Monday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday, the Blake Lively thread was once again the most active thread of the day. I've already talked about that thread far too much and won't discuss it further today. After that was a thread titled, "Elon is coming for social security", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. One of the threads about which I wrote yesterday discussed Shadow President Elon Musk's accusations about fraud in entitlements and suggested that Musk might try to cut entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This thread is focused on new allegations that Musk made regarding Social Security. One of the biggest problems with Musk and DOGE is that neither Musk nor his DOGE tech bros know much about the government, let alone complex programs such as Social Security. They don't bother to learn, but still assume that they know everything. This has resulted in numerous obvious and amateurish mistakes. The latest is a tweet by Musk showing breakdowns by age of Social Security database entries. Musk strongly implies that millions of people over 100 years old are receiving Social Security checks with the further implication that this is evidence of fraud. Musk's first error — or perhaps intentional misrepresentation — is that the data only reflects entries in the database, not who is actually receiving checks. It is one thing to show that an allegedly 150-year-old exists in the database, but it is quite another to show that such a person is being paid. Musk hasn't done the latter. Moreover, this exact topic was previously the subject of an Office of Inspector General report in 2023. That report cited the issue that Musk highlighted, but also determined that payments to those whose ages appeared unlikely were not a problem. Rather, it found credible explanations for the discrepancies. One example of how entries such as those Musk highlighted come to exist was explained by a poster in the thread. That poster's grandmother had a Social Security number because she worked during World War II. However, she died in 1951 before she collected any Social Security benefits. Because there was no computerized database back then, her death was not recorded by Social Security. As a result, she is probably one of the 115-year-olds included in Musk's data. Another poster presented data showing that the number of Social Security recipients over 100 years of age is less than the number of Americans older than 100 known to be alive. Widespread fraud simply doesn't exist in this regard. However, the threat that Musk's misleading presentation of data presents is evident by the reaction of Muskovites in the thread. They accept Musk's findings at face value and ignore all suggestions that he might be wrong. Where this is all going is pretty clear. Musk uses his social media network to publicize false allegations suggesting widespread fraud, his supporters all believe him, which provides political support for cuts to Social Security based on the justification that fraud is being eliminated. But since fraud has not even been identified, let alone eliminated, Social Security will be left insufficiently funded and benefit cuts will be required.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum. Titled, "Elementary parents, pay attention to start times", the original poster says that Fairfax County Public Schools is considering changing the school start time for middle schools and that this will affect the start times for elementary schools and high schools. The original poster warns that one proposal would have elementary school kids start close to 10:00 a.m. and get out of school after 4:30 p.m., a schedule that she finds unacceptable. The original poster notes that all communications from FCPS about the schedule changes have been presented as "middle school schedule changes" and, as such, parents of elementary school kids might not be paying attention. The original poster, therefore, warns others that they should understand that schedule changes will affect all ages. While the original poster is correct that many parents appear not to have been paying attention, many others were. Moreover, quite a few of them don't agree with the original poster that the proposed changes are bad. To the contrary, many posters would welcome a later start for elementary schools. This discussion follows the same course as many school discussions in that the vast majority of posters are focused on their own personal interests rather than the larger picture. As a result, most suggestions for schedules simply reflect what is best for the poster making the proposal. Because this discussion is focused on elementary schools, posters say that they want what is best for kids of that age. However, they can't agree on exactly what that is. The discussion is also informed by what is best for the parents. If a proposed change interferes with a poster's commute to work, for instance, the poster is likely to oppose the change. As I understand it, the main factor impacting school start times in FCPS is the availability of buses. FCPS is a geographically large county, and buses are a heavily utilized method of transporting kids to school. The buses deliver one age group to school, circle back for another age group, and then finally get the third. This forces staggered school opening times. The proposed change in the middle school schedule creates a domino effect impacting elementary and high schools. A concern that is repeatedly cited by posters is that the later schedule being proposed for elementary schools will interfere with after-school activities. Others are worried that the late schedule will result in kids walking home from school or their bus stops in the dark. Regardless of what FCPS ends up doing, it is clear that it will be impossible to please everyone. There will be some disappointed parents no matter what.

