2024

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.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Kate's New Picture" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. As best that I can tell, all the world's insane asylums opened their doors yesterday and the inmates all rushed out and immediately began posting in this thread. The thread was off the rails from the very first post in which the original poster linked to an article about a recently-released photo of Kate, the Princess of Wales, and her children. The original poster complained that "we only see her from the neck down?" and asked "Any conspiracy theories here?" The first problem is that the photo actually showed Kate from the neck up, not down. Second, the original poster was referring to a cropped version of a larger photo that appeared on the same page to which the original poster had linked. The original poster appears to have not bothered scrolling down. As for conspiracy theories? Of course there are conspiracy theories. Any thread on DCUM involving the British Royal Family has conspiracy theories. Poster after poster was apparently spending their day zooming in on the photo and doing a pixel-by-pixel analysis. Problems were found with the foliage, one of the boy's fingers, and the lighting on Kate's face. Posters questioned why Kate wasn't wearing a wedding ring. There was a discussion about the children's teeth and whether they have had braces. The thread would easily have been the most active of the weekend on this basis alone. But then several major wire services issued "kill notices" ordering publications to withdraw the photo due to "manipulation". This was like blowing up a nuclear bomb with an even bigger nuclear bomb. The crazies had been proven right. Never mind that despite the long list of irregularities that posters claimed to have found in the photo, I don't think any of them found the issue with Charlotte's sleeve that actually provoked the photo's withdrawal. But that was of little matter. For once their wild speculation had been proven correct. This completely opened the floodgates of conspiracy theories. Kate is in a coma some said, the couple is divorcing others suggested, Kate has been forcibly separated from her kids some claimed, a few posters even worried that Kate is actually dead. Personally, I'd suggest that she has been abducted by aliens but that theory is a little too mundane for this thread. When a vague statement admitting to the photo having been edited was published on the Prince and Princess of Wales's social media platforms, posters could not even agree who authored it. Some said it was William while others argued that it was Kate. At any rate, the statement did nothing to calm speculation. Rather, it had the opposite effect. Several posters said that they were previously uninterested in the Royal drama but this controversy had caused them to become keenly engrossed. Others were just along for the ride. As one poster put it, "You guys are nuts. I love it!!"

The most active thread over the weekend was the Gaza war thread which I've already discussed and will skip today. The second most active thread was titled, "Why do some women think it's acceptable to get engaged without a ring?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Before getting to a discussion of that that thread, my last post in which I changed the format to include more paragraph breaks was universally disliked. So, I am returning to the previous one paragraph per post format. The original poster of this thread says that both her sister and a friend recently got engaged and neither received a ring. The original poster believes that an engagement ring has important symbolic importance and thinks that getting engaged without a ring suggests that the guy is not taking the engagement seriously. Those responding suggest that the couples may be planning to purchase rings later which allows them to pick them out together and get the rings sized correctly. The original poster says that the couples in this case have no plans to purchase rings. Several posters say that they did not want engagement rings for various reasons and others who did receive rings don't wear them. Some of these posters do wear wedding bands. However, a number of posters don't wear engagement or wedding rings even if they have them, which several don't. They have decades or longer marriages and simply don't like rings or jewelry. These posters don't see any connection between a ring and commitment to marriage. A number of posters don't think it is really the original poster's business what other couples choose to do about rings and consider any concern that original poster has about it to be an issue with her rather than the others. To some extent, attitudes towards rings were related to ideas about feminism. Some posters believe that feminism is incompatible the the suggestion that a women deserves an engagement ring simply because of her gender. Others argued that they could be feminists while still following some traditional gender norms. Another reason cited for passing on engagement rings was some posters' dislike for the diamond industry. Much of this thread was sidetracked to off-topic discussions such living together rather than getting married, what women get out of marriage in exchange for what they give up, and the aforementioned debates about feminism.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will, therefore, skip today. The third most active thread was titled, "London is HORRIBLE" was originally posted in the "Off-Topic" forum but I moved it to the "Travel Discussion" forum. Frankly, however, I am not sure which forum is most appropriate for this thread. The original poster epically rants about her dislike of London, bashing the housing (too cold and expensive), the residents (mean, lazy, and drunk), and the food (it sucks). She then concludes that DC is 100 times better than London. A number of those responding have experience living in London and while they agree with the original poster in some respects, they disagree in others. Some posters argue that the original poster, while living in an expensive part of London, is not in an area that shows London's strongest attributes. Many make suggestions for areas that might not only be less expensive, but considerably more enjoyable. As for the food, posters again suggest that the original poster has missed the best examples. One poster said that it takes a special effort to miss the good food that London offers. The Indian food is almost universally praised. Other ethnic foods get mixed reviews, however. Several of the negative characteristics the original poster described are brushed off as normal in Europe and not exclusive to London. One advantage that nobody can deny that London has over DC is the lack of guns, though the original poster did complain about muggings. Those responding also repeatedly praised London's museums, though DC is no slouch when it comes to museums either. Posters were also almost unanimous is praising technological advances in Europe such as easy bank transfers that don't exist in the US. At some point the thread devolved to a discussion of British accents and who does or does not pronounce words correctly. One poster provided a fairly accurate assessment of the thread, saying "The thread is very DCUM in terms of lying squarely at the intersection of pretentiousness and parochialism." Another significant point of contention was London's timezone and how that affects the hours of sunlight per day. A number of posters were certain that London has much less daylight than most American cites while other posters were equally sure that is not true. Several posters were concerned that the original poster might be missing an opportunity by not experiencing more of the good aspects of London. Quite a few posters cautioned that living in a city is different than visiting and that it might simply take longer to feel comfortable. There were a number of good suggestions provided to the original poster that might help her increase her appreciation for the city and she seemed open to the advice. So maybe things won't turn out so bad after all.

