Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "UHC CEO Gunned Down in Midtown Manhattan" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. There were also threads on this topic posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and the "Money and Finances" forum. I either locked or deleted those threads so that we wouldn't have duplicates. This thread, of course, is about the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, who was shot in Manhattan while preparing for UHC's annual investor conference. The shooting appears to have been a premeditated, well-planned-out, targeted killing. Many of the posts concentrate on the event itself, reporting details as they became known and speculating about the identity of the killer. But probably even more of the thread is devoted to debating America's healthcare industry. The thread is revealing of the anger that lies in many people about our healthcare system and, at times, even a bit frightening. The thread is also another demonstration of the difficulty moderating threads of this sort when there is suddenly mass interest in the topic. I was personally shocked to see the number of posts that praised the killing and urged that more CEOs be similarly murdered. I was actually forced to lock the thread for a couple of hours while I went through the then 33 pages to remove such posts. I considered them to be hugely inappropriate. I believe that I removed 12 pages worth of posts in that effort. Probably the biggest issue of debate regarding the shooting itself was the identity of the killer. Many posters suggested that the shooter might be a disgruntled customer who was upset about coverage being denied. Posters invented elaborate scenarios that might drive a normal person to shoot a CEO on the streets of New York City. Others argued that the killer must be a professional hitman, the only question was who had hired him. As details became available, speculation went from the hitman idea to maybe a less than professional killer. The video that was released of the shooting at first suggested that the killer was well-practiced and very competent. Later information, however, seemed to lean against that view. An intriguing detail that has just emerged — that the bullets used had "Delay", "Deny", and "Defend" written on them — could indicate that anger towards the insurance industry was a motivation. "Delay Deny Defend: Why insurance companies don't pay claims and what you can do about it" is a best-selling book on Amazon.com that is critical of insurance companies. Plenty of posters were very vocal about their own anger with insurance, especially health insurance. There is a widespread perception that health insurance corporations are motivated to turn down coverage to their customers and, therefore, profit from those customers' deaths. Thompson was personally vilified because UHC is considered one of the worst insurers when it comes to denying coverage. Even posters who explicitly said they don't condone murder had a hard time feeling much sympathy for the death. Other posters were downright giddy. Some even hoped that this would be the start of changes in the system. However, as other posters pointed out, the system we have is roughly that for which people have voted. There has never been strong electoral support for single-payer systems that would eliminate the role of insurance companies. Moreover, the incoming administration of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump will, if anything, make things even worse. Trump famously does not have a healthcare plan, but only the "concept" of a plan.

Next were two threads that I've already discussed: the one about the soccer league changing its age brackets, which, for the life of me, I cannot understand why it is so active, and the one about Pete Hegseth, who has been chosen to be the Secretary of Defense. After those two, was a thread posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum titled, "I have never seen a tall couple … tall men really like short women, huh". The original poster says that she is a short woman and that tall guys like her height. She has tall cousins, however, who don't get attention from tall men. She then went on to extol the virtues of tall women. Regular readers of the relationship forum will know that topics of this sort come up regularly. In fact, I have discussed some in this blog. One poster even asked the original poster whether she could have "commented on the 100 other threads about this" instead of starting a new thread. The main reason that the original poster started a new thread is probably because the poster is a troll. That the poster is a troll is not in question. The original poster was also the second and third posters. In one response, writing simply, "Pedophilia", apparently suggesting that tall men who like short women are pedophiles, and the second calling the pedophile claim "tall girl cope". One way to get a 13-page thread on DCUM, I guess, is to start an argument with yourself. I am often frustrated with DCUM posters who reflexively post "troll" in response to the most innocent of threads. Yet, I can't find one instance of posters suggesting that the original poster is a troll. Folks were really off their game. In a later post, the original poster identified as a 6’4 guy who prefers short women. The original poster immediately replied to herself, defending tall women. The original poster then went back to the pedophile theme, saying that many men are low-key pedophiles and, in another post, saying that both short women and tall men are perverted. These posts are basically flashing signs saying "TROLL" in big red letters, and the other posters simply ignored it, posting things about the average height of women as if this were a perfectly normal discussion. I would normally just delete such a blatant troll thread as this one, but since I had to write about something anyway, it will serve.

