DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday continued to be the thread about the murder of the UnitedHealthCare CEO. After that was a thread titled, "Enough is enough with the redshirting!" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster is very frustrated because there are two 10-year-olds in her child's 3rd-grade class. She wants to know when schools will draw the line with redshirting. As I assume everyone knows, "redshirting" is the practice of either starting a child later in school or holding them back a year after they started. I assume that the original motive for redshirting was to ensure that kids were placed in a grade that was more developmentally appropriate for them. However, it is now widely believed that many children are redshirted in order to gain academic or athletic advantages despite there being no developmental justification for doing so. In a subsequent post, the original poster said that over half the children in her child's class are redshirted. Redshirting is one of the most controversial topics on DCUM, and threads on the topic are always hotly debated. This is at least the fifth thread that has been among the most active threads that I have discussed. As such, I am well-versed in the two sides. To her credit, the original poster has nuanced views on redshirting. Despite her evident frustration, she is not against the practice and never really suggests clear limitations that she believes should be implemented. In many ways, this thread is just an opportunity for her to vent about her concern that redshirting has become too widespread. If I have a criticism of the original poster's views on redshirting, it is that she is too fixated on age. She supports redshirting for kids who just passed the cutoff and would be the youngest in their classes but questions it for kids with summer birthdays. Wouldn't an approach that takes each child's individual developmental progress, including academic and athletic abilities, into account be more appropriate? Essentially, redshirting has become another aspect of competitive parenting. For some parents, the road to an Ivy League university begins at preschool, and one aspect of that is gaining an advantage through redshirting. Those supportive of redshirting argue that age is an arbitrary metric that does not necessarily reflect the developmental stage of a child. Many of these posters support redshirting when a child's specific needs support the measure. Other posters, however, contend that children are not ready for school at 4 or 5 years of age. As one poster says, "it’s irresponsible and totally unsupported by science to put a 4 y/o at a desk all day...The best schools in the world start kids at six." While the original poster and several others with similar views are suspicious of the motivations of parents who redshirt, this poster turns things around saying, "*not* redshirting your kid is bad parenting." Based on the posts in this thread, it appears that in some schools there has almost been an arms race involving redshirting. A few kids are held back due to their level of development, some are close to the cutoff and their parents prefer for them to start school later, some are redshirted due to the belief that it will provide academic and athletic advantages, and at some point the number of redshirted kids reaches critical mass. Students who weren't redshirted and might have normally been among the oldest in their class find themselves among the youngest. This leads to some of their parents redshirting, resulting in the circumstances that have upset the original poster.

The most active thread yesterday was the thread about the murder of the UnitedHealthCare CEO, which I've already discussed. After that was a thread titled, "The insanity of 1%er East Coast parents and college", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she has been observing several "1%ers" — meaning families in the top 1% of income levels — go through the college admissions process and "It is INSANE". She then went on to say that the families should calm down because their kids are "super privileged" and will be fine regardless of the college they end up attending. Simply in terms of technicalities, according to current data I just Googled, the top 1% in the U.S. consists of those with incomes above $819,324. While it is never possible to be completely sure, it is likely that some DCUM posters are in that group, and certainly there are plenty of 1%ers in the DC area. The top 5% includes those with incomes above $335,891 and probably describes significantly more DCUM posters. While many posters agreed with the original poster, others objected and suggested that she was simply jealous. One poster was apparently so upset by the original poster's very mild criticism of the top 1% that the poster suggested that the original poster deserved physical harm. That, of course, proved the original poster's point that some of these folks need to mellow out. Fundamentally, there is a difference of perspective about how the college admissions process is viewed. The original poster and those who agree with her believe that 1%ers look at elite college admissions as something that they deserve because of their wealth. They have always tried to provide the best for their children, and only an elite college will suffice as the best in this instance. According to the original poster, such families are stressed and panicking, even going "stark raving mad" in fear that their kids will not be accepted by a top school. The view held by the top 1% — or top 5% as it may actually be on DCUM — is that the panic is entirely justified. These families believe that, far from being privileged, they are actually disadvantaged when it comes to college admissions. As they see it, unless their kids are legacies, athletes, or have some other hook for admissions, their chances of admission are slim because the elite universities are looking for diversity and more likely to choose a poor farm kid from the plains or a racial or ethnic minority applicant. Added to this is the view — explicitly stated in the thread — that while state universities might be okay for others, such schools would be a humiliation for elite families. When the original poster says that these kids will be fine regardless of where they go to school, a poster replied back saying, "Fine is for normies". As always, generalizations have their limits. I doubt that every 1% family panics over college admissions and there are probably some who are perfectly happy to see their children attend state universities. Moreover, the panic over admissions is not limited to the top income families. We see it at all income levels on DCUM. But there is something particularly galling about those who have had every advantage complaining that they lack privilege all of a sudden.

