Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Large early inheritance to only 1 of 3 siblings?" and posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. It's always somewhat surprising to me when the most active thread is one of which I was completely unaware. That is the case here, with the thread reaching 8 pages without me knowing about it. The original poster describes a scenario in which elderly parents have three children who are all married and professionally employed. One of the three siblings works in a church and, while financially comfortable, is less well off than the other two siblings. That sibling was the beneficiary of a $1 million gift from the parents that allowed them to live at a higher standard of living than the others, purchasing a large house in the most desirable neighborhood of the city and sending their children to private school. The parents do not plan to provide similar gifts to the two other siblings and any future inheritance will, presumably, be split evenly. The original poster asks for thoughts or advice about this situation. I almost immediately noticed that the original poster was sock puppeting on a fairly large scale. Most of those responding argue that the parents can do whatever they want with their money. The original poster, without identifying herself, doesn't disagree with that but describes it as "a bad idea" that is "strange" and "awkward". That provokes a question about why it is a bad idea. To which the original poster replies, again without identifying herself, "I’ve got three kids and it certainly seems like a bad idea to me." This sort of back and forth is a pattern throughout the thread. The original poster tries to support her original post surreptitiously, but only creates more questions and backlash. Other posters, not really engaged with the original poster's narrative, explain what they would have done in the parent's place or describe their own plans for dividing money between their own children. Several posters argue that good relations among siblings are more important than money and urge the original poster to focus on that. One poster finds the dispute so pathetic that she promises to give any estate she has to charity rather than have her children argue over money. The original poster, still not identifying herself, agrees that would make more sense than giving it to one child.

The second most active thread yesterday was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Titled, "Petty Vents", the original poster wants to hear about the minor but irritating things that bother others. The original poster's example is her mother-in-law flossing her teeth on the couch in the living room. I normally don't like these threads that bring out lots of negatively and I probably won't like this one either if I ever get around to reading it. But, for the sake of this post, I've skimmed a few pages and I will say, it doesn't look that bad. Moreover, I haven't received any reports about posts in the thread so maybe this is the exception that proves the rule. Those responding have a lot of petty vents. I don't want to list them all, but things that bothered people included losing earbuds, workplace politics, not having a toaster in the office, the sound of other's chewing, and people who order slowly at Starbucks. Many of the petty vents provoked responses and, in some cases, there are long-running discussions about the vents. Some posters offered suggestions for alleviating the irritation and others simply say that they have the same vent. This is not the deepest or most dramatic DCUM thread, but I guess it's not doing any harm which is more than can be said about a lot of other threads.

The next most active thread was titled "Can we cancel Open Streets?" and posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. For those not familiar with the concept, "Open Streets" is a global initiative in which the DC government participates that encourages residents to reimagine streets in a less car-centric way. Periodically, a long stretch of a District street is closed to vehicles for several hours. This allows the street to be used for walking, biking, roller-blading, or anything else that couldn't be possible with cars on the road. These events have developed into small festivals of sorts. The original poster, however, is not a fan of the events, claiming that everyone she knows hates the events and that they inconvenience "tens or hundreds of thousands of people". The original poster also claims that her child missed a swim lesson because of an Open Streets event. The original poster doesn't find a lot of support for her position. Many posters attest to enjoying Open Streets and, contrary to what the original poster would have us believe, say that the events are well-attended. One poster points out that all kinds of events including parades and marathons routinely close DC streets and, as such, it is strange to single out Open Streets for criticism. The metro politics forum has become home to non-stop debates about bike lanes and anti-bike lane posters attempted to highjack this thread for their purposes. But I did my best to prevent that. Open Streets is much broader than just bikes and the bike lane fight can continue in the existing threads. Posters question the original poster's claims about the number of people inconvenienced by Open Streets. The "hundreds of thousands" the original poster cites would mean that most of the District's population was bothered. That is not believable. Open Streets opponents raise objection after objection, but those are generally shot down fairly easily by those who support the events. The opponents eventually settle on describing Open Streets as racist based on the false claim that the events are almost exclusively attended by White residents. Anyone who has participated in an Open Streets event will easily know that this is not true. The crowds tend to be very diverse.

The final thread at which I'll look today is another one from the "Off-Topic" forum. Titled, "Can good customer service ever come back?", the original poster says that companies are still blaming being short-staffed on the pandemic and that  many of the employees they do have are terrible. She wants to know if good customer service will return in her lifetime. One problem with this thread is that the original poster was not clear about to what exactly she was referring. Some posters blame customer service being outsourced to call centers in low wage countries. But, the original poster seems to be more interested in in-person customer service, for instance describing declining service at a car dealer to which she has gone for years. Some posters say that because jobs are plentiful, employees are not motivated to work hard in order to keep their job, especially ones that don't pay well. One poster blames the increasing emphasis on equity in today's society which results in people in service roles not feeling a need to "kowtow" to customers. Some posters blame the businesses rather than the employees, suggesting that companies have learned that customers will tolerate poor service. Several posters related that when they were younger they worked in service jobs and tried to provide good service. But, they feel those in such jobs today don't have the same work ethnic and that they don't care about their performance. On the other hand, some posters report that they generally receive good customer service and don't really have any complaints. They emphasize being kind and respectful to those in service jobs which, they say, normally causes similar behavior in return. Some posters, either as a result of negative experiences or due to their own personalities, are fans of increased automation and happy to avoid all interaction with other people.