Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "my husband's mother hit my kid", and originally posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. This morning I moved the thread to the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster says that while she was getting dressed after getting out of the shower, her mother-in-law was attempting to put sneakers on the original poster's 4 year old son. The boy was resisting because he wanted to wear flip flops and repeatedly pulled his feet away from his grandmother. His grandmother got frustrated and "hit" him on the leg. The original poster says her mother-in-law did not hit the boy very hard, but she was quite angry that her mother-in-law hit the boy at all. The original poster's husband doesn't think this is a big deal, but the original poster doesn't want her mother-in-law to babysit anymore. Corporal punishment is a very controversial topic on DCUM with many posters having strongly held but diametrically opposed views. In this thread, the first responses all came from posters who generally oppose spanking, let alone "hitting" a child. In some cases, posters had zero tolerance positions and would not allow the grandmother to babysit in the future. One poster went so far as to say that the original poster's mother-in-law is "would be lucky if I didn't keep my kid from her forever." Others took a more moderate stance and argued in favor of the accepting the apology that the grandmother had offered and more or less putting her on probation. She would be allowed to babysit, but would be watched carefully for future transgressions. A number of posters viewed what occurred more as a "swat" than a "hit" and, like the original poster's husband, were not that concerned about it. At the far end of the spectrum were the "spare the rod, spoil the child" type posters. Many of these posters were more critical of the original poster than they were of the grandmother. One poster, blaming what she viewed as the original poster's lenient parenting style, wrote, "Your DC is a brat and no one, but you, can deal with him." Similarly, a number of posters pointed out that the original poster had apparently disciplined her mother-in-law, but not her son. They worried that this might send the message that he could disobey his grandmother with impunity. Heated arguments developed between advocates of differing approaches to parenting. Some posters suggested time outs instead of spanking but other posters declared that time outs are also abusive. Some of the posts were so extreme that it was impossible to tell whether they were trolling or serious. A poster who wrote, "Any child who was physically struck cannot ever grow up to be a normal, productive member of society" later declared that the grandmother deserved the death penalty and, as such, was pretty clearly trolling (at least I hope). But what about a poster who expressed hope that those who advocate spanking would be put "on some sort of watch list"? That poster seemed to be serious. Another poster suggested that the result of no longer spanking children is an increase in mental illness. That posters also appeared to be serious.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. Titled, "Can someone explain the wealthy military officer phenomenon?", the original poster describes a "subculture" of retired military officers that "lives like old money", owning $2 million plus homes, not working, and participating in expensive hobbies such as sailing or horses. A slew of posters explain that there are a number of financial benefits that military officers receive. They live cheaply on base or are provided a housing allowances, their healthcare is provided for them, and many other things such as preschool are subsidized. Some are even able to provide free college for a child. In recent years many of the officers have received extra pay for being deployed in a war zone. Moreover, many of their benefits are tax free. Posters describe officers purchasing homes using low-cost loans in every American city in which they are deployed, converting the houses to rentals when they move. This creates significant real estate portfolios. In addition, many of the "expensive" hobbies can be enjoyed "basically free on base". After retirement, the officers begin collecting handsome retirement packages and often take high-paying consulting jobs with government contractors. One poster pointed out that many of those who attend service academies have family money and married those who also have family money. A poster who is the wife of a military officer spouse seemed to confirm many of the explanations provided by those responding. She says that her husband inherited $700k and, with careful management and planning, they have generated a net worth of $8 million after his 27 year military career and an additional 5 years in federal government. Because the poster could not work due to her husband's frequent moves, she learned all that she could about personal finance and managed the family expenses, tracking nearly every cent. This thread is 12 pages long and there are lots of side arguments, many influenced by attitudes towards the military. There are also debates about the differences in benefits offered to enlisted soldiers compared to officers and debates about whether those serving in the military deserve the benefits that they are provided. Many of the differences of opinion can be reduced to how individuals perceive those who "take advantage of the system". To those who believe that "taking advantage" simply means utilizing the benefits offered in an intelligent manner, the ways that officers increase their wealth is clever and laudable. To those to whom "taking advantage" has connotations similar to "cheating", exploiting the benefits in the ways that have been described is worthy of criticism and probably shouldn't be allowed. A better word to describe this practice might be "investment". The officers both invest many of the benefits provided to them and invest at least 20 years of their life to difficult and sometimes hazardous circumstances. Those to whom the original poster refers are now reaping the rewards of those investments.

