Friday's Most Active Posts

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 next thread was titled, "Custody Schedule - School year vs. Summer" and posted in the "Parenting -- Special Concerns" forum. The original poster asks whether others have had success getting a judge to approve a custody schedule in which a child spends the school year with one parent and summer break with the other parent. The original poster feels that her child needs this sort of stability and consistency. I believe this is the first thread from the Special Concerns forum to make one of these blog posts and, when I saw its length, I assumed that a fight of some kind must have broken out. But, no, it appears that the forum is simply full of jaded veterans of custody battles who are determined to educate the original poster as to the stark reality of her situation. Based on their experience, the original poster will be lucky to escape with anything better than the worst possible scenario. The thread is basically a text book example of how posters can provide "tough love" without being mean or unsupportive. I can't say that the original poster was especially welcoming of the feedback, but it was probably helpful to hear of others' experiences. To be sure, some posters describe experiences that worked out similar to that for which the original poster is hoping, but generally the advice was not all that encouraging.

Next was a thread posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum titled, "If your kid still masks at school....". The original poster of this thread says that her 8-year-old daughter still wears a mask at school because they have medically-vulnerable family members. The poster asks whether those whose children still mask also wear masks at home birthday parties and, if others were hosting a birthday party, whether they would be offended by a child wearing a mask. As you can guess, responses include many different opinions. Some posters don't allow their children to attend birthday parties and, hence, avoid the issue entirely. Others say their children do wear masks at parties. Many posters describe hosting parties at which some children wore masks, which in some cases were removed for eating. Several posters reminded that removing a mask to eat or drink nullified the protection offered by a mask. Generally posters said they would not be offended by a child wearing a mask. However, in a surprisingly high number of cases, posters said they would no longer invite children who masked for playdates or other parties. In some cases, these posters went to great lengths to justify why they would exclude children simply for wearing a mask. Probably a majority of those responding — including a number whose children don't mask — respected that others might have reasons for wearing a mask and didn't question the practice. However, for some others, masks clearly have a symbolic importance that far exceeds any practical value. These posters often suggested alternatives to having children wear masks, something they clearly want to discourage.

The final thread at which I'll look today was titled, "Out of Curiosity… What are the most caucasian neighborhoods/pyramids?" and posted in the "Real Estate" forum. I am a bit hesitant about including this thread today because I may end up deleting it. The racial connotations of the thread are troubling. The original poster assures that she is not interested in moving to such a place, but out of curiosity wonders which areas have the highest prevalence of caucasian families. Some posters objected to this thread because they considered it to be racist and I received several reports asking that the thread be removed. Generally, those responding took the original poster at face value and responded by naming areas that are heavily white. Other posters were more skeptical of the original poster's motives and there is some debate about the appropriateness of the thread. While many who objected to the the thread believed that it demonstrated a bias against non-whites, others suggested that it could be listing neighborhoods to avoid. At that point, things went full circle with a poster adamantly claiming this was anti-white bias. So, ultimately it appears tha the real victims of mostly white areas are white people who risk being spurned by others.