December

I am starting with yesterday's fourth most active thread because the first three most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. This thread was titled, "I am talking to a lot of Democrats who want Trump to succeed." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that he has friends and family who voted for Vice President Kamala Harris but who now want President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump to succeed in implementing his agenda. The original poster further says that they are hoping that those who voted for Trump will learn a lesson. He also indicates that many of these individuals are business people and professionals who will benefit from expected Trump tax cuts. The idea that Trump voters have "f'd around" and now will "find out" has been popular from the minute the presidential election results were known. The irony of the election is that Harris was popular among well-educated, generally affluent voters while Trump gained support from working-class voters. Many think that Trump's proposed policies will fall hardest on those less educated and less well-off individuals. The better-off Harris voters believe that they can survive Trump's policies while his voters will suffer. The reality is that Trump's support included many from the working class, but it also consisted of many among the most wealthy in the country. Indeed, Trump has picked a record number of billionaires for top spots in his incoming administration. The view among many Harris voters is that those wealthy individuals will now proceed to essentially loot the country and create policies that benefit themselves. While I understand the motivation to hope that Trump voters get what they asked for, I am not sure that it is actually a good position to take. On a moral level, some of Trump's policies will likely result in tremendous human suffering. While some of those who will probably feel the pain are likely Trump voters, many are not. We shouldn't support suffering for anyone, in any case. Not even for our political opponents. But even on a practical level, we must hope that Trump's worst ideas are not implemented. Trump critics are correct that Trump probably won't succeed in lowering the cost of eggs, and well-healed Harris voters probably won't mind. But in other respects, Harris voters won't be so isolated. There is an expression that a rising tide raises all ships. The corollary is that a lowering tide will ground a lot of ships that were otherwise thought to be safe. We might be able to absorb rising egg prices, but we can't escape a polluted environment, crumbling infrastructure, or a collapsing government. If Trump's proposed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is successful in his war against vaccines, our children and grandchildren will suffer just as much as those of the working class. This is not a time for emotion, but rather when rationality is most needed. Let's support Trump in those few cases where his policies are likely to improve our country, but in other cases, we must oppose him regardless of the satisfaction of seeing his supporters suffer might bring.

The four most active threads yesterday were all ones that I've previously discussed. Therefore, I am starting with what was yesterday's fifth most active thread. Titled, "What is the Republicans' whole ‘return to office’ obsession?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster has composed a lengthy screed on the topic of federal workers returning to the office. The post seems to be heavily influenced by a commentary published by the Federal News Network to which the original poster linked and which singles out Iowa Senator Joni Ernst for efforts to bring an end to work-from-home policies. Working from home and returning to the office have been the topics of several popular threads, and I have discussed a number of them in this blog. I've even written about efforts to force federal employees to return to the office in recent weeks. As such, I've already discussed much of what is in this thread. One thing that does distinguish the original poster's contribution from earlier threads is his presentation of data that shows that working from home has been studied repeatedly and shown to be more efficient than working in an office. The data contradicts many of the claims made by Ernst. For instance, Ernst has claimed that only 6% of federal employees work in person full-time. However, an August 2024 report by the Office of Management and Budget explains that fully 50% of federal employees are not even eligible for telework. Among those who are eligible, 61% of their work hours are conducted on-site. But what this thread demonstrates is that topics such as this are more often influenced by vibes and anecdotal experience rather than data. For instance, one opponent of working from home stated, "Republicans are pro-business, and WFH [work from home] is not efficient and reduces productivity. I don’t care what anyone says." Apparently, there are no amount of studies that would change this poster's opinion. The original poster is curious about Ernst's motivation for championing this issue. That's a good question. One would think that Ernst might have an interest in promoting Iowa as a low-cost-of-living area that could be attractive to federal employees working remotely. Instead, she appears to be more aligned with First Lady Elon Musk and failed businessman Vivek Ramaswamy in their efforts to use return-to-office policies to encourage federal workers to quit and, thereby, reduce the size of the federal workforce. This is probably the least efficient means of achieving efficiency imaginable. Part of the problem is that the question of where and when federal employees work does not exist in a vacuum. Republicans have devoted years to demonizing federal workers, and such attacks have been internalized into their ideology. Accusing them of abusing work-from-home policies is just one more example. In many cases, there is hope that the jobs can be privatized, perhaps to the benefit of Republican donors. Even someone like District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser, normally a strong proponent of the federal workforce, is supporting a return to office because she is worried about the impact of missing federal employees on DC's downtown businesses. This issue goes well beyond simple efficiency and accountability.