The three most active threads over the weekend were ones that I have discussed before and will therefore skip today. That means that I will be starting with what was actually the fourth most active thread. That thread was titled, "Why do parents have such an issue with DEIB" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. I was aware that Diversity, Equity, and inclusion or DEI initiatives had become a popular bugaboo in certain quarters, in many cases replacing Critical Race Theory, or CRT, as the root of all evil, but I was hitherto unfamiliar with the additional "B". Some quick Googling revealed that the "B" is for "belonging" and that "DEIB" is a popular alternative to "DEI". The original poster of this thread suggests that many parents have misconceptions of what is involved with DEIB and that she never sees assignments of the sort that others claim are prompted by DEIB. She says that she knows of parents who claim to be basing school choices on the avoidance of DEIB and wants to know why they are so threatened by it. This is the sort of discussion that can go one of two ways on DCUM. Because DCUM's users, especially in the private school forum, tend to be highly-educated, experienced, and, might I say, worldly, there could be a nuanced, sophisticated, and intelligent discusion. But, this is a polarizing topic and the discussion could be one that reflects simplistic and overly-generalized arguments that are often based on stereotypes or false impressions. Because the smart move would be to avoid this type of discussion in the first place, there are more posts from the second category than the first. In very broad strokes, the extreme positions in this thread are, on one hand, that any one who opposes DEIB is a racist and, on the other hand, that White people are tired of being called racists and, therefore, don't like DEIB. A more nuanced example was a post suggesting that an emphasis on race and gender ignores other important social divisions, particularly those involving class. While affinity groups for Black or LGBTQ groups are embraced, one poster wondered how parents would react to "a ‘working class’ affinity group in the schools? Particularly one in which teachers shared their experiences of their salaries and what it’s actually like to teach the children of the upper class?" Many of the criticisms of DEIB seem to of the sort described by the original poster and demonstrate a misunderstanding of DEIB. Throughout the thread posters make claims about DEIB but then, when asked, are unable to provide specific examples. Several posters say that they support the goals of DEIB but that efforts have "gone too far". One dilemma with which I see posters struggling is how to reconcile often conflicting values. For instance, affinity groups can be both important support mechanisms for groups that don't align with the majority, but also divisive factors that hinder unity and cohesion. This thread also attracted a couple of posters who seem to perennially argue about DEI, DEIB, wokeness, and so on.

The two most active threads yesterday were both threads that I discussed in yesterday's blog post, the one about about broke men on online dating and the one about the soccer club merger (still no official announcement). I will skip those two and start with a thread titled, "Talk me off a ledge" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that her daughter has been offered a full scholarship to East Stroudsburg University and even though she has been accepted by more prestigious universities — though without aid — she is considering accepting the scholarship. The original poster does not appear to be very impressed by the university and cannot find any information about its outcomes for pre-health (e.g. pre-med) studies which her daughter plans to pursue. The original poster is worried that choosing this school will limit her daughter's chances for graduate school and professional opportunities. She asks that others help her gain some perspective. This is a situation over which the college admissions fantasy league players salivate because they can not only game out undergraduate admissions, but graduate admissions as well. Most of them simply requested more information about other schools that accepted the student. A number of posters suggested giving the school a chance and possibly transferring later. Quite a few other posters thought that East Stroudsburg might be an ideal choice. The original poster's daughter could hopefully stand out as a big fish in a small pond, earn a high grade point average, and be a great candidate for medical school. Moreover, not paying for undergraduate studies will leave money for graduate school. Later in the thread, the original poster says that anyone who reads the college forum generally would understand her concerns. This alludes to the fixation most of the forum's posters have on top universities. There seems to be a conviction among many of the forum's posters that failing to attend a school within the top 50 is a sign of failure. Another concern about East Stroudsburg that some posters had was not about the academics, but rather the social aspects of the school. These posters thought that the relatively small non-commuter student body and the perceived caliber of students that attend could have a significant impact compared to the atmosphere at other schools. Several posters strongly rejected the idea of attending a school such as ESU. For the most part these posters did not explain their reasoning, perhaps believing the explanation was self-evident, but they were very adement that paying for another university would be better than attending ESU for free.