The two most active threads over the weekend were the thread about the murder of the UnitedHealthCare CEO and the ECNL soccer league age cutoff changes. Since I've already discussed these two, I'll start today with the third most active thread which was titled, "UGA EA Stats and decisions dates" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread is about the University of Georgia and its Early Action round of admissions. We are now into the college admissions season and we can expect threads of this sort to frequently be among the most active until late Spring. Most of the college admissions excitement at this time of the year involves Early Decision applications. Students are only allowed to submit one Early Decision application and must make a binding commitment to attend the university if they are accepted. Early Action admissions shares the earlier deadlines and release of results of Early Decision, but doesn’t have the one application limit or the required commitment. Still Early Action allows students to target their preferred schools and determine in advance whether they need to resort to alternative choices. The original poster started this thread back in early November. Unless the original poster was hoping to demonstrate how neurotic some parents get when it comes to college admissions — something she succeeded at doing whether it was intentional or not — she really made a mess of things. First of all, she started the thread by posting nothing but a link, something that is prohibited by DCUM's guidelines and something that would normally cause me to delete the thread. I am leaving the thread alone this time only because of all the posters who posted over the weekend and who would be disappointed to see the thread disappear. Even worse, for reasons that I cannot begin to comprehend, the original poster engaged in blatant sock puppeting. After starting the thread with just a link, she later posted her daughter's grade point average, test score, and other admissions data. She then went on to reply as if she were a different poster to her own post several times. Saying in one post that she didn't think the girl would be accepted and in another post saying she thought she would be accepted. Imagine being so obsessed with a college admissions decision that you start a conversation with yourself on DCUM? As for the posts that weren't written by the original poster, a lot of them simply addressed the University of Georgia’s admissions statistics and debated the quality of the school. Some posters insist that it is a top university and even a so-called "public Ivy". Others are not as impressed and don't consider it to be among the top universities. Building up to the 4 p.m. Friday release of results, posters were mostly posting about how difficult it was for them to control their anticipation. Approximately 5 minutes after the release, a poster said that her child had been accepted. After that, there was a steady flow of acceptances and deferrals.

The first thread that I will discuss today was actually the fifth most active yesterday. The four most active were all threads that I've previously discussed. This thread was titled, "New social media trend from Sweden: the 'Soft girl' ?" and was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster linked to a story published by the BBC that describes what they call a "new trend" in Sweden that involves women quitting work and basically becoming housewives, though in most cases they actually appear to be house girlfriends. The original poster was initially horrified by this idea, but then thought that it might actually be good and is intrigued. This thread was the first that I've heard of this so-called trend, but as soon as I read the BBC article, I was ready to blast out a post loaded with my opinions of both the article and the trend. However, I disciplined myself enough to at least look at the replies and realized that everything that I was going to say had already been said. So, let's let the others tell it. First thing, this is not a trend. As one poster wrote, "People (women) have been doing this for a long time. Someone just discovered it for themselves and starting blogging/IGing/TikToking about it, thinking they invented it." Second, it didn't start in Sweden. As other posters pointed out, the original "soft girl" movement started in Nigeria. There is a bit of debate about whether the "soft girl" movement is simply a return to traditional gender roles of the past — or as one poster says, "how human life was for thousands of years". Another poster derides the movement as "a man is the plan". Some posters pointed out that the women highlighted in the article weren't really giving up all that great of careers. One poster wrote, "I would also be happy to quit my job if my jobs were: ‘grocery store, a care home and a factory’, per the article." Another poster agreed, saying, "A lot of these women just don't have great options to begin with." Yet another poster added, "Wouldn't anyone rather stay home, pursue creative outlets, and ‘relax in their feminine’ than empty bed pans or stock shelves?" Many posters simply brush the topic off as nothing but a made-up social media invention. A poster wrote, "Social media trends are painfully stupid." Several posters pointed out the class dimensions of the topic. Traditionally, a life of idle luxury, as one poster says, was only available to "rich women, and during its brief existence, the MC [middle class] women were SAHMs [stay-at-home moms]. LC [lower class] and poor women have always worked." The most common criticism of the "soft girl" idea is that it depends on a partner — normally a man — who is willing to pay for it. This creates a dependence that many posters abhor. As a poster writes, "Yes, let’s encourage women to be financially dependent on men. What could the harm be in that?"

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.