The most active thread yesterday continued to be the thread about the murder of the UnitedHealthCare CEO. After that was a thread titled, "Enough is enough with the redshirting!" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster is very frustrated because there are two 10-year-olds in her child's 3rd-grade class. She wants to know when schools will draw the line with redshirting. As I assume everyone knows, "redshirting" is the practice of either starting a child later in school or holding them back a year after they started. I assume that the original motive for redshirting was to ensure that kids were placed in a grade that was more developmentally appropriate for them. However, it is now widely believed that many children are redshirted in order to gain academic or athletic advantages despite there being no developmental justification for doing so. In a subsequent post, the original poster said that over half the children in her child's class are redshirted. Redshirting is one of the most controversial topics on DCUM, and threads on the topic are always hotly debated. This is at least the fifth thread that has been among the most active threads that I have discussed. As such, I am well-versed in the two sides. To her credit, the original poster has nuanced views on redshirting. Despite her evident frustration, she is not against the practice and never really suggests clear limitations that she believes should be implemented. In many ways, this thread is just an opportunity for her to vent about her concern that redshirting has become too widespread. If I have a criticism of the original poster's views on redshirting, it is that she is too fixated on age. She supports redshirting for kids who just passed the cutoff and would be the youngest in their classes but questions it for kids with summer birthdays. Wouldn't an approach that takes each child's individual developmental progress, including academic and athletic abilities, into account be more appropriate? Essentially, redshirting has become another aspect of competitive parenting. For some parents, the road to an Ivy League university begins at preschool, and one aspect of that is gaining an advantage through redshirting. Those supportive of redshirting argue that age is an arbitrary metric that does not necessarily reflect the developmental stage of a child. Many of these posters support redshirting when a child's specific needs support the measure. Other posters, however, contend that children are not ready for school at 4 or 5 years of age. As one poster says, "it’s irresponsible and totally unsupported by science to put a 4 y/o at a desk all day...The best schools in the world start kids at six." While the original poster and several others with similar views are suspicious of the motivations of parents who redshirt, this poster turns things around saying, "*not* redshirting your kid is bad parenting." Based on the posts in this thread, it appears that in some schools there has almost been an arms race involving redshirting. A few kids are held back due to their level of development, some are close to the cutoff and their parents prefer for them to start school later, some are redshirted due to the belief that it will provide academic and athletic advantages, and at some point the number of redshirted kids reaches critical mass. Students who weren't redshirted and might have normally been among the oldest in their class find themselves among the youngest. This leads to some of their parents redshirting, resulting in the circumstances that have upset the original poster.