Yesterday the most active thread was the Travis and Taylor thread that I've already discussed and will therefore skip today. The second was a thread about a two-hour delay in opening Montgomery County Public Schools yesterday. However, that thread was started with only a link — a violation of DCUM guidelines — and was simply 12 pages of posters complaining about the delay. It is no longer relevant and combined with the link-only first post, I decided to delete it rather than discuss it. That left the first thread to be discussed today to one titled, "The Senate passed a $95.3 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This aid package has had a long and complicated history. The Biden Administration originally requested significant aid to Ukraine as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, which Congress considered toward the end of last year. Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed the assistance unless it was accompanied by an immigration bill strengthening border security. As a result, the NDAA was eventually passed with only a small assistance package for Ukraine and a bipartisan group of Senators began negotiating an immigration bill that could be part of a larger aid package. This month, Republican Senator James Lankford announced that he had achieved bipartisan agreement on such a bill, but former President Donald Trump immediately announced his opposition to the bill because he would rather have border security be an issue during the presidential campaign. Reflecting Trump's influence, almost all Republicans — even some of those who had helped negotiate the bill — announced opposition to it. Ultimately only 4 Republicans would vote in favor of the legislation which failed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Senators then pulled the foreign assistance package from the combined immigration/foreign assistance bill and voted on it separately. This thread was started after passage of that legislation. However, the bill must now return to the House for passage in that chamber. House Republicans, who had joined Trump's opposition to the bipartisan Senate immigration legislation and rejected immigration reform, are now demanding that immigration reform be part of the bill. This reflects two 180 degree flips in the House Republican position since December. House Republicans face a number of challenges that are preventing them from producing any serious legislation. First, the caucus has a laser-thin majority which will become one seat less after the winner of yesterday's special election to fill the seat of disgraced Republicans Congressman George Santos is sworn in. This, combined with an insistance by Republican hardliners that important legislation be passed with a Republican majority rather than reliance on Democrats, makes a bill of this nature almost impossible to pass. Several Republicans outright reject any further aid to Ukraine and, like Trump, seem to have no concern about Russia taking over Ukraine. So, there just aren't enough Republican votes and passing such a bill with Democratic votes would likely result in the ouster of House Speaker Mike Johnson. Johnson, rather than risk his speakership or see the aid bill defeated by Republicans, prefers to cloud the issue with demands for immigration reform. The result will likely be a stalemate unless the defense industrial complex, with its eye on billions of dollars, can convince Johnson and his Republican colleagues to have a change of heart.

Yesterday a lot of the activity involved threads that I've already discussed. The top three most active threads of the day were ones that I'll skip today because they have appeared in past blogs. Those were the Travis and Taylor, Gaza war, and Super Bowl Halftime threads. Therefore, the first thread that I will discuss today was actually yesterday's fourth most active. Titled, "About to Jump Off a Ledge Over Upcoming MIL Visit, Please Talk Me Down" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum, the original poster writes in a very lengthy post about her distress with an upcoming visit by her mother-in-law. Apparently her mother-in-law just left after a three week long visit and is planning to return soon for another lengthy stay. According to the original poster, her mother-in-law, who is from another country, is very overbearing and controlling. When she visits, she basically takes over the house, redecorating, moving things around, and undertaking tasks that the original poster has asked her not to. The mother-in-law has a frightening personality and most of the original poster's family is afraid of her. The original poster's husband is no help and does nothing to alleviate the situation. Posters offer a lot of advice, but it is mostly things that the original poster has already tried such as simply ignoring her mother-in-law or spending more time outside the house, or suggestions that are easier said that done such as demanding that her husband set limits or "growing a backbone". Several posters argue that the original poster should become much more assertive and willing to set limits for her mother-in-law, or in lieu of that, act passive aggressively to make her visit uncomfortable. Others suggest that the problem is not the mother-in-law, but rather the original poster's husband. His refusal to support the original poster and push back against his mother is a significant hurdle for the original poster. As things stand, the original poster does not think that there is any certainty that, forced to chose between his wife and his mother, her husband would choose her. As a result, she is considering divorce. While divorce is normally the solution recommended by DCUM posters for almost anything, the idea received some pushback in this case with posters recommending less extreme solutions. One idea was to rent an AirBNB, either for the original poster or, even better, for her mother-in-law. But, ultimately, divorce was the solution proposed by some posters, especially those who have been in the original poster's situation themselves.

