Monday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Why do so many idiots ask to switch seats on planes these days?" and was posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. The original poster says that he will not change seats so that another traveler can sit together with their spouse or kids. The poster says that he ordered a special meal and if he switched seats, it would create difficulties getting the correct meal to him. The original poster goes on to complain that "morons" don't book seats together in the first place. He concludes, "Just sit in your own damn seat people and shut up." This is a strangly hostile post for such a common and rather mundane interaction. Calling people "idiots" and "morons" seems pretty over the top. As several posters point out, families often end up separated through no fault of their own. Flights get cancelled and, despite booking seats together — and paying extra for them — travelers get rebooked into seats they did not request and which are not together. Sometimes even when passengers are willing to pay more, seats together simply aren't available. The original poster assumes that passengers are intentionally not booking seats together and, therefore, it is their fault that they are separated. But as countless posts explain, that is not always the case. Two different posters described booking three seats together but then having their planes changed to other models. They were offered two seats in an exit row and one elsewhere in the plane. Since kids can't sit in exit rows, their young children (one was four) would be expected to sit far from their parents. But the original poster's reaction to this and other posts was to say, "Boo hoo. It's not my problem as a passenger who may have picked their seat." The issue here is not whose problem it is, but basic civility and kindness. Many posters expressed a willingness to make reasonable accommodations. For instance, an aisle seat for an aisle seat or, even better, a middle seat for an aisle. Other posters describe how they have had other passengers switch with them so that they could sit with their children. But the original poster was not swayed in the least. The original poster's attitude was so unreasonable that I began to suspect the poster was actually trolling. I came across a post in another thread from the same poster that complained that Americans are no longer courteous. The original poster concluded that post by saying "Everyone in the US is all about I got mine and F you these days." This is a perfect description of the original poster himself, though I am not sure he has the self-awareness to recognize that.

The next most active thread yesterday was the one that I discussed yesterday about California. My opinion was that it is a useless thread that nobody should waste time reading. I guess my advice was ignored. After that was a thread posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "How is Sorority Rush going?", the original poster says that her daughter will attend Indiana University next year and hopes to rush for a sorority. She wants to know how things are going this year. Greek life is often a controversial topic on DCUM and this thread has very mixed opinions on the topic. In general, rushing (something that neither I nor my kids did) sounds like a terrible experience. Posters describe very competitive environments in which most kids strive for very limited places in the top houses and are then devastated when they don't get a bid. Then the same kids turn around and reject bids from houses in which they believe the women are beneath them. Obviously, this situation draws lots of criticism and many posters have very negative attitudes about fraternities and sororities. Several posters describe their own terrible experience rushing and their desires for their daughters to avoid it. Nevertheless, in many cases, the daughters still plan to rush. Some posters strongly disliked rushing, but seem to view it as almost a rite of passage which was ultimately worthwhile. In some cases, posters are very happy about their own sorority experiences which they now value and they encourage others to pursue it. Throughout the thread, posters emphasized that the top houses required "hooks" which could include being wealthy, pretty, or well-connected to others in the house. Being a legacy or having a high school acquaintance who is a member could pay significant dividends. To my surprise, Instagram feeds apparently play an important role in whether someone will or won't be selected. Alternatively, a large number of posters praised "mid-tier" houses that often were more accessible and frequently led to good experiences, often better than what a top house might have provided. I don't think anyone mentioned joining a low-tier house, though several described rejecting bids from them. There is one really amazing post in this thread. I won't tell you what it is, but you have to read it to believe it.

Next was a thread titled, "Changed my mind about wanting a pet" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that before she got married, she told her then fiancé that she would be okay living with his cat. She wasn't thrilled with the idea of the cat, but she realized how much he loved it. The cat is currently temporarily living with her now-husband's parents. In the meantime, she has changed her mind and now does not want to live with the cat. Her husband keeps asking whether he can bring the cat home, and she has been postponing it. She wants to know if she is being unreasonable. I can summarize this thread very easily by saying that almost everyone, including posters who don't like cats, thinks she is being unreasonable. I didn't read every post, but I read a lot of them, and I am pretty sure that there is not a single post supporting her. The original poster followed up a couple of times, rejecting the opinions that she was wrong, and then disappeared. The attitude of the original poster was so bad that the thread inspired, not one, but two threads in the "Website Feedback" forum asking whether the original poster was a troll. I didn't see any indication that she was a troll. Posters were bothered that the original poster was trying a "bait and switch," which they thought was a major red flag for the relationship. Moreover, many argued that because cats are fairly low-maintenance, she was being particularly unreasonable. I was surprised by how universal the agreement was that the original poster was wrong. That apparently unanimous opinion may have led to the original poster's early departure from the thread.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Carrie Underwood to perform 'America the Beautiful' at Trump inauguration", the original poster is disappointed in Carrie Underwood for agreeing to sing at the inauguration of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Generally, liberal posters in this thread are, like the original poster, upset with Underwood. Some intend to "cancel" her going forward. However, I suspect that many of them are in the same situation that I am in that there is nothing available to cancel. I guess that I can boycott the introduction to Sunday Night Football, but the season is over and I don't know if she will be back next year. On the other hand, many of the MAGA posters are happy that she will perform and critical of the liberals who want to cancel her. This is another example of the MAGA version of free speech. According to them, conservatives should be able to express themselves with no practical limitations. However, liberals are not similarly able to engage in free speech by criticizing MAGAs. To the contrary, any free expression by liberals that is critical of MAGAs is considered an infringement of MAGA speech. The result is that discussions like this often start off by a liberal criticizing a conservative and end up with both sides accusing the other of not allowing free expression. In the middle of these two groups are posters who say they don't like Trump, but argue that Underwood is singing in support of the institution of the Presidency and in support of the United States. Therefore, they argue, this is not an expression of support for Trump, but rather support for America. This, they say, is evidenced by her choice to sing "America the Beautiful". But some posters fixate on another Underwood song, "Before He Cheats", which describes taking revenge on a cheater. These posters suggest that song is a better fit for Trump who famously has cheated on all three of his wives and was convicted in a cover-up of his hush-money payments to adult movie star Stormy Daniels.