Thursday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Massive pentagon leak re Ukraine conflict" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started back on April 6 after the New York Times reported about a leak of secret US military documents regarding Ukraine. The thread gained interest yesterday due to the arrest of the alleged leaker. This story, and as a result the thread, has had an interesting trajectory. When the leak first occurred, it was portrayed as being bad for the Biden administration because it allegedly documented that that Ukraine-Russian war was going worse for the Ukrainians than it was being portrayed. When it was shown that some of the leaked documents had been doctored, many concluded that this was a Russian disinformation operation. As is true of almost everything these days, posters reacted based mostly on their political leanings. Biden supporters blamed the leaks on MAGA supporters aligned with Russia and downplayed the importance of the leaked information. Anti-Biden posters claimed that the leaks undermined public statements about the war and demonstrated that Biden was a liar. Much of the discusion focused on the origin of the documents. The New York Times article noted that the documents were circulating on Twitter and Telegram, but posters soon learned that prior to reaching those networks, the documents had surfaced in various discussion groups on Discord. The trail eventually led to a Discord group that had been disbanded. Many posters were convinced that the leaker must be member of Congress and there was quite a bit of discussion about which Member of Congress or which party might be behind the leak. Those suspicions eventually proved unfounded. The New York Times, working with an investigator from Bellingcat, was able to identify and interview a member of the now disbanded group and provide information about the leaker whose name the newspaper revealed yesterday. The leaker turned out to be a member of the Air National Guard who allegedly only intended to use the documents to educate members of the small Discord group about world affairs. Liberal posters were quick to claim vindication for predicting a conservative was behind the leak. Conservative posters were not able to respond with a cohesive message. Some tried to portray the leaker as a libertarian rather than a conservative. Posters who followed Donald Trump's lead and insisted that this was the most damaging leak in the history of leaks suddenly saw this as the brave act of an anti-war patriot. Some of the more conspiratorial-minded theorized that the airman was a fall guy for higher ups and urged posters not to trust the New York Times or Washington Post who are — according to these posters — in Biden's pocket.

The second most active thread yesterday was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Titled, "Neighbor is unmediated schizophrenic; anything to do?", the original poster describes a neighbor in his late 20s who returned from college and is suffering from schizophrenia. He spends his days outside talking and screaming. The original poster asks if there is anything she can do or whether she should be concerned. As far as I can tell, the original poster didn't post again in the thread so the 10 pages of responses accrued without further input from her. The responses span a wide spectrum. On one end there is a suggestion to pool resources and hire a health aid, Others advise politely offering assistance to the parents. Some argue to simply show compassion to the young man, quoting statistics documenting that the mentally ill are more at risk of being harmed than of harming others. At the other end of the spectrum are posters concerned about potential danger and who suggest calling the police. Others suggest installing cameras, fences, and other security measures. Some posters go so far as suggest that the original poster move. Several posters recount experiences of dealing with mentally ill relatives and describe the difficulties involved. While there is general agreement that only a minority of schizophrenics are a danger to others, statistics are provided showing that schizophrenics are more likely to be involved in violence than the general population. Some posters support involuntary commitment of such individuals while others point out the current difficulties of obtaining any sort of medical attention. The issue of how to address mental health issues comes up in a range of topics these days, especially due to the current Republican position that mass shootings should be addressed as mental health problems rather than a result of the wide availability of guns. As such, many of the points made in this thread have been previously posted countless times. There is general agreement that we have completely inadequate resources for addressing mental health. Mechanisms for dealing with mental health are so bad that many are unwilling or even afraid to use them. This ranges from concern that calling the police may result in death or injury to the individual in crisis to a perception (likely grounded in reality), that long-term care facilities should be avoided at all cost due to inherent problems.

Third was a thread titled, "Can’t wrap my mind around how expensive weddings are" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster expresses amazement at that the average cost for a wedding is 30-50k and can't believe young people are spending that much when the money could be put toward a house. The original poster goes on to say that she and her partner make 350k combined but, even so, are thinking about just going to the courthouse to get married. There is broad support for alternatives to expensive weddings, whether that is a courthouse wedding or simply a scaled down traditional wedding. On the other hand, a few posters offer justifications for expensive weddings, especially when friends and family have travelled long distances. I haven't read very many of the posts in this thread, but what I have read suggests that the general view is that everyone should have the wedding they want and that there is not necessarily anything wrong with doing it one way rather than another. There is some disagreement about hotel ballroom weddings and whether or not they are tacky, but generally this seems to be a live and let live topic. Several posters relate personal experiences and how they view those looking back. For the most part, posters seem happy with the choices they made. There is a dispute running throughout the thread over whether small weddings should be "normalized" or whether they are, in fact, already normalized. I think what might be going on here is that some posters think that most weddings are large because those are the ones to which they get invited. Small weddings, by definition, don't have many guests. So, unless you have a lot of friends or relatives getting married in small weddings, you probably don't get invited to, and may not even know about, many. You are, statistically speaking, more likely to be on the guest list of a large wedding which might give you the impression that all weddings are large. But, as many posters in this thread testify, small weddings are fairly common.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Fragile Children =", the original poster could not have done more to put me in a negative frame of mind if she had intentionally set out to do so. First of all, the title of the thread is meaningless. Apparently, it was meant to continue into the body of the post — a long-standing pet peeve of mine — which says, "Fragile Parents = Fragile Americans". The original post focuses on a video titled, "Why modern America creates fragile children". The narrator of the video immediately begins discussing problems with "Gen Z". As longtime readers of this blog will be aware, I completely detest generational labels. This video demonstrates much of what I don't like about such labels. In essence, the video is a modernized version of "The kids today have it too easy. I walked eight miles to school in six feet of snow up hill both ways". The narrator of the video contends that beginning in 1995, children started to be overly protected and had fewer independent experiences. As a result, they are weak and easily-damaged. He attributes this to kids spending time playing video games. I dislike generational labels primarily because they are generalizations. Generalizations inherently have exceptions. My contention is that generalizations based on generation are so exception-filled as to be essentially meaningless. Let's take one example. The narrator cites that fact that kids get driver's licenses later these days. He implies that this eliminates an opportunity for independent experience. In several states (and DC), license requirements have changed so that drivers cannot be fully licensed until 18 years of age. So, they are not necessarily delaying getting licenses because they are too busy playing video games, but rather because they can't legally do so. More importantly, the availability of functional public transportation and ride-sharing services means that travelling independently doesn't require a driver's license. Similarly, much of what the narrator says about video games makes me question whether he has spent even five minutes around a child playing a video game recently. To be clear, I am not happy about the time kids spend playing video games. This has been a point of contention between me and my two sons from the first minute they touched a computer keyboard. But, the narrator's suggestion that being online has led children to be unable to cope with bullying is bizarre. Multi-player games are full of bullying. Certainly, not every child is able to deal with it, but the children who have spent years in such environments have clearly learned to. He claims that children haven't learned to cooperate. Again, does he know anything about these games? Many require the participants to be part of a team. Cooperation, working as a group, and problem-solving are part and parcel of experience. Obviously, young people are not beyond criticism, but that must be applied at the individual level rather than the entire cohort simply because of their year of birth.