DCUM Weblog

The most active thread since my last post on Friday morning was titled, "Woman missing after reporting seeing a toddler on the highway" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. This thread was started Saturday based on a report that 25-year-old Carlee Russell had gone missing in Alabama in mysterious circumstances. While driving home Thursday night on Interstate 459, Russell had phoned 911 to report that a toddler was walking alone on the side of the road. Russell then pulled over and phoned a family member. Russell was heard asking someone if they were okay and then screamed, after which only noise from the road was heard. Police arrived to find Russell's car running with the door open and her phone and other belongings near by. But, there was no sign of her. Posters in the thread seemed convinced that Russell had been a victim of human traffickers who may have used a toddler as bait. A few posters found the idea that Russell was lured in to stopping unbelievable and proposed alternative ideas such as she was running away, had stumbled into a bad situation of sorts, or had even been attacked by a bear. Eventually the thread was mostly taken over by armchair detectives who appeared convinced that the mystery could be solved through Internet discussions. They would hustle back and forth between the WebSleuths website, Reddit, and DCUM, posting information from WebSleuths and Reddit without an ounce of skepticism. This led to considerable discusion of topics that don't appear to have any source beyond "a poster on Reddit" or similar. Seventeen pages into the thread, reports emerged that Russell had returned home and been taken to a hospital. The police eventually released a statement confirming that Russell was safe, but saying that they were holding off on questioning her in order to give the family some space. As such, almost nothing is known about what happened while Russell was missing or the circumstances under which she arrived at her home. This led to 20 more pages of theories and allegations, basically none of which had any factual basis. While many posters expressed joy that Russell had returned home safely and quite a few praised the handling of the situation by the police, a number of posters seemed determined to paint Russell as a sort of culprit in this situation. As of this morning, almost nothing has been released publicly about what happened to Russell, but that is not stopping rampant speculation.

