DCUM Weblog

Yesterday's most active thread was one I didn't even know about until this morning. Yet, it managed to reach 17 pages in just one day. Titled, "Check your phone at the door" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum, the original poster says that she noticed in other threads that some parents have a policy of having their children's friends leave their phones at the door when they come over. The original poster thinks such a policy would be appealing and encourage socializing rather than having all the kids sitting around staring at their phones. I would have never guessed that this would turn out to be such a controversial topic. Several posters say that they would be offended if their child were asked to turn over their phone and that they would expect their child to refuse. These parents can't fathom not having the ability to immediately get in touch with their kids. One poster goes so far as to suspect that parents with such policies plan on abusing her child. Other parents either have such policies or see the benefits of them. One parent seems fixated on porn and appears convinced that if she didn't take the kids' phones, they would all be watching porn in her basement. Another parent describes having her child's friend video a tour of her home and then put it on TikTok. One irony I noticed is a number of instances in which phones were confiscated, but other screen-oriented activities such as video games or movies were allowed. I am not sure that exchanging Instagram or TikTok for Grand Theft Auto really encourages socializing, But, my main takeaway from this thread is that there are a significant number of parents who consider it essential that their children have their phones with them at all times. More than one parent described buying their children Apple Watches so that they could still be in touch even if phones had to be turned over.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Having an overweight teenage daughter is so hard" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster is venting because her 16-year-old daughter is overweight and getting heavier day by day. The poster makes clear that she has not said anything to her daughter about this, but is concerned because her daughter gets very little exercise and, despite eating healthy food, has gone up 4 pants sizes in the past year. The original poster is very discouraged and not sure what, if anything, to do. One of the first things I learned after we started DCUM is how much the first response in a new thread can influence the resulting discussion. Another unhelpful phenomenon is a negative poster who joins the thread early and insists on contributing endlessly. This thread suffered from both of these blights. Not only the first, but also the second response were nearly identical suggestions that the original poster should herself get therapy. I thought that both responses were inappropriate due their implication that the original poster's concern was not valid. Moreover, one of the two posters turned out to be one of those who treats a DCUM thread the way a starved pitbull might treat a raw steak. Once she got her teeth into it, there was no way she was letting go. So, while other posters offered the original poster support and advice for how best to address the situation, this poster continued to focus her acrimony on the original poster. Thirteen pages in, she was still repeating the same criticisms of the original poster that she posted on the first page. As a result, the thread is as much a debate about the original poster as it is a discussion her daughter's weight gain. Weight, especially a woman's weight, is an extremely touchy subject on DCUM at the best of times. Add in an argumentative poster like the one I've described and it is no surprise that the thread was the most active of the day.

The most active topic yesterday was titled "Son pledging there’s definitely hazing" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she is a nervous wreck because her son has described "pretty bad" hazing during his pledging for a fraternity. I am not completely confident that this post is totally legitimate. The original poster is very sparse with any sort of details and while she asks for advice, doesn't really seem very interested in any that is offered. Several of the posters who responded suggested contacting the university's administration to report the hazing and many warned of the dangers hazing presents. Others advised the original poster to stay out of it because her son is old enough to make his own decisions in such matters. This led to some discussion of the mental development of 18 years olds. A few responses suggested joining ROTC which posters argued offers some of the same camaraderie of frats and any physical stress would be for a good cause. The thread is full of horror stories about fraternities and warnings to steer clear of them. On the other hand, responders argued that the original poster's son should simply try a different frat that might offer a better pledging experience.

The most active topic yesterday was titled, "anyone else strongly consider leaving due to garbage US healthcare?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster details her frustrating experience trying to determine whether her health insurance will cover a sleep study that was prescribed by her doctor. After several runarounds and hours on the phone, she has been unable to find an answer. In contrast, she describes an incident involving her sister-in-law who suffered a broken arm while travelling in Thailand. Her sister-in-law received excellent care and was only charged $300 even without insurance. Due to the aggravating situation with healthcare in the United States, the original poster is strongly considering moving abroad and asks whether others have similar thoughts. Many posters reply saying that they have great health insurance and never have problems accessing care, and therefore, would not consider leaving the US. Other posters suggest that the original poster's view of foreign healthcare systems may be overly rosy and predict that she couldn't easy get a sleep study in other countries. However, a smattering of those responding also express disappointment with US healthcare and are considering leaving, though their reasons for doing so generally extend beyond healthcare. For the most part, the responses reflect the stratified access to healthcare that exists in the US. Those with financial means get the care that they desire. The poor probably wouldn't even consider a sleep study and primarily rely on the emergency room for care. In the middle is where the US offers a mixed bag, with patients facing hurdles and frustrations such as the original poster has described.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Our Current Situation - Not thrilled" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster describes her child's qualifications and lists the current state of several college applications which include one deferral and several acceptances. In addition, the student is still waiting to hear from a number of other universities. The original poster describes herself as not thrilled with the situation because apparently her expectations exceded the current results. This thread was reported as a troll thread and several accusations of trolling were posted almost immediately. One reason for this is that the original poster switched the gender of the child in the first post, at times describing the child as male and at other times referring to the child as "her". The original poster subsequently blamed this on a typo. I suspect that this is not trolling exactly, but rather the case of an over-anxious parent who has probably started multiple threads and is either trying to prevent posters from making the connection to earlier threads or has some sort of privacy concern that the poster believes can be alleviated by hiding her child's true gender. Despite the concerns over trolling, this thread reach 10 pages which, frankly, I don't have interest in reading. I know from experience that posters in this forum love to nitpick college admissions and I expect that whatever anxieties the original poster may have been feeling at the beginning of the thread were probably doubled by the end of it.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Accused of racial bias at work by someone, and I feel sick over it" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster provides a long and detailed description of what appears to be an innocent interaction that resulted in her being accused of racial bias. The original poster feels strongly that the allegation is wrong and is very upset about it. She asks how others would handle the situation. There are a range of responses running from suggestions that the original poster simply ignore it to advice to contact the accuser and try to resolve things. Some posters criticize the original poster for being overly emotional. A few of those who respond agree that the original poster was guilty of racial bias, though the facts that were presented do not support such a conclusion. Much of the the thread is devoted to analyzing the details provided by the original poster and drawing conclusions about where mistakes had been made. Some posters conclude that gender rather than racial bias may have played the greater role.

