Monday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was the thread about the Super Bowl, which I discussed in yesterday's blog post. Skipping that one today, the next most active thread was titled, "Snow Day next Tuesday?" and was posted in the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum. A little further down in the list of most active threads was another thread on a similar topic. Titled, "Predictions Snow Feb 11?", it was posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. Rather than discussing the two threads separately, I'll combine them. Both of these threads were created several days ago, Thursday for the Fairfax County Public Schools thread and Friday for the Montgomery County Public Schools thread. Both were created in response to predictions of snow beginning today. The early predictions said that there could be as much as 8 inches of snow falling, though more current expectations top out at 6 inches with as little as 3 inches being possible. Needless to say, predictions of any snow at all are enough to cause panic among parents of school-aged kids. As I have documented in previous blog posts about school snow days, school systems simply cannot win. Regardless of their decisions, there will be critics. Also, no matter the timing of their announcements, that will also be criticized. These threads were among the most active yesterday for slightly different reasons. FCPS announced that it would close all schools three hours early today. True to form, one poster immediately declared this "the worst of all possibilities." MCPS, on the other hand, didn't make any announcement other than to say that no decision had been made. In some ways, this was even more frustrating to posters who were left almost unable to criticize the decision other than to point out how out of character it was for MCPS. But I was careful to say that posters were "almost" unable to criticize the decision because some did find a way. Those were posters who felt that MCPS should have followed the lead of FCPS and announced an early dismissal. Some of these posters are worried that MCPS might make a late call to close early, which, these posters argue, would make things even worse. The inability of school systems to please everyone is very evident by the juxtaposition of these two threads. Both are filled with posters criticizing the school systems' decisions despite those decisions being the opposite of each other.

Yesterday's next most active thread was the Blake Lively thread, which has entered the stage of posters arguing about things that they have already argued about several times, and other posters complaining about the discussion being repetitive. After that was a thread posted in the "Diet and Exercise" forum. Titled, "Unpopular opinion: weight loss drugs are for everyone!", the original poster's opinion is actually not that unpopular. To the contrary, it is fairly popular, at least in this forum. The original poster does have an interesting take on this topic, however. She says that she has never been overweight. However, that was a result of her constant attention to eating. She frequently battled with herself over food, worrying about the impact on her weight of every bite. She started taking weight loss drugs because she wanted to lose a few "vanity pounds." However, the result has been liberating for her. Because she no longer feels hunger or cravings for food, she is able to eat simply for nourishment and actually enjoy eating rather than fearing it. She notes the same struggles with eating from which she suffered among other women and now believes that others should also have access to weight loss drugs. Several other posters responded in support of the original poster's opinion. The suggestion that those taking the drugs find eating less stressful was repeatedly expressed. As one poster put it, "I still enjoy eating, but I don't constantly think about it all day long." There are, of course, posters who disagree with the original poster. These posters generally believe that losing weight is simply a case of willpower and discipline. But this suggests a misunderstanding of the original poster's point. She has willpower and discipline. That is what has allowed her to stay thin. However, she no longer has to face what has been an endless struggle. Where she has been Sisyphus, doomed to forever push a boulder up a hill, she can now enjoy life without the boulder. Other posters disagree with the original poster because they are concerned about side effects of weight loss drugs. As one says, "Yes! Weightloss [sic] dogs [sic] for everyone who wants to accept the risks of thyroid tumors and organ failure!" This is, of course, a legitimate concern. While obese individuals likely face other serious health issues that make the risks of weight loss drugs a reasonable trade-off, those who are not struggling with weight issues can't make a similar calculation. This makes informed consent more important in such cases.

Next was a thread titled, "Question for those outraged about funding cuts" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster suggests that those who are concerned about federal funding cuts to universities should turn their attention to Harvard University and other institutions with large endowments. The original poster asks whether "it’s time these greedy institutions start using their money to offset possible increases in tuition?" I am actually somewhat surprised that a thread such as this was created in the college forum because it suggests so many levels of misunderstanding. Generally, the posters in this forum are much better informed. First of all, even if Harvard and the other wealthy universities followed the original poster's advice, that would do nothing to solve the problem for the vast majority of schools which have much smaller endowments. As posters point out in the thread, the principal of an endowment is not spent. Rather, it is the investment returns. So the amount of money available is not as large as it might seem. Moreover, most endowments are very restricted and can only be used for specific purposes. Harvard would likely see itself in legal trouble if it began using its endowment for unintended expenditures. Because the specific argument made by the original poster is so untenable, posters quickly lose interest in even debating it. The idea is basically a non-starter for many different reasons. However, a number of posters do have a grudge against Harvard due to its endowment and they just ignore the specifics of the original poster’s point and engage in other arguments. Other posters debate the broader topic of federal cuts to university research programs. Several posters argue that this funding is essential to university research and provides a very good return on the investment. They see the cuts as extremely shortsighted with little savings for the federal budget. Others argue that the cuts are necessary, though even those posters don't seem to favor the across-the-board funding stop. Once again, many favor carefully done budget cuts that remove waste. However, that is not what has happened. The research funding cutoff has resulted in significant pushback. Universities are often politically influential, and even Republican elected officials have been pushing for the funding to be restored. As it turns out, cutting funding to Harvard may be popular, but cutting funding to the University of Alabama is not.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Parenting -- Special Concerns" forum and titled, "what happens when Dad abandons the family and Mom is left to handle everything, but doesn't want it either?" It is not common to have threads from this forum among the most active. I believe this is only the fourth time, and one of the earlier three had originally been posted in another forum before I moved it. The original poster of this thread describes a very sad scenario. She says the father of "3+" children, who is an underachiever, has moved out, run away with another woman, and wants very limited involvement with his children. He only wants them every other weekend. The child support that he will pay will only be a drop in the bucket, and the mom will be stuck with most of the expenses. At the same time, the mom doesn't want so much responsibility for the kids. Like the father, she only wants to have the kids every other weekend. The original poster wants to know what a court will do in such a case. Posters take this post at face value and try to provide serious responses. Generally, those amount to the mom being required to suck it up, having her parents raise the kids, or the kids becoming wards of the state. Only one poster suggests that the original poster is a troll, which I think is the most likely case. A month ago, the same poster started a thread in which she suggested that she did not trust her ex-husband with the children due to his mental state and wanted to keep the kids away from him. I would be surprised that anyone would go from considering a father to be a danger to his kids to wanting him to spend more time with them in such a short time. The main dispute in this thread is over the inclination of most posters to expect more from the mom. The original poster, while not identifying herself, constantly asks others why the dad should not be forced to take more responsibility for the kids. She considers it misogynistic to expect the mom to take nearly full custody. While it is true that most of those responding seem to presume that the mom should step up rather than the dad, I think this has more to do with their own experiences than misogyny. Most of the posters responding appear to be women who can't comprehend not wanting as much custody of their children as possible. The idea that a mom would only want to spend every other weekend with her children is simply alien to them. When they demonstrate expectations that the original poster accept responsibility for her children, they are really only voicing the same expectations they would have for themselves. Many posters, however, simply blame both parents and express sympathy for the unwanted children.