Once again I am beginning this blog by talking about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. This was easily predictable as soon as the thread titled, "Prince Harry’s Latest Private Struggle: Hollywood or Home?" was created in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The original poster quotes an article suggesting that as Megan Markle is planning her next venture, Harry is considering a more subdued role. The original poster concludes by asking, "Is Harry ditching Hollywood?" I must say that the sourcing for this story in impecable, relying on the HeadlineReporter which, in turn, cites the Daily Mail. But, frankly, the source could have been the bathroom wall of an Irish pub and few of those responding would have cared. Clearly, most of those participating in this thread know the couple better than they know themselves. For instance, multiple posters claim that Megan wants to get a divorce but Harry doesn't. However, later in thread, posters claim that Harry is the one considering divorce. Despite their knowledge of the Sussex's, several of the posters struggle with geography. There is an initial dispute over whether the couple lives in Los Angeles. They don't, but rather in Montecito which is slightly over 90 miles from Los Angeles. Of course, everything west of the Rockies looks the same to us east coasters. Beyond this, there is little to differentiate this thread from the countless other Harry and Megan threads. Like those, this one will likely be locked soon. There is really no other topic that attracts obsessive posters like the Sussexes. Moreover, the posters spend a tremendous amount of time arguing about whether the fans or the detractors of the couple are the most obsessed. While I can understand fans wanting to post incessantly, I really don't understand the haters. Why do they find it impossible to simply ignore these two? It's really strange.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Being denied my earned leave because I’m covering due to maternity leave" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. When I read this title, I wondered what would cause a thread on this topic to become the most active of the day. Once I read it, I understood. The original poster is complaining that she has accrued vacation leave that she will lose if she doesn't use. She applied for vacation time off for later in the year, but was denied because she is scheduled to cover for someone who will be out on maternity leave. But, rather than simply stopping at this point, the original poster claimed that she was being punished due to not having children and asks why people without kids are being punished like this. Turning this issue into a fight between parents and non-parents is a sure way to stir controversy on a parenting website. Hence, ten pages of responses. The original poster's claim that she is being punished for not having children gets plenty of pushback as would be expected. Posters point out that the original poster would have been denied leave even if the other employee was childless and simply on vacation. Similarly, the original poster would be denied leave even if she had children. Someone has to be there to cover. The most common response was to tell the original poster that she had submitted her leave request too late and that she should request time off before the other employee begins maternity leave. As one poster writes, "She can take leave, she just can't take it when she wants." The original poster seems to go out of her way to alienate just about everyone. She accuses other posters for being in favor of compensation theft, ignores any helpful advice, and attacks her employer for being "cheap". One poster responded by saying "+1 you sound like a very nasty person." The original poster is likely trolling because some of her responses are just too obtuse to be real. For instance, at one point she writes, "Maybe the person who got pregnant did it too early to allow me my leave." By the end of the thread, the original poster has provoked such a negative response that the response itself leads to a backlash as new posters wonder why nobody has sympathy for the original poster. That is explained by one poster who says, "This is a solvable problem but OP doesn't want to solve it. She just wants to melt down." The problem may not actually be solvable to the original poster's satisfaction, but it definitely won't be solved by throwing a temper tantrum on DCUM.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Is it true that 90% of women aim for the top 5% of men?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that he has heard the claim made in the title from his adult daughter and her friends. However, in a subsequent post, the original poster claims to be a 31 year old who is wildly successful at dating women a decade younger than himself. Doing the math, he would have been a minor when his adult daughter was born and is claiming to date women her age or below. In other threads, the poster has discussed his wife. Call me cynical, but I'm not buying any of this. Moreover, I have questions about the type of guy who would be obsessing about this sort of thing. As for the topic itself, it combines many themes from other discussions such as women primarily being interested in tall, educated, financially successful men. The number of posters claiming to have statistics about such things provoked enough eye-rolling that I was concerned about potential damage to my eye muscles. This thread was particularly obnoxious in the frequency of posters using terms such as "high-value men" or "high-value women" and talking about the "market value" of individuals. I've never been the world's biggest romantic, but if this is how you are approaching dating, no wonder things are not working out. A significant number of posters in this thread claim to be very knowledgeable about the desires of members of the opposite sex. Women know what men want and men know what women want and both think the other gender is misguided. Multiple posters claim to be among the top 1% of this and top 10% of that and to be dating nothing but others like them. Call me a cynic for the second time but I really doubt that folks with all of that going for them are spending their free time posting in DCUM's relationship forum. I'm fairly convinced that most of this thread consists of trolls trying to troll each other and none of them realizing that they are being trolled themselves. Maybe I should start a new website for trolls to date each other? All the guys can claim to be 6'5", earn 900k annually, and to have been a star lacrosse player at Harvard. All the women can claim to be supermodels with PhDs in early childhood education. Since none of them likely ever leave their houses, they probably won't ever learn the truth.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "The admissions change we can maybe all agree on . . ." and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The admissions change that the original poster proposes is to limit international students at US universities to no more than 5% of the class, creating more space for US citizens. At least at first, this suggestion is not well-received. Several posters argue that international students normally are full-pay and sometimes even pay higher tuition rates. That money helps universities meet financial needs that would otherwise have to be covered by increasing costs to other students. Other posters argue that universities have an interest in attracting the brightest minds and that often requires recruiting foreign students. Just about every assertion that the original poster included in the original post was contested. For instance, the original poster's claim about elite colleges having significant foreign enrollment was shown to be false. Similarly the claim that financial aid for international students is rare was challenged with data showing otherwise. One of the arguments in favor of international students was that they increase diversity on campus. The entire concept of "diversity" is controversial these days, especially after the Supreme Court's ruling about affirmative action. Many posters predict that Asians and Asian-Americans will dominate admissions at elite universities going forward. Some look forward to this development while others raise it as a concern. As a result, some of those responding interpret the original poster's argument as an simply another attempt to reduce the number of Asian students. The debate over whether this proposal was primarily aimed at Asians became so heated that I eventually locked the thread. While off-topic, another idea that received considerable attention in the thread was that we should expand our thinking about which universities are considered "elite". This argument is that universities beyond those currently considered to be among the top should be thought of as being of similar caliber and also targeted by top students.

