Thursday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread was the thread about masking that I've already discussed and will skip today. But, I can't believe people are still arguing about masking generally and in that thread particularly. The next most active thread was titled, "Rockville Teen Charged with Threats of Mass Violence", and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)". The outline of this story is that on Wednesday, the Montgomery County Police Department arrested 18-year-old "Andrea Ye, of Rockville, whose preferred name is Alex Ye". Ye was charged with one count of threatening mass violence. The threat was said to have been targeted at Wootton High School. The basis of the charge appears to be 129-page document that MCPD described as a "manifesto" but the Washington Post described as a "memoir". The document, which carries a disclaimer saying, "This is a work of fiction", described an attack on a school by a character named "James Wang". Apparently someone who had encountered Ye in a psychiatric facility in which Ye spent quite a bit of time alerted Baltimore area police that the "James Wang" had many similarities to Ye. At the time the thread was started, there were very few details of the case available and and posters in the thread immediately latched on to indications that Ye is transgender. The very first poster to reply asked, "So is this person a biological male or female?" This fixation on gender dominated the thread, eventually provoking me to lock it. But let's just get this out of the way. Officials were silent on Ye's gender beyond using male pronouns and there is no indication that Ye has undergone any gender affirming care either socially or medically. Nevertheless, posters quickly speculated about the effect of testosterone and links between transgender people and mental illness. There seems to be no question that Ye suffers from mental illness. According to the Washington Post, he has been out of school for most of the past two years while being repeatedly hospitalized for mental health reasons. According to court documents referenced by the Post, Ye "claimed to be Jesus Christ and was going to crucify himself." Some posters viewed Ye as "a young person in crisis" primarily in need of treatment. Others perceived him as a dangerous threat and applauded police for their action. It seems that this case will hinge on whether a document clearly labeled as fiction, written by someone who does not appear to have made any overt act such as obtaining a weapon, can constitute a "threat". Another question is whether the potential 10 years imprisonment that Ye faces is the best course of action in this case. But there was very little discussion of such topics in the thread which was, instead, dominated by repeated questions about Ye's gender.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum and titled, "Thanks to the bike party organizers!". Earlier this week one of the most active threads that I discussed was about the District of Columbia's change of plans regarding a bike lane on Connecticut Avenue. A long-debated proposal to create a bike lane has riled up DCUM posters for some time but last week District officials said that a bike lane is no longer being planned. In response to this decision, local cyclists staged a mass ride down Connecticut Avenue. I haven't seen any numbers concerning how many participated, but video I've seen makes it clear that there were a lot. They filled two entire lanes for multiple blocks. This thread was started by a poster who considered the event to be "awesome". But, DCUM is full of people who dislike bicyclists and soon the thread was less a discussion of the event and more an argument about bikes in general. One poster claimed to hate bikes because she wasn't sure whether they would behave like a car or a pedestrian. The anti-bike crew is fixated on any bicyclists breaking traffic laws, but doesn't seem to care about the equally-common lawbreaking by cars. As far as discusion of the mass cycling event was concerned, both sides were being somewhat deceptive. The pro-bike posters insisted that this was simply a group of cyclists innocently using the road in a completely legal manner. Obviously, it was far more than that. The anti-bike posters falsely claimed that the bicycles had blocked traffic during rush hour and, based on their reaction, appeared to believe that this was the worst public disturbance since the storming of the Bastille. Pro-bike posters said that if drivers don't want bikes to block their way, they should support a bike lane. Car drivers threatened to run them over. While there is room for criticism of just about everyone involved in this debate, there is at least one anti-bike poster who really seems to have lost touch with reality. The poster has a singular view of all bicyclists as young and unmarried "Bike Bros" whose childhoods, filled with participation trophies, had made them perpetual victims. Just for good measure, the bicyclists are described as "socialists" and a "menace" who should be banned from DC. Anyone riding a bike on Connecticut Avenue, especially with kids, is described as "dumb" and deserving of any harm that comes to them. The pro-bike posters agree that riding on the road is dangerous, which is why they want a bike lane. The only thing I think that both sides agree on is that this debate is far from over.

Next was a thread titled, "Can 29yr old live off $1.5 million w/working?" and posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. The original poster says that he and his 29-year-old brother each inherited $1.5 million. His brother also inherited a house. The original poster put his money in an investment account but his brother plans to live off of his and not work. The original poster wants to know if this is possible. Posters are split with most thinking that it will not be possible. It seems to depend on the type of lifestyle the original poster's brother plans to live. Some posters think he might be able to do it if he lives a very minimal lifestyle. But others warn that inflation means that what might be sufficient funds today will likely not be in the future. Posters also warn that the house will need continual upkeep and eventually a big ticket repair such as a new roof. Others also pointed out that the brother might not have worked enough to be eligible for social security so he wouldn't be able to count on that helping later. One poster, who apparently spends far too much time on DCUM, suggested that it would be possible if the original poster's brother steals groceries when checking out, alluding to another one of the most active threads that I discussed recently. Several posters thought that living on this amount is possible, but that it required a serious investment strategy and very disciplined spending. They were not sure, based on things the original poster had said, that the brother would be up to either of these things. More concerning to many posters was that he would run out of money at some point in the future and come to the original poster expecting to get part of the original poster's inheritance. One poster suggested that if the original poster's brother invested the $1.5 million in bonds with a return of 5% he would have $75,000 to live on. Eventually the thread sort of developed into a debate between the posters who thought $75k was sufficient and those who thought that analysis didn't properly account for inflation and likely increases in spending needs. Posters from the first group kept insisting that the others live in a bubble and have no understanding how most of America lives. Members of the second group repeatedly asserted that healthcare and other costs increase with age and, as one poster put it, it is expensive to be old. The solution for some posters was for the brother to move abroad to a low cost of living country.

The last thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum and titled, "DD has to wake up DH on school mornings". The original poster says that she wakes her almost 9-year-old daughter up in the morning, fixes her breakfast, and helps her get ready for school. She then wakes her husband and leaves for work. Her husband takes their daughter to the bus stop. Recently the original poster learned that her husband has not been getting out of bed when she wakes him and, instead, their daughter hangs out alone until 5 minutes before the bus comes and then wakes up her father. The original poster is upset by this and doesn't think her daughter should have to do this. She wants to know if she should talk to her husband about it. Those responding have a lot of different positions on this. Some think that the original poster should absolutely talk to her husband and remind him of his responsibility and that a 9-year-old is not a reliable alarm clock. Such posters think that the husband should be setting his own alarm and getting out of bed on his own. Others think that a 9-year-old is not only old enough to take care of herself for a half-hour each morning, but also capable of leaving, locking the door, and getting herself to the bus stop. The original poster followed up to say that she is not bothered that her daughter is left alone for a while but she doesn't think she is old enough to go to the bus stop alone because it is not very close and there are no sidewalks. Her qualm is that her child is being forced to be responsible for an adult. The original poster also adds that her husband normally stays up until 1 am which is probably why he is sleeping so late. In many ways, this is really a relationship issue and that is how many of the responses address it. Posters want to know why he is staying up so late, what other impacts that has on their relationship, his weight, overall health, and even whether he snores. Posters advise everything from a sleep study to family therapy. One poster expressed concern that the original poster's husband might have a gaming addiction. Another poster drafted a treatise on the current state of the American family and how that applies to the original poster's situation.