Some days are just déjà vu all over again. As was the case earlier this week, the top two most active threads were the Hunter Biden pardon thread and the soccer league age bracket change thread. Skipping those, the next most active thread was titled, "How to know a college is safe for POC" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread is also a bit of déjà vu since similar threads come up regularly. The original poster says that her son is interested in a top liberal arts college but, according to the Common Data Set, only 22 Black students out of a class of 436 were accepted during the last cycle. Her son was hoping to find a community and is very discouraged by these numbers. The original poster asks whether they should just "throw in the towel". Threads such as this always attract posters who appear offended that the topic was even brought up. They normally call the original poster a troll and suggest that the poster is making things up. I deleted posts of that sort from this thread and the remaining posts were generally very helpful (or at least seemed to be from my point of view — I can't speak for the original poster). The replies generally fall into two different camps. One is the "don't give up on the school" camp. Posters in that group urge the original poster to contact current students at the school and try to hear their experiences firsthand. They argue that simple numbers don't reveal the entire story. These posters suggest contacting any Black-student affinity groups that might exist on campus or the admissions office to arrange video calls with current students. The college in question later turned out to be Pomona College and one poster in the thread has a child attending the school now. That child is a person of color, though not Black. Still, the poster was able to provide links to many helpful resources and describe her child's experience at the school. The second camp consists of posters who argue that there are better options than Pomona. They suggest universities instead of liberal arts colleges. Suggestions include Duke University, Emory University, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia. The original poster said that her son was not interested in historically Black colleges and universities, but posters kept suggesting them. Some posters struggled to understand the vast spectrum of colleges that exist between one with 22 Black students and an HBCU, leading to some vitriolic exchanges. Many posters suggested that the original poster's son has very competitive statistics and would likely have opportunities at many top colleges or universities. However, those colleges also tend to have smaller Black communities. Therefore, this presents a struggle between a better school or a larger Black community. Despite the few bitter posts that I removed, most of the posts in this thread were quite supportive of the original poster and her son. One of the nicest, I thought, was posted by a poster of Korean heritage who described her desire to find a Korean community at college and chose a university accordingly. She attributed much of her success in college to that community.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that had been most active over the weekend and discussed in yesterday's blog post. Those were the threads about President Joe Biden pardoning his son Hunter and the one about childcare conflicting with returning to the office. After those two, the most active thread was titled, "In praise of Olive Garden and Hampton Inn; praise YOUR lowbrow favorites!" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster just returned from a trip to her hometown in the Midwest. DCUM posters have a reputation for sneering at the Midwest, or what they call "flyover country", as well as the chains of restaurants, stores, and motels with which they associate the region. "Enjoy Applebee's" was once a popular DCUM expression of disdain for those leaving the vibrant city for less exciting areas (which, for the record, included DC suburbs). However, the original poster's experience was quite enjoyable. As she says, "My parents' house is beautiful, their neighbors are kind and generous, and my hometown is delightful." On the trip home, her family spent a night at a Hampton Inn along the way and dined at an Olive Garden. Both exceeded the original poster's expectations and she has only good things to say about them. As such, she invites others to suggest their "lowbrow" favorites. Two reactions were immediately apparent among the responses. One was to agree that Hampton Inns are normally nice motels and good choices for an interstate travel stop. There was really nothing but praise for the chain. The same is true for Embassy Suites. The other reaction was surprise that Hampton Inns and Embassy Suites are considered "lowbrow". For many posters, those chains are almost considered luxury hotels compared to what they were used to staying in while growing up. For the most part, however, this thread was a list of fast food indulgences. Most posters had a favorite fast food option or two. For some, those are regular treats of which they partake normally. For others, fast food is mostly limited to travel, especially by car. There were a few surprises for me in this thread. I understood IKEA as a popular lowbrow choice for furniture and home accessories, but I was not prepared for it to be praised as a dining venue. I had to agree with the poster who wrote, "I am legit fascinated by the PP who’s eating freaking rainbow trout in a furniture store." I'm glad that this was mostly a good-natured and positive thread. The only hint of conflict involved Ann Taylor, a clothing chain that some consider "lowbrow" while others consider fairly upscale. My only contribution to this discussion is to say that if you want to develop lowbrow tastes, take a road trip in an electric vehicle. You will soon become a connoisseur of Sheetz and Walmart dining and bathroom options. As for motels, anywhere with free charging will do.