The most active thread since my last post was the thread about the closing of Nottingham school that I discussed last week. I'll skip that one and start with the next most active thread which was titled, "Kate Middleton looks really happy lately" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The original poster started the thread by posting a series of photos in which the Princess of Wales is smiling. Started on Friday, the thread has only reached 14 pages which means that, despite a few efforts, the thread has not been taken over by posts about Meghan Markle. Had that been the case, this thread would be at least 50 pages and likely have been locked by now. As a rule, I avoid reading Royal Family threads so there is not much that I will be able to say about the responses. From skimming, it looks like many posters are not convinced that the Princess is truly happy. Others think that she is happy, but only because the scheming and conniving in which they believe she has engaged has paid off. To be sure, a few agree with the original poster and think that she does seem happy and not for nefarious reasons. The thread also seems to have veered off into a general discussion about the British Royal Family in general and the pros and cons of the family in the current day.

The most active thread yesterday, unfortunately, appears to be the creation of a troll. Titled, "Was I wrong in telling my girlfriend she has no say when my kids come over?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum, the original poster describes a conflict he is having with his girlfriend about his adult children's habit of coming and going from his house at will. Reading the post triggered my troll-dar and I immediately checked to see what other threads this poster had started. This thread is at least the second by this poster to be included among the most active. In this thread, the poster, who appears to be male, is divorced but has had a girlfriend for about three years. Based on other threads, since the beginning of this year the poster has also been married for six months, has been unmarried with a boyfriend, and had a girlfriend for about six months. While this poster may not be consistent in his relationship situation, he does appear to have established a pattern when posting. His posts are lengthy, generally laden with an abundance of background information, and focused on a problem which is actually fairly minor but has caused him to consider somewhat drastic action (in this case breaking up with his girlfriend of three years because she wants his kids to stop unannounced visits). In a previous thread, he broke up with his girlfriend of six months because she asked him to help with home repairs. Personally, I find these posts to be too long, too boring, and not the sort of thing that I would want to read. But, the formula does seem to work with many of our readers given the length of the threads. This is not a case of the poster sock puppetting or otherwise trying to keep the thread alive through artificial means. The poster only responded once in this thread and only once as well in the home repair thread. He just seems to have a knack for getting posters to engage.

Yesterday might be described as the coming of the second wave of Supreme Court-related threads because the first two threads I will discuss are both related to recent Supreme Court cases, but were started after the threads on those topics that have dominated the site for several days. The first thread was titled, "Will Admissions Officers pick up on clues in application regarding URM?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster asks whether college admissions officers will be able to pick up clues in applications in order to identify underrepresented minorities and suggests that colleges might want to "lock in" the stronger URM applicants in order to maintain diversity on their campuses. Many of those responding agree that applications will provide plenty of clues about URM status and several suggest that admissions officers probably already have plans prepared to maintain diversity. One poster pointed out that the Supreme Court has not invalidated the First Amendment and that applicants don't have to hint, they can freely disclose their URM status. Some posters insist that regardless of whether URM status is determined through hints or through explicit declaration, it can't be used as a factor in the application process. One thing that is very clear from the responses is that those opposed to affirmative action see the courts as their weapon of choice and repeatedly threaten legal action in response to unwelcomed admissions decisions. It is obvious from discussions such as this one that hopes for Asian and White applicants have been massively raised and it is likely that a bunch of folks who never stood a chance of being accepted by Harvard are going to be very disappointed to learn that they still have no chance of being accepted by Harvard. These folks will still insist that their place was unfairly taken by URMs who did not deserve to be admitted. Whereas affirmative action was once blamed for this unfairness, now conspiracies and unfounded allegations will be used to explain why an URM candidate was accepted. A common argument against affirmative action in the past was that it unfairly gave the impression that all URMs on campus had received a boost rather than earning their place and that eliminating affirmative action would remove that taint. Threads such as this show that this is simply not the case. URMs will still be considered by many to be unworthy of admission to a top college, though their explanation of why will be somewhat less coherent.