Next was a thread titled, "More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring" and posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. The original poster alerts others to a meeting to discuss the "University Boulevard Corridor Plan" which is part of a larger plan within Maryland's Montgomery Country to develop several transit corridors. The plans envision enhancements to public transit, pedestrian access, bikeways, and other development. The original poster is particularly concerned that planners "will recommend zoning changes to all properties within 500 feet of University Boulevard" and warns that these changes will soon be proposed for other areas of Montgomery County. She says "Once it starts it’s all over" though it is not clear what "it" is or what will be over. The zoning debates that constantly occur in this forum are very similar to the bike lane debate that is never-ending. It is probably even the same posters. There are those like the original poster who fear any kind of change, especially if it seems unfavorable to cars. Others support increased development that they hope will increase the housing supply and, thereby, lower housing costs. In addition, they favor changes to transit that they believe is more environmentally responsible such as increased public transportation and bike lanes. Another aspect of the proposed changes is increased safety for pedestrians. This aspect in particular is disputed with some posters appearing to argue that a few pedestrian deaths are acceptable if the alternative is increased traffic congestion. Posters such as the original poster fear zoning changes because the changes will likely lead to increased housing density. These posters believe that those moving into the new housing will bring more cars which will need parking that is not provided by the developments and will therefore take up public space. In addition, the new residents will add to congestion on the streets. Because they also believe that those moving into the new housing will have lower incomes, it will add to the general decline of the area. Moreover, the higher density development might make their single family homes less desirable. As one such poster says, "they'll just throw an apartment building up next to me." The opposite view is that increased density will result in lower housing costs and street improvements will incentivize alternative modes of transit such as buses and bicycles. Therefore, the changes will actually decrease traffic congestion and provide a safer more welcome transit environment. New residents will have less need for cars so parking will be less of a concern. These posters have little sympathy for those living in single family homes who may have to accept apartments as neighbors. I have discussed a number of threads on subjects similar to this one. In doing so I have repeatedly noted the gulf between most current home owners and most of those in favor of more affordable housing. For many people their home is their largest asset. The last thing they want is for it to lose value. On the other hand, efforts to increase affordable housing will likely have exactly that effect. The result is threads such as this one in which the participants have almost zero chance of reconciling their divergent views.

The next most active thread was the college campus protest thread which, just like the protests, is still going strong. But I'll skip that thread since I have already discussed it. Therefore, the last thread for today's post will be one that was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "A tale of two worlds", the original poster outlines two scenarios involving different educational pathways for hypothetical (at least it seems) families. "Parent A", in the original poster's telling, sends their kid to the best regarded private school in the area. "Parent B" sends their child to a mediocre public school. Both kids take take the most rigorous classes available, both ending up with good grades, and both get the same ACT score. But Parent A's child had to work hard and obtain additional tutoring. Parent B's student put little effort into school and his achievements came easily. Parent A's student had great extracurriculars while Parent B's child mostly played video games. The original poster wants to know which will be admitted to a selective university and why Parent A was "so stupid to invest so much money". The original poster's last sentence would appear to expose their agenda for this thread, something that many of those responding seem to resent. Moreover, since "Parent A" more or less represents the DCUM ideal, many of those responding probably relate to that parent. But since this is all hypothetical (or so it appears), posters also develop their own imagined scenarios which, of course, tend to favor their own point of view. While I, and many of those responding, believed the scenarios favored Student B, several posters assumed Student A was the one with the advantage. A number of posters seemed to think that they were countering the original poster's favoritism by supporting Student B's chances. In follow-up posts, the original poster didn't seem to actually have a favorite, but rather was simply including enough varying factors to create an argument for either student. I have often said that the college forum has a number of participants that could easily form a fantasy college admissions league. But this thread shows that there might be even more interest in college admissions Dungeons and Dragons. Nothing seems to excite these posters more than role-playing fantasy college admissions candidates. I guess not surprisingly, this thread turned somewhat bitter with posters taking this debate very seriously. I thought it was mostly funny, but one poster had a much different view. I'll post that response in full:

When I was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer and I thought things couldn’t get shittier, I would come to threads like this and think “well at least you don’t have it as bad as these selective college tiger parent whackos” and I’d log off feeling a lot better about myself.

What could be a better motto for the college forum than, "The DCUM College Forum: Makes cancer victims feel better."