The first thread that I will discuss today was actually the fifth most active yesterday. The four most active were all threads that I've previously discussed. This thread was titled, "New social media trend from Sweden: the 'Soft girl' ?" and was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster linked to a story published by the BBC that describes what they call a "new trend" in Sweden that involves women quitting work and basically becoming housewives, though in most cases they actually appear to be house girlfriends. The original poster was initially horrified by this idea, but then thought that it might actually be good and is intrigued. This thread was the first that I've heard of this so-called trend, but as soon as I read the BBC article, I was ready to blast out a post loaded with my opinions of both the article and the trend. However, I disciplined myself enough to at least look at the replies and realized that everything that I was going to say had already been said. So, let's let the others tell it. First thing, this is not a trend. As one poster wrote, "People (women) have been doing this for a long time. Someone just discovered it for themselves and starting blogging/IGing/TikToking about it, thinking they invented it." Second, it didn't start in Sweden. As other posters pointed out, the original "soft girl" movement started in Nigeria. There is a bit of debate about whether the "soft girl" movement is simply a return to traditional gender roles of the past — or as one poster says, "how human life was for thousands of years". Another poster derides the movement as "a man is the plan". Some posters pointed out that the women highlighted in the article weren't really giving up all that great of careers. One poster wrote, "I would also be happy to quit my job if my jobs were: ‘grocery store, a care home and a factory’, per the article." Another poster agreed, saying, "A lot of these women just don't have great options to begin with." Yet another poster added, "Wouldn't anyone rather stay home, pursue creative outlets, and ‘relax in their feminine’ than empty bed pans or stock shelves?" Many posters simply brush the topic off as nothing but a made-up social media invention. A poster wrote, "Social media trends are painfully stupid." Several posters pointed out the class dimensions of the topic. Traditionally, a life of idle luxury, as one poster says, was only available to "rich women, and during its brief existence, the MC [middle class] women were SAHMs [stay-at-home moms]. LC [lower class] and poor women have always worked." The most common criticism of the "soft girl" idea is that it depends on a partner — normally a man — who is willing to pay for it. This creates a dependence that many posters abhor. As a poster writes, "Yes, let’s encourage women to be financially dependent on men. What could the harm be in that?"

Some days are just déjà vu all over again. As was the case earlier this week, the top two most active threads were the Hunter Biden pardon thread and the soccer league age bracket change thread. Skipping those, the next most active thread was titled, "How to know a college is safe for POC" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread is also a bit of déjà vu since similar threads come up regularly. The original poster says that her son is interested in a top liberal arts college but, according to the Common Data Set, only 22 Black students out of a class of 436 were accepted during the last cycle. Her son was hoping to find a community and is very discouraged by these numbers. The original poster asks whether they should just "throw in the towel". Threads such as this always attract posters who appear offended that the topic was even brought up. They normally call the original poster a troll and suggest that the poster is making things up. I deleted posts of that sort from this thread and the remaining posts were generally very helpful (or at least seemed to be from my point of view — I can't speak for the original poster). The replies generally fall into two different camps. One is the "don't give up on the school" camp. Posters in that group urge the original poster to contact current students at the school and try to hear their experiences firsthand. They argue that simple numbers don't reveal the entire story. These posters suggest contacting any Black-student affinity groups that might exist on campus or the admissions office to arrange video calls with current students. The college in question later turned out to be Pomona College and one poster in the thread has a child attending the school now. That child is a person of color, though not Black. Still, the poster was able to provide links to many helpful resources and describe her child's experience at the school. The second camp consists of posters who argue that there are better options than Pomona. They suggest universities instead of liberal arts colleges. Suggestions include Duke University, Emory University, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia. The original poster said that her son was not interested in historically Black colleges and universities, but posters kept suggesting them. Some posters struggled to understand the vast spectrum of colleges that exist between one with 22 Black students and an HBCU, leading to some vitriolic exchanges. Many posters suggested that the original poster's son has very competitive statistics and would likely have opportunities at many top colleges or universities. However, those colleges also tend to have smaller Black communities. Therefore, this presents a struggle between a better school or a larger Black community. Despite the few bitter posts that I removed, most of the posts in this thread were quite supportive of the original poster and her son. One of the nicest, I thought, was posted by a poster of Korean heritage who described her desire to find a Korean community at college and chose a university accordingly. She attributed much of her success in college to that community.