Next was a thread titled, "Elder Euthanasia May Be Next" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster highlights a quote by Shadow President Elon Musk in which he says, "I don't think we should try to have people live for a really long time" and goes on to argue that people don't change their minds and that if old people don't die, we are stuck with their old ideas. The original poster suggests, therefore, that Musk might support a federal program for elder euthanasia as part of his cost-cutting efforts. One sentiment that I have seen growing among DCUM posters over the years is resentment of older people. "Boomers" have been blamed for a host of societal ills from preventing professional advancement by younger folks due to their refusal to retire and high housing prices by continuing to live in homes that younger people would like to buy. While many of these posters would be satisfied if the aging boomers simply retired to a condo in Florida, the idea of simply killing them appears to be something that many are willing to consider. As one poster puts it, "We cannot as a society sustain unproductive people. It’s a waste a financial resources and consumptive of physical resources...people need to be allowed to die, not kept around consuming resources." However, this poster, as well as the original poster, seem to be making a different argument than Musk was quoted as making. This argument is one of distribution of resources. The question is whether people who are currently not productive and are unlikely to ever be productive be allowed to consume an abnormally high amount of resources? The quoted poster clearly thinks not. But Musk's opposition to the elderly, at least as we can tell by what the original poster quoted, was not based on finances, but rather what he believes to be their stagnant thinking. It is true that progress can only occur with change and, therefore, change is essential to advancement. Anyone who desires progress should support change. But what Musk may fail to realize is that change is not inherently good, and not all old ideas are bad. If I can coin an expression, we must have the courage to change but the wisdom to know when not to. Musk clearly fulfills the first requirement, but not necessarily the second. I would also argue that the "resource" posters are similarly limited in their thinking. How exactly is productivity measured? Does productivity include passing on the wisdom that comes with age? Does it include providing comfort and love? The value of many elderly family members may not be measured in dollars and cents, but it can still be considerable. More to the point, will Musk's willingness to allow the elderly to die impact how he approaches increasing the efficiency of government? For instance, will he be more willing to cut Social Security or Medicare even if that negatively impacts lifespans simply because he doesn't think the elderly should continue living? Beyond the question of what Musk may or may not do, much of this thread is devoted to debating legal euthanasia, such as the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program in Canada. Some posters are concerned that such programs tend to be used to eliminate the poor who have fewer resources. Ironically, that is exactly the advantage seen by the proponent that I quoted above.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Test optional over", the original poster linked to a letter written by Craig Trainor, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. Trainor provides very strong guidance to university officials that racial discrimination in any form, including using non-racial factors as a proxy for race, will not be tolerated. For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, the original poster interprets this letter as prohibiting test-optional admissions. When asked to clarify how he arrived at this conclusion, the original poster quoted a portion of the letter that says, "It would, for instance, be unlawful for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity." As several posters immediately pointed out, test-optional policies do not eliminate standardized testing; they only make tests optional. Beyond that, colleges and universities can have a number of reasons unrelated to race and diversity for choosing to be test-optional or not to require tests at all. This thread very quickly divided into two parties. One consisted of posters who are convinced that college and university admissions have been biased against White and Asian applicants. These posters believe that schools have been giving Black and Hispanic applicants preference even when they had weaker applications. This group rejects the entire notion of holistic admissions, believing that it is nothing other than an elaborate ruse to justify accepting lower-performing minorities. They argue that standardized admissions tests are the best indicator of student caliber. The second party in this thread was made up of posters who believe that considerable discrimination exists when it comes to college applications, but that bias is against minorities. For instance, legacy admissions strongly favors White and wealthy applicants. Many posters argue that the letter and the federal government's stance is such that the acceptance of any Black or Hispanic students will result in suspicion of the institution that accepted them. As one poster says, "The administration couldn’t be clearer: admitting students of color to elite schools is going to be treated as prima facie evidence of unlawful discrimination against whites." At the root of the division demonstrated in this thread are different conceptions of what constitutes the "best" college student. For some, that is almost entirely indicated by performance on standardized tests. For others, demonstrating a breadth of abilities is more important than a single, strong skill. What might be considered a compromise position was suggested by a poster identifying himself as a chair and professor at a top research university. That poster suggested that universities require a minimum standardized test score that is used simply to screen applicants. After that initial screening, the review and selection would be based on the rest of the application.