The most active thread yesterday was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. titled, "Florida bans AP African-American Studies course from schools", the original poster links to a New York Times article reporting what is described in the thread's title. Briefly, the Florida Department of Education rejected an Advanced Placement (AP) high school curriculum because, the Departement claimed, the course is historically inaccurate and violates Florida law. The Departement did not explain which law the class violates or which parts were inaccurate. Last year Florida passed a law prohibiting teaching many race-related topics including those that might cause feelings of guilt or distress among students. While the law has been named the "Stop W.O.K.E Act", it might better be termed the "Snowflake Act" given its implication that Florida students have very tender feelings. Predictably, discussion in this thread basically consists of liberals condemning Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the Departement of Education's action and conservatives lining up in defense. There is clearly a desire among some conservatives to return to a completely whitewashed version of American history that focuses solely on white Americans. Such views are reflected by posters asking why a class focused on African-American studies exists in the first place. I think the dilemma faced by posters who attempt to debate topics like this in good faith — regardless of political perspective — is that decisions like this are not made in good faith, but rather on the basis of raw politics. So, posters devote lots of effort to researching and explaining detailed substantive arguments while DeSantis, with his supporters' encouragement, is acting with all the nuance and sophistication of a caveman with a club. Both detractors and supporters of Florida's ban who attempt to intelectualize this debate are on a completely different wavelength than DeSantis who cares nothing about ideas, history, or law, but only about politics.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Alec Baldwin now charged with involuntary manslaughter by New Mexico authorities" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. A few days ago, someone started a thread in the "Website Feedback" forum asking which topics were the most popular. I checked and found that Hilaria Baldwin topics were the most popular. As this thread — which reached 12 pages in less than a day — demonstrates, her husband is a similarly popular topic for discussion. This thread discusses charges lodged against Hilaria Baldwin's husband arising from an incident on set of "Rust" in which Hilaria's husband fired what he believed to be harmless prop gun and killed Halyna Hutchins, the movie's director of photography. Posters are divided between whether these are delayed but warranted charges or the act of an overzealous prosecutor. Many posters compare the incident to former Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of a hunting companion. Not only was Cheney not charged, the shooting victim actually apologized to him. While the details of this tragic event are of course important, posters were also eager to discuss how Hilaria was dressed and how many times she appeared before the camera. Her unzipped coat came under particular scrutiny. I would guess that we are only a few hours away from a poster suggesting that Hilaria arranged the shooting as an opportunity to get media exposure.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Private Schools Wokeness Over the Top" and posted in the "Private/Independent Schools" forum. The topic of "wokeness" in schools in general and private schools in particular has been well-covered but those interested in the topic never seem to tire of it. This thread managed to reach 19 pages in less than a day. As the title suggests, the original poster is concerned about "wokeness" in private schools. The original poster admits that since her children are young, she hasn't experienced any of the things about which she is worried. Nevertheless, she feels lost and not sure where she fits in. The poster, who describes herself as "Muslim" and "Arab" and explicitly attributes her views on imperialism to her ethnicity condemns identity politics while simultaneously engaging in it. Moreover, as early as the first page of the thread, the original poster prefaced one of her posts by saying, "Not OP but...". I am not sure whether the original poster identifies as a sock puppet, but the label would appear to fit. The original poster's primary gripe about "wokeness" is that, in her understanding at least, it ignores class. I am not sure why the original poster is surprised that institutions that charge more per year than most people can afford to spend on a car and for whom a primary selling point is the opportunity to avoid public school riffraff are not focused on class. Then again, I don't know why a poster who proclaims herself a staunch proponent of mass solidarity would be interested in the selective environments of private schools in the first place. The original poster goes on to provide reductive and simplistic interpretations of the writings of progressive authors which she criticizes as being reductive and simplistic. Eventually this thread got hijacked by debates about transgender people and Barri Weiss. So, a discussion that wasn't that interesting to begin with got even worse. I suspect that I'll need to lock this thread before long.

Leaving out threads that have already been discussed, the most active thread yesterday was titled, "Question for those opposed to legacy status" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The poster poses several questions to those who oppose legacy preferences for college admissions. When I read this post I thought that the original poster must not understand the topic of legacy admissions because the poster seemed oblivious to what legacy preferences provide. The first poster to respond to the thread seemed to be thinking along the same lines, beginning the post, "Not rocket science." For the benefit of those who, like the original poster, may be confused about this topic, a legacy preference is a preference given to college applicants who have a parent that attended the institution. This is often seen as a type of affirmative action for the wealthy, white, and well-connected. While the original poster seems to believe that responses to legacy admissions would be complex and potentially unworkable, opponents of legacy preferences view the issue quite simply: just ignore legacy status. This thread is 10 pages long and I don't have time to read much of it. But, from what I have seen, most of those responding oppose legacy preferences. Many explanations are offered to explain what is wrong with the practice. The only defense of legacy admissions that I noticed was sort of half-hearted, just pointing out that universities rely on alumni for fundraising and wondering how that might be impacted. Essentially, it looks like the original poster lobbed a softball directly over the plate and posters couldn't wait to step up and hit it out of the park. Hence, lots of responses mostly saying the same thing.