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that had been most active over the weekend and discussed in yesterday's blog post. Those were the threads about President Joe Biden pardoning his son Hunter and the one about childcare conflicting with returning to the office. After those two, the most active thread was titled, "In praise of Olive Garden and Hampton Inn; praise YOUR lowbrow favorites!" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster just returned from a trip to her hometown in the Midwest. DCUM posters have a reputation for sneering at the Midwest, or what they call "flyover country", as well as the chains of restaurants, stores, and motels with which they associate the region. "Enjoy Applebee's" was once a popular DCUM expression of disdain for those leaving the vibrant city for less exciting areas (which, for the record, included DC suburbs). However, the original poster's experience was quite enjoyable. As she says, "My parents' house is beautiful, their neighbors are kind and generous, and my hometown is delightful." On the trip home, her family spent a night at a Hampton Inn along the way and dined at an Olive Garden. Both exceeded the original poster's expectations and she has only good things to say about them. As such, she invites others to suggest their "lowbrow" favorites. Two reactions were immediately apparent among the responses. One was to agree that Hampton Inns are normally nice motels and good choices for an interstate travel stop. There was really nothing but praise for the chain. The same is true for Embassy Suites. The other reaction was surprise that Hampton Inns and Embassy Suites are considered "lowbrow". For many posters, those chains are almost considered luxury hotels compared to what they were used to staying in while growing up. For the most part, however, this thread was a list of fast food indulgences. Most posters had a favorite fast food option or two. For some, those are regular treats of which they partake normally. For others, fast food is mostly limited to travel, especially by car. There were a few surprises for me in this thread. I understood IKEA as a popular lowbrow choice for furniture and home accessories, but I was not prepared for it to be praised as a dining venue. I had to agree with the poster who wrote, "I am legit fascinated by the PP who’s eating freaking rainbow trout in a furniture store." I'm glad that this was mostly a good-natured and positive thread. The only hint of conflict involved Ann Taylor, a clothing chain that some consider "lowbrow" while others consider fairly upscale. My only contribution to this discussion is to say that if you want to develop lowbrow tastes, take a road trip in an electric vehicle. You will soon become a connoisseur of Sheetz and Walmart dining and bathroom options. As for motels, anywhere with free charging will do.

The most active thread over the weekend was the thread that I previously discussed about plans by the Elite Club National soccer league to change the age cut-off date for players. This thread has been at or near the top of the most active list for months. I think that it is worth reflecting on the fact that, despite all that is happening in the world today, the division in which kids born in the fall should play soccer is dominating discussion. After that thread was one titled, "Anyone else depressed that our country elected a disgusting man to the presidency?", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster lists several negative personality characteristics of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and describes his cabinet picks as "the lowest of the low". She wonders how Trump's followers do not see this and says that she is very depressed about this situation. This is one of many threads that have been posted since the election in which liberals are demonstrating their difficulty dealing with the result. During the campaign, many liberals predicted a number of terrible outcomes if Trump were to win. While some Trump supporters agreed that such things would come to pass, they were excited at the possibility. But much more often were posters who accused those issuing warnings of being "chicken littles" who were simply fear-mongering. The most obvious example involves Project 2025, which has been the subject of multiple threads in the political forum. Trump opponents repeatedly warned that Project 2025 would be the blueprint of a second Trump administration. When Trump disassociated himself from the project, many of his supporters took that at face value. They routinely accused those warning about Project 2025 of either lying or being misleading. Now that Trump has won, he has selected the architects of Project 2025 for high-level administrative positions, and many of the Project 2025 ideas are being promoted by Trump's cabinet choices. It is clear, in this case, that the "chicken littles" were correct. While there have been several threads demanding that Democrats engage in self-reflection in order to understand why they lost, I am not aware of any calls for those who told us that concerns about Project 2025 were simply fear-mongering to do their own self-reflecting. To the contrary, as this thread shows, Trump defenders are still not willing to face reality. Despite all evidence to the contrary, posters repeatedly tell the original poster that she is overreacting and that there is nothing to fear from Trump and his loony bin cabinet. One poster even called the original poster a "childless cat lady", suggesting that some posters are experiencing a sort of arrested development that has left them frozen in October. I think we are in a strange situation in which depression and anxiety are the more logical reaction than remaining calm (which requires some self-delusion), but I am worried about the impact of widespread severe depression and anxiety. If you are on a beach and see a tidal wave approaching, is it better to panic or set up a picnic lunch to assure yourself that everything will be fine? Obviously, the best solution is to run like hell, but most of us don't have that option.