The most active thread over the weekend was the thread that I previously discussed about plans by the Elite Club National soccer league to change the age cut-off date for players. This thread has been at or near the top of the most active list for months. I think that it is worth reflecting on the fact that, despite all that is happening in the world today, the division in which kids born in the fall should play soccer is dominating discussion. After that thread was one titled, "Anyone else depressed that our country elected a disgusting man to the presidency?", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster lists several negative personality characteristics of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and describes his cabinet picks as "the lowest of the low". She wonders how Trump's followers do not see this and says that she is very depressed about this situation. This is one of many threads that have been posted since the election in which liberals are demonstrating their difficulty dealing with the result. During the campaign, many liberals predicted a number of terrible outcomes if Trump were to win. While some Trump supporters agreed that such things would come to pass, they were excited at the possibility. But much more often were posters who accused those issuing warnings of being "chicken littles" who were simply fear-mongering. The most obvious example involves Project 2025, which has been the subject of multiple threads in the political forum. Trump opponents repeatedly warned that Project 2025 would be the blueprint of a second Trump administration. When Trump disassociated himself from the project, many of his supporters took that at face value. They routinely accused those warning about Project 2025 of either lying or being misleading. Now that Trump has won, he has selected the architects of Project 2025 for high-level administrative positions, and many of the Project 2025 ideas are being promoted by Trump's cabinet choices. It is clear, in this case, that the "chicken littles" were correct. While there have been several threads demanding that Democrats engage in self-reflection in order to understand why they lost, I am not aware of any calls for those who told us that concerns about Project 2025 were simply fear-mongering to do their own self-reflecting. To the contrary, as this thread shows, Trump defenders are still not willing to face reality. Despite all evidence to the contrary, posters repeatedly tell the original poster that she is overreacting and that there is nothing to fear from Trump and his loony bin cabinet. One poster even called the original poster a "childless cat lady", suggesting that some posters are experiencing a sort of arrested development that has left them frozen in October. I think we are in a strange situation in which depression and anxiety are the more logical reaction than remaining calm (which requires some self-delusion), but I am worried about the impact of widespread severe depression and anxiety. If you are on a beach and see a tidal wave approaching, is it better to panic or set up a picnic lunch to assure yourself that everything will be fine? Obviously, the best solution is to run like hell, but most of us don't have that option.

Last February, a thread in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum alerted me that a novel centered on a fictional District of Columbia-based private school that is clearly meant to be Sidwell Friends was going to be published. The thread, which was titled "Novel based on Sidwell coming out in summer", also mentioned that the book featured a parenting website named "dcparentzone.com" that is clearly a fictionalized DCUM. I was intrigued that DCUM, even in fictional form, might figure in a novel and made a note to read the book, which was named "It's a Privilege Just to Be Here: A Novel", once it was available. Before I had the chance to read the novel, I learned of a second novel named, "All the Dirty Secrets", that went even further in portraying DCUM. This book not only used the real name of the website but included fictional posts said to have been in the forum. I promptly added that book to my reading list as well. I was then contacted by Jon Hart about his debut novel, "Party School", that he thought would be of interest to DCUM readers. That book also went into my queue. I've now had a chance to read all three novels and want to provide brief overviews of each.

I didn't write a blog post yesterday because I was devoting myself to helping with Thanksgiving preparations. Moreover, Thanksgiving is traditionally one of the slowest days of the year on DCUM. Today I will discuss the most active threads of the past two days, the most active of which was titled, "Trump will rollback student loan forgiveness" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a story on politico.com discussing plans by the incoming administration of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump to roll back initiatives by President Joe Biden to forgive student loans. Republicans have consistently opposed student loan forgiveness, and the Biden administration was marked by a pattern of forgiveness efforts being implemented by Biden which were then rejected or stalled by the courts. The result is a number of efforts at various stages, many in limbo. Unrolling the various initiatives will be a complicated process, but one that Trump appears to be prioritizing. Student loan forgiveness is, in many ways, the perfect topic to illustrate the reality of today's politics. People have incredibly strong feelings about it, but most lack the most basic understanding of the details. The issue lends itself to demagoguery, which means that it is practically tailor-made for Republicans. To hear Republicans tell it, student loan forgiveness is a handout to privileged individuals who unnecessarily took out loans in order to pursue worthless liberal arts degrees that left them unemployable, and who now want the poor working people of America to pay for them. Reality is more complicated. As college degrees became increasingly essential, the cost of college increased. Easily obtainable loans were practically shoved into students' pockets, often with promises that repayment would be a breeze. What ended up happening, however, is that millions of graduates were chained to never-ending college debt. Most of those whose loans Biden wanted to forgive had already paid more than they originally borrowed and still have more to pay. Significant college debt has led to putting off purchasing homes, getting married, or starting a family. There is a strong argument that loan forgiveness has important economic and social benefits that reach far beyond those whose loans are forgiven. Nevertheless, MAGAs thrive on resentment, and the idea that the working class was being forced to pay the loans of freeloading college students was a powerful motivator of resentment. Making things worse was a generational divide. Older Americans have generally not understood the massive increases in college costs. Those who decades ago paid for their college tuition with a summer job don't understand why today's students can't do the same. A summer job wouldn't even pay for the meal plan at many universities these days. The bottom line is that student loan forgiveness makes sense when the details are understood. But in the lack of such understanding, it is easy to caricature. In the current climate in which Republicans are eager for revenge, the opportunity to stick it to liberals is too appealing to miss.