Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. That means that the first thread for today's post was actually the third most active yesterday. That thread was titled, "Do younger teens really do nothing all summer?" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster says that her 14-year-old son thinks the original poster and her spouse are being unfair because they require him to participate as a counselor-in-training at a half day summer camp and volunteer one evening a week. He claims that most of his friends are either doing nothing or only a 2-hour crew activity and, therefore, have more free time than him. The original poster thinks that her son has plenty of free time as it is and he wastes that playing video games. She asks whether what her son says about his friends is really true of most kids. Most of those responding say that their kids are involved in some structured activities. Counselor-in-training positions are popular as is volunteering. Many are involved in some sort of sport and quite a few other posters say that their kids are attending summer camps. A few even have jobs. But some posters prioritize allowing their children to have free time. Just about the only controversy in this thread involves a poster who accused parents who arrange structured activities for their kids of not wanting to parent and not wanting their kids to simply "exist". "Just let them be kids for awhile", she argues. Posters such as this one seem to have an idealized view of childhood in which carefree children spend their summers playing with friends, having their own adventures, and keeping themselves entertained. While there may be a few examples of this sort among the posters' kids, for the most part any free time kids have these days is filled by screens. In contrast to the oft-stated concern that kids spend too much time playing video games, the anti-structured activities poster didn't seem to be concerned about that, saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with playing video games. Moreover, while that poster suggested that parents force their kids into the structured activities, a number of posters argued that their kids want to do those activities and that don't need to be forced. None of the posters expect their kids to be busy every minute of every day for the entire summer. But, they also don't want their kids to be sitting around bored or doing nothing but playing video games all summer. What is clear is that some kids are able to take the initiative to find activities with which to keep themselves busy while others need a bit more engagement from parents.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and titled, "Looking to 2028". The original poster says that as a Democrat she believes the upcoming election appears to be a lost cause. But the good news from her point of view is that in 2028 there will be another election and former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, if he wins this year, will be as old and feeble as President Joe Biden appears to be today. Therefore, there will be a relatively blank slate of candidates because, the original poster says, neither party has done a good job of promoting younger candidates. Before I get to the responses in the thread, let me dispute two of the original poster's assumptions. First, I am not ready to concede that the November election is a lost cause. Whether the Democratic nominee is Biden, as it appears will be the case now, or another candidate, it will certainly be a difficult hill to climb. But a Democratic victory is not impossible. Second, U.S. political parties don't really promote candidates. It's not that they do a good or bad job, they simply don't do the job at all. Becoming a viable candidate largely is a matter of convincing the media that you are viable and that is largely a function of being able to attract funders. In those terms, there are many potential candidates in both parties. Skimming through this thread, I quickly realized that like most of the threads in the political forum these days, it really is not worth reading. It is full of Democrats who see nothing but disaster and predict that a Trump victory will mean that there won't be future elections and Republicans who are so indoctrinated in to the Trumpian cult that they can't think beyond a Trump victory. They spend most of their time bashing Democrats. A good portion of the responses are not even meant to be serious. As a result, this thread is probably most useful as a repository of the least funny and stalest jokes possible. There are a few would be comedians in the thread who should definitely keep their day jobs. Of course as is normal these days in political threads, the discussion goes off in a million different and off-topic directions. For some reason there is a debate about whether LGBTQ people will be rounded up and placed in concentration camps. Rather than spend more time talking about this useless thread, I'll just finish with my own equally-useless thoughts. Not about 2028. It's too early to worry about that. But about what a Trump presidency will mean. I think it will be terrible. I expect that Trump will fixate on two things: 1) punishing his enemies, and; 2) solidifying his and his family's power. I doubt that either of these goals will require cancelling future elections or rounding up LGBTQ folks. But maintaining his popularity, which will be needed for the second goal, will likely require Trump to undertake some pretty extreme acts. Certainly, LGBTQ rights may suffer even if that is short of concentration camps. Moreover, those that he puts into positions of power will likely be empowered to carryout their own attacks on civil liberties and democracy. As such, I think it is too early to look to 2028 and, instead, we should still be working to prevent a Trump victory in 2024.

Next was a thread titled, "NVSL ASR and excessive heat?" and posted in the "Swimming and Diving" forum. I have done research in order to decipher the topic for those who, like me, have no idea what any of this means. "NVSL" stands for Northern Virginia Swimming League and "ASR" refers to the All Star Relays, an event that was apparently held yesterday at the Rutherford Pool in Fairfax, Virginia. This thread was started two days ago by a poster worried about the impact of the heat on the swimming event and whether organizers would be prepared for it with misting stations and cooling spots. This led to about 3 1/2 pages of discussion about the heat, how other events had handled the heat, which pools tend to do a good job hosting events, and what other venues might be considered for such events. There was also a discussion that was mostly over my head about which swimmers receive the most benefit for their entrance fees and whether or not this was fair. But eventually the actual swimming began and several posters watched it on a live stream. Then the threat of thunderstorms created another worry and eventually led to the event being cancelled. The cancellation led to considerable unhappiness among the posters because the rules prevent a make up session. Therefore, while many kids were able to swim before the cancellation, many did not. A second minor controversy involved the outside lanes. Because the pool curves, parts of those lanes were shorter than the other lanes. The swimmers were told not to touch the curved parts and those who did were disqualified. This led to a high number of disqualifications. While posters almost universally praised the volunteers and staff of the pool, they had a considerable number of complaints about the pool itself and there was quite a bit of discussion about alternative sites. However, there are few options that have the facilities (despite the criticism) and convenience of Rutherford. A lot of this discussion is inside baseball, or inside swimming rather, and not really meaningful or even understandable to those who don't participate. I guess there is some irony that a thread that started out with concerns about misting stations ended with disappointment over a cancellation due to rain. A (no longer live) stream of the event is available on Youtube if anyone wants to see what all of the fuss was about.

Going from one sport to another, the final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Soccer" forum. Titled, "Huge ECNL News coming 7/1/2024", this thread was started on June 30th in anticipation of whatever news was going to be announced on July 1. "ECNL" is the Elite Club National League, a national youth soccer league. The announcement that came on July 1 was that the league would change from categorizing players based on calendar age to going by school year. The possibility of this change had already been the subject of a 15 page thread started back in May. This thread reached 14 pages before yesterday. Between yesterday and today, an additional 6 pages have been added which put the thread among yesterday's most active. I have not read all of the posts, but from what I understand the problem this change is trying to address involves players with Fall birthdays. Most schools place those students in a lower grade where they become the oldest students in the grade rather than the youngest as they would otherwise. But when these players are placed on teams according to calendar age, they end up with the grade ahead of them rather than their classmates. Some of the posters in the thread said that their kids were in this situation and that they preferred it. Other posters say that players who are separated from their school friends tend to drop out of the sport more frequently. Like any change, there are those who support it and those who don't. But since this change really only affects those with Fall birthdays, a lot of posters simply don't understand what it is all about. Several posters understand the intent of the change, but simply don't believe it is necessary. "There are 14, 15, 16 year olds out there who need to play with their school friends? The same school friends they see every day and have been seeing for years," asked one poster before exclaiming, "Is this a kindergarten for life society?" There seems to be considerable hostility to the change in this thread to the change despite its only impact a few players. I can't imagine that many of the posters have a personal stake in the matter. Rather, this seems more like a knee-jerk dislike of change, regardless of what the change may be. There is also a lot of suspicion that the change is being made to give certain kids an advantage. There is also the opposite view suggesting that those opposed to the change are worried that their kids will now have to play against slightly older, and perhaps better, players. At any rate, the arguments go around and around with not a lot of variations but just different versions of the same.