Next was a thread titled, "BC tonight!" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The entire text of the first post was "LFG!". This is a perfect example of how not to create a thread, and had I seen it immediately after it was posted, I would have deleted it. Luckily, the second poster in the thread was kind enough to translate this into plain English. According to that poster, Boston College would be releasing its Early Decision results that evening (which was Tuesday), and the original poster is "quite excited and looking forward to it." I've written many times about Early Decision, so the few of you who read this blog regularly will be familiar with it. Early Decision is a type of application that limits applicants to a single school and commits them to attend if they are accepted. It is considered the best way for applicants to apply to their top school choice as the colleges can be almost assured that accepted students will attend. By the second page, posters were announcing their kids' results. Our Fantasy College Application League participants love this sort of thing because it allows them to engage in fantasy strategizing. For instance, as I said, ED is the preferred application route for a student's first choice school. However, universities are often reluctant to accept too many students from the same high school. Add into that that Boston College is still test-optional, and there is quite a bit of calculus about how to handle an application. As a result, you get posts such as one saying, "BC still admits fewer than half of its freshmen TO. Be careful of going TO if you attend a resource-rich high school and/or come from a high socio-economic environment." Translation: if you are wealthy or come from a wealthy high school, you had better submit test scores. Not said, those scores better be high. Later posts suggest an SAT of 1450 or better is needed. Showing that this is still a coin toss, however, a poster describes a friend of her child's who was accepted without submitting test scores even though the friend graduated from a top private school. There are so many variables involved in college admissions that it is often impossible to find any rhyme or reason in the decisions. For instance, a student with a 3.7 grade point average from a small private school who did not submit test scores was accepted. Meanwhile, another student with a 3.98 GPA and a 1570 SAT score which was submitted was rejected. This might have had to do with the high schools the two attended, the majors to which they applied, their extracurricular activities, or any number of other factors. The point is, it is unlikely that anyone will ever know. This is what convinces people that the system is rigged and, more importantly, rigged against them specifically. Another characteristic of threads such as these is the number of naysayers who always show up. While most posters are excited about Boston College — that's why their kids applied — other posters are eager to rain on their parade. Such posters arrive in this thread to bash the college as "not a top school" that is, at best, a back-up choice for high-performing students. Another suggests that only the "B" students from her child's high school apply to Boston College. However, a number of posters who had the opportunity to attend BC but made other choices describe their regrets at choosing other schools.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum and titled, "Law School at 40?". The original poster says that she is considering going to law school at the age of 40. Her husband is currently a lawyer who has advised her that she can probably find a medium-sized firm that would allow her to have a very flexible schedule, something that seems very important to her. She wants a reality check from others to see if such expectations are realistic. Many of those responding ignore the question about a flexible schedule and instead fixate on the advisability of attending law school at all. Posters insist that law school is intense, is very hard to do while balancing a family, and would probably cost too much to make financial sense at the age of 40. Others point out that the job market for lawyers is not particularly good and could get worse if federal lawyers flee the government in response to expected changes impacting the federal workforce. The original poster is not deterred by these points and has already considered most of them. However, enough posters suggest that her hope for a flexible schedule is probably not realistic that she seems convinced and thanks everyone for their input, saying "That’s exactly what DCUM is great at!" In this regard, an under-appreciated strength of DCUM is probably the number of attorneys who participate. They tend to be a cynical bunch, so the least of your worries is getting a glorified version of the profession. There are plenty of firsthand experiences offered to help the original poster make a decision. A fair number of posters acting like jerks as well, but that's basically to be expected from most DCUM threads.