The Most Active Threads Since Friday

The most active thread over the weekend was the one asking why people are Republicans which I have already discussed. That thread had twice as many posts as the next most active thread which was titled, "‘Don't Text Me So Early!’" and was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster explains that she texted her sister-in-law at 6:51 AM Saturday morning to invite her to the original poster's son's high school graduation party. The original poster's sister-in-law responded by telling her not to text so early. The original poster doesn't think there should be times when you shouldn't text and asks if she is correct in this regard. I am not sure why the original poster chose this forum rather than the "Family Relationships" forum. For that matter, to the extent this thread deals with relationships, it is more about relationships with technology. So maybe the "Electronics and Technology" forum would have been better. Those responding were split between posters who agreed with the original poster that texts can be sent at all hours and it is up to the recipients to turn off notifications or silence their phones and those who believe sending texts deserves some consideration and that texts shouldn't be sent before 8 AM. In other words, the division is between those who see this as a technical issue and those who see it as a matter of good manners. The technologists argue that it is easy to turn off notifications. The manners folks claim that they have reasons for keeping notifications on such as teens out late at night while parents want to sleep. The technologists respond saying that phones have settings to allow the kids' numbers through and there are ways to block text notifications but still allow phone calls. The manners posters identify other reasons that they can't block notifications for unknown numbers. What is clear is that this is an area in which social norms have not been established and, therefore, posters have much different ideas about what is acceptable. The responses also demonstrate posters' different perceptions of texts. For many, and I probably fall into this group, different forms of communications have different priorities. Email is generally the least time sensitive and phone calls are the most urgent. Texts fall somewhere in the middle. But for some posters, texts seem to be treated with the same importance as phone calls. This is understandable, I guess, when you realize that for some young folks, the idea of using a phone as a phone is almost incomprehensible. They don't expect audio unless it is accompanied by video. Therefore, while some posters can't imagine a text being sent in a true emergency rather than a phone call, for others this is a perfectly normal expectation. This highlights another factor that eventually came to dominate the thread. Many of these divisions are broken down by age. Those who are comfortable setting intricate settings on their devices slag off those who don't want to or are not capable of delving into all the features of their phones as being "old". So a fair number of age-based epithets were slung back and forth. What is clear is that this is uneven terrain and that individuals should, as one poster put it, "know their audience" in order to avoid giving offense.

The next most active thread was the Gaza war thread that continues to generate a lot of interest. After that was a thread posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. Titled, "Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!", this is a topic that both in real life and on DCUM simply refuses to die. This is at least the third time that a thread about bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue is among the most active threads about which I have written. This thread was started by a poster who quoted from recommendations by the DC Council's Committee on Transportation and the Environment regarding the fiscal year 2025 budget. The Committee's budget recommendations prohibits any funds for redeveloping Connecticut Avenue unless a protected bike lane is included. The bike lanes included in the original plan for Connecticut Avenue caused the project to be repeatedly delayed as some in the community fought against the idea. Then the District's Department of Transportation announced that a bike lane would not be included. This caused a backlash by supporters of bike lanes and led to the Council attempting to reverse that decision. As could be expected, responses were divided between those who were dismayed by this development and those happy about it. The first group had thought that bike lanes were dead and buried and are aghast that bike lanes have risen from the dead. The second group was excited and, in some cases, a bit triumphalist, claiming that this showed the power and determination of bike lane supporters. After what has easily been several hundred pages of posts on this topic, there is not a whole lot new that can be said. Nevertheless, there were some new twists. Some bike lane opponents argued that if the Council language became law, it would delay any changes to Connecticut Avenue, perhaps indefinitely. Their claim is that rather than change its plans, the Department of Transportation would shift the funding to other projects. The bike lane opponents seem to want the entirety of Connecticut Avenue to be devoted to bikes. They don't want bikes to share car lanes because they slow down cars. They don't want a dedicated bike lane because that takes space that could otherwise be used for cars. But, according to posters in the thread, DDOT's current plan expands parking availability and allows parking at times that it is currently prohibited. So this actually reduces car lanes comported to the status quo. This leads to discussion about how customers actually get to the stores and businesses lining Connecticut Avenue and about the importance of parking. Bike lane opponents also argued that even if a bike lane were created, it would not be heavily used because the street has a fairly steep grade that is not practical for casual bike riding. When posters countered that e-bikes change that thinking, opponents demonstrated a, perhaps intentional, misunderstanding of e-bikes. This topic represents an almost perfect example of competing priorities with cars, bikes, buses, and pedestrians all wanting to safely use the same space, with the added desire for convenient parking. It will be impossible for DDOT to please everyone and, as such, the trick will be in finding a compromise that upsets everyone the least.

The next most active thread was again one that I've already discussed. That was the thread about college campus protests. After that was a thread titled, "‘They won’t go to kindergarten in diapers!’…well, actually, they are." which was posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she is a kindergarten teacher and has just had a meeting to plan for their incoming classes. She learned that three of the kids will not be potty trained and will be using diapers. She says that none of these kids have special needs and blames this on lax potty-training attitudes which have encouraged parents to take their time and not to worry because "No one goes to K in diapers!”. Throughout the thread other posters who say they are teachers also note increases in kids using diapers, so the original poster is not alone with this experience. Many posters are sympathetic to the original poster and don't believe that she should have to be responsible for changing diapers. Many express hope that the parents will be able to potty train these kids over the summer. However, a few posters who have kids with special needs ask for tolerance and understanding. Even though the original poster says that the kids don't have special needs, these posters suspect that they might. Moreover, they are concerned about how their own kids might be received. This ignites an ongoing debate about the treatment of kids with special needs in schools. Advocates of such children, especially their parents, generally argue in favor of mainstreaming the children. Other parents frequently are bothered by the inclusion of kids with special needs who are sometimes disruptive. They believe such children negatively impact the larger class. Some posters suggest that medical issues might be behind the need for diapers. But, more commonly, posters blame the situation on poor parenting. One poster suggests that this is an outcome of the pandemic which left many children at home with their parents who essentially neglected them. Some posters agree that such kids are overly attached to screens and are not used to being told "no". Potty training is simply one more parenting task that was ignored. But other posters were not so quick to blame the parents. The original poster had mentioned that the kids have 504s, which is an accommodation for a disability. These posters argue that parents would be unlikely to go to the effort to obtain a 504 designation if there were any hope that they could potty train their kids prior to the next school year. Therefore, these parents suggest there is something more going on with the kids and that they deserve support and help rather than disdain. Another view presented by a poster is that the purpose of the 504 is to establish a means of communication between the school and parents in case of a need for a diaper change. This poster argued that elementary teachers can't legally change diapers. Therefore, the parents would need to be contacted when such a need occurs.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. Titled, "Husband is dying - no life insurance or savings, I’m a SAHM", the original poster says that her husband is an alcoholic who suffers from many related medical issues. He is currently hospitalized and it is only a matter of time until he passes away. The original poster explains that they have three children under the age of 10 and are currently separated. Her husband has been secretive about their financial situation and now that she is exploring it, she realizes that they have significant debt that significantly exceeds their assets. Her husband