Since yesterday was a national holiday, usage of the site was lower than normal and many of the most active threads were threads that I've already covered. So, some of the "most active" threads that I'll cover today weren't actually all that active. The first one that I'll discuss was titled, "Complaint ag Harvard Re Legacy Admissions" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to articles describing a civil rights complaint filed against Harvard University arguing that the University's legacy and donor admissions preferences violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Several posters supported ending these admissions preferences, which strongly favor White applicants. Others argued that such preferences are different than affirmative action and should be continued. I was only able to read the first few pages of this thread before I became ashamed to be associated with the low level of discourse occurring and had to stop reading. A significant number of the posts that I read consisted of some of the most poorly-informed posters I've ever encountered calling each other "dumb". For example, one message said, "You’re so dumb you don’t know how legacy admits work. It is NOT just ‘oh legacy, he’s in’ you moron." Much of the discussion dealt with athletic preferences which are not a subject of the complaint. Nevertheless, a considerable number of the posts are arguing who is favored by such preferences. All of these discussions related to admissions preferences have been inundated by racist posts. I removed a few from this thread this morning, but it would require more time and effort than I have available to clean up the entire thread. Based on many of the posts in threads such as this one, if a significant number of Black students are still admitted to top schools next year, there is going to be a mass explosion of heads. While Asians are often the target of racist posts, a considerable number of posters who either identify themselves as Asian or appear to be Asian post very racist things about Black people. Of course, non-Asians also post similar messages. Between the racism, name-calling, and the general lack of substance in the posts in this thread, I really found it unbearable to read.

The most active thread yesterday "Wedding Gifts for future daughter in law" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster requested suggestions for a wedding gift for her future daughter-in-law who does not wear jewelry. She immediately received a number of suggestions for art, gardening-related items, and a watch. A watch was ruled out because the original poster has just helped her son pick out for for his future bride. Many posters weigh in against art or paintings because they are too personal and there is a good chance the daughter-in-law might not like what is chosen. Nobody really specifically objects to the gardening implement suggestions, but there is no indication that the young couple will have a yard that will allow gardening. Other suggestions include a vase, a quilt, or a classic Chanel purse. Several posters ridicule all of the suggestions as reflecting the interests of "boomers" that will likely not be appreciated by a young woman. When asked for their own suggestions, however, the younger posters don't really offer any ideas. Despite a watch being ruled out, discussion repeatedly returns to suggestions of watches. Some posters say that they no longer wear watches and give reasons why watches are no longer necessary. For instance, one poster says that ovens have clocks so women don't need watches. This provokes a poster to respond saying that, in this case, the original poster should buy her future daughter-in-law an oven. Throughout the thread posters emphasize that the gift should reflect the future daughter-in-law's interests and not the original poster's. The best way to ensure this, posters advise, is to ask the woman what she would like. However, several posters note that it can be uncomfortable asking for gifts. Almost as controversial as watches were the suggestions for a quilt. This was considered by some to be an old fashioned idea that might be more appropriate for rural backwoods regions. But, other posters were big fan of quilts. A few posters suggested forgoing material items and, instead, offering an experience such as a spa day. Many posters said that they were very appreciative of high-quality cookware that they had received as wedding gifts. I don't think any gift suggestion escaped criticism and all of the ideas had their detractors. The thread is actually pretty funny at times and is worth reading merely for the entertainment value. For instance, when a poster's suggestions of a gardening bench or a quilt were ridiculed as coming from a boomer, she responded by confessing to being a boomer, having two cats, and promising to log off DCUM and return to her crochet project. She said that she would leave this thread to the "young whipper snappers".