Yesterday's most active threads had a distinctly political slant with three of the four top threads dealing with political topics. The first of those was titled, "Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As the title makes clear, this thread is focused on yesterday's oral arguments before the Supreme Court as it reviewed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the presidential primary ballot. Several of the posters were listening to a live stream of the proceedings and then posting their immediate reactions. Mixed in with those posts were questions, statements, and opinions from other posters. Almost everyone was pessimistic that the Court would keep Trump off the ballot, they only disagreed about why the justices would make such a decision. Explanations ran the gamut from such a decision being legally and morally justified to it being the result of a corrupt and bought-off court. One of the issues that both the justices and and posters debated was whether removing Trump from the ballot would result in Republican states removing Democratic candidates in the future. While many posters saw this as a realistic possibility, they were frustrated by the suggestion that removing Trump for a real reason — provoking an insurrection — would result in Democrats being removed for manufactured reasons. One poster responded to this discussion by writing, "If Trump murdered someone and we sent him to jail for it, would that open the floodgates to accusations that Democrats committed murder even if they never killed anyone?" Both the justices and DCUM posters agreed that potential problems could be avoided if the Court defined what is or is not an "insurrection", but justices made their reluctance to do such a thing clear. Posters also critiqued a distinction that some justices attempted to make between an officer vs an office. Ironically, given that this case hinges squarely on Trump's involvement in an insurrection, the Court mostly stayed away from addressing the insurrection or Trump's involvement. Not only did the Court shy away from suggestions that it define "insurrection", but despite the wish of many posters that the Court decide whether or not Trump engaged in an insurrection, that is not the role of the Court in this instance and there were no attempts to address that question. Several posters expressed consternation that Justice Clarence Thomas had not recused himself from this case due to his wife's involvement in the January 6 insurrection. To them this exemplified both Thomas' corruption and the larger Court's illegitimacy.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "UMD EA Results" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. I've written several recent blog posts on topics dealing college "Early Decision" admissions. But, that admissions round has passed and colleges are on to "Early Action" which is something entirely different. Students can only submit a single Early Decision application and must commit to attending the school if accepted. Early Action has neither of those restrictions but has the advantage of receiving an admissions decision earlier in the cycle than regular admissions. This thread is about Early Action decisions from the University of Maryland. However, the results being reported in the thread have a twist. Rather than being accepted for the Fall of 2024 as would be expected, many posters report being accepted for the Spring of 2025 or, in some cases, the Spring of 2026. Posters are understandably confused about this. Other posters note that these students will be eligible for UMD's "Freshmen Connection" program which allows students who are accepted for the Spring semester to live on campus and take classes in the preceding Fall. There is some discussion about the purpose of Freshmen Connection and I don't think there was ever an adequate explanation. Some posters suggested it is a way to manipulate admissions statistics. Posters whose kids went through the program praised it and assured those being offered the option that there is no stigma or other negative connotation attached to it. Other posters received admission for the Fall of 2024 and much of that discussion was about the specific program to which the students had been admitted. UMD seems to have a host of Living-Learning Programs which group students with specific interests together. This includes the Honors College and something called FIRE to which several posters reported being admitted. As always in admissions results threads such as these, there are posters who are thrilled because their kids were accepted and those who are disappointed because their children were not. Rejections normally generate complaints about the admissions process, in this case there was anger that in-state students are not being prioritized over out-of-state applicants. Both those accepted and those rejected were asked to provide statistics which were then analyzed as posters attempted to read the tea leaves for any insight into admissions decisions. Offers for merit aid or other assistance come later in the process which somewhat spoiled the news of acceptance for many because they were not sure what attendance would cost them. Every university discussed in the forum attracts haters and UMD is no exception. Though, in this case, the most vocal critic mostly bashed it for the quality of its housing, especially off-campus housing. Coinciding with the criticism was a discussion lamenting that UMD's prestige is not widely recognized outside Maryland.