his ear on the topic as well. The goal, I predict, will be to ensure that any gains go to the investors, especially the largest of them, and any risks are absorbed by the government. We now live in a time of privatized gains and socialized losses. Moreover, as many posters in this thread point out, cryptocurrencies are ideal for money laundering and illicit transactions. So we also likely are looking at a future in which the government is literally enabling a system used by exactly the sort of transactions that the government is trying to prevent. So, two hands of government working against each other. That's what I call government efficiency and just about what you would expect from DOGE.