Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Are all the good guys taken by early 30s", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster didn't have much more to say beyond the thread's title, writing nothing more than "Please give me hope" in the body of her post. However, the original poster did have a lot to say in her follow-up posts. Sadly, most of those posts were sock puppeted. The original poster's first response to herself was to offer assurance that not all was lost in DC, writing, "I would say 30-33 is the perfect age for dating in DC.". She then followed that by saying, "Every big law guy I ever dated (which is to say a lot, sadly) was at least 30." In another post, she wrote, "I know a lot of late 30s/early 40s guys who are catches." In fact, the original poster did such a great job of offering herself encouragement, I am not sure why a thread was needed. She could have handled this whole thing in her personal diary. Or maybe she could just give herself daily affirmations like Stuart Smalley. She could simply stand in front of her mirror and intone, "I'm considered pretty attractive and the two times I've been on dating apps I got a boyfriend within like 3 weeks." One would assume from the first post that the original poster is a single woman who is looking for a guy. But a later post by the original poster suggested that might not be the case. In that post she wrote,"My boyfriend and I are both in our 30s and work for nonprofits." I doubt that the original poster is actually seeking greener pastures at the moment, though I guess I wouldn't rule it out completely. I suspect that she is just trolling for entertainment. But the most hilarious post by the original poster was the one complaining that, "As always, this thread does nothing to help OP." Not true, the original poster gae herself plenty of help. The original poster clearly took to heart the advice that "if you want something done right, do it yourself." When the going got tough, the original poster even started quoting her own posts and providing responses to them. It looks like the original poster's goal was to trigger incels so that she could then complain about incels. Or, maybe she wanted to trigger single women in their 30s and beyond? I didn't read every reply in the thread, but from what I did see, posters were pretty untriggered. One male poster who might have been off-putting mostly embarrassed himself rather than upsetting the women. If the thread had been serious it would have been a pretty depressing read. Perhaps it still is, but the original poster's dialogue with herself is amusing. It would be interesting to know which parts are true.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and titled, "Another day, another school shooting". The original poster started this thread soon after news had broken about a school shooting at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia. At the time the original poster posted, no deaths had been reported. However, eventually it was announced that four people — two teachers and two 14-year-old students — had been killed. The police arrested 14-year-old Colt Gray, a student at the school. Reaction to school shootings, or indeed mass shooting of almost any kind — follow a fairly well-worn script these days. Pro gun-control posters complain about the lax guns laws in the United States and urge others to support restrictions. They point out that Republican politicians, in particular, are likely to oppose gun restrictions and that the Republican Congressman representing the area has sponsored legislation making gun control more difficult. Pro-gun posters, on the other hand, would like to talk about almost anything else. The slightest hint of restrictions on guns sets them off in fits of fury and strident defenses of the 2nd Amendment. They complain that school shootings get an abnormal amount of attention while other shootings are ignored. I am not sure why they think that bringing more attention to even more shootings will help their pro-gun cause, but I've long given up expecting rationality from that crowd. As is often the case, posters seize on this even to benefit their own pet political issues. For some, that was cell phones in school. A text sent by one student while she was locked down to her mother was very moving to some posters. Because several area school systems are considering restrictions on phones at school, many posters claimed that this event showed why students need access to their phones. They complained that our society is willing to implement phone control but not gun control. What does it say about our country that parents can justifiably claim that students should be allowed to have phones at school due to the frequency of school shootings? There were also demands that Gray's parents be held responsible for the shooting. As one poster wrote, "Gun control isn’t the problem. A 14-year-old can’t purchase a gun. The parents failed in this situation by not properly storing their guns." There was also considerable frustration that police had interviewed Gray earlier due to previous threats to conduct a school shooting. At the time, Gray's father admitted to owning guns but said that they were locked up and not accessible by his son. Several posters wished that a red flag law had allowed the guns to be seized.

Next was a thread titled, "Harvard Instituting Remedial Math Class", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster links to an article in the Harvard Crimson about an new introductory math course that Harvard has created. The original poster says that either COVID learning loss was much greater than many believed or test optional admissions policies have been a failure. The article to which the original poster linked does not say anything about test optional admissions. Rather, the need for the new class is repeatedly blamed on COVID learning loss. The role of the new class is a bit confusing. Currently Harvard offers Math MA and Math MB which collectively are called Math M. The new class, named Math MA5, includes all the material required for Math M but has more hours of classroom time and greater supports. The first posters to respond either didn't read the article or ignored it completely. They blamed test optional admissions for the need for this class. They complained about Harvard students not being able to do basic algebra. However, it is not clear that basic algebra is what is being taught in this class. Some posters describe the class as being closer to calculus. Many posters seize this as an opportunity to dump on Harvard. They argue that the need for such a class demonstrates that Harvard no longer enrolls the best and the brightest students. Repeatedly this is blamed on test optional admissions with claims that by instituting this class instead of abandoning test optional admissions, Harvard is doubling down on equity rather than academic excellence. Another posters suggests that these posters are "conflating preparedness with intelligence", contending that many intelligent people lack adequate preparation and that a university such as Harvard could help them reach their potential. Almost every thread in the forum these days is tarnished by posters fixating on Asians. There are either claims that Asians are being discriminated against or posters are posting racist opinions about them. In this thread there is at least one poster who convinced that Harvard is intentionally trying to keep the number of Asian students down and, as a result, admitting students who are less qualified. This poster, and others like him, imply that had more Asians been admitted, there would be no need for this class. Given the almost universal opinion — apparently shared by Asians and non-Asians alike — that Asians are great at math, I would hate to be an Asian forced to take the new math class.

The final thread that I will discuss today was originally posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum but I moved it to the "Schools and Education General Discussion" forum. Titled, "Did Covid disrupt the parent volunteer pipeline", the original poster says that a lot of high school activities such as tournaments and off-season leagues have lower participation than in the past. The original poster has heard the theory that this is because COVID disrupted the normal parent volunteer pipeline as the next generation of volunteers did not have the opportunity to learn from other parents and now there is a lack of parent volunteers. The original poster wonders whether others have noticed the decline in parent volunteers and, if so, what could be done to reverse it. Several posters agree that there has been a decline in parent volunteers and many atribute it to COVID. Some posters are still angry about pandemic-era school policies and are no longer interested in helping schools. Some have nothing against the schools, but say that COVID caused them to shift their priorities and sports clubs and other activities of the sort are no longer how they want to devote their time and energy. A poster who still volunteers explained that with fewer volunteers showing up, those who are still volunteering get burned out quicker. They end up quitting which exasperates the problem. A number of other posters describe what might be a larger problem that has nothing to do with COVID. These posters seem sort of turned off by many of the activities that require volunteers. In their view, these activities are often led by someone who sees value in the activity for other families. However, those other families, despite their willingness to attend and enjoy the event, are not willing to volunteer. Families who are not all that interested in the event, are not too excited about contributing work on a project primarily benefiting others and suggest that those other families may not even value the activity all that much. They would have no problem with the entire event being abandoned. Posters repeatedly articulate a lack of interest in helping with activities that don't directly benefit their own kids. Another theme that emerges is that while many posters value enrichment and other extracuricular activities, they would rather pay for them than volunteer to make them happen. In contrast, for some, volunteering is an opportunity to spend time with friends while their kids hang out with their friends. But when the volunteer group is also a close social group, it may seem unwelcoming to new volunteers. Therefore, they might not attract as many new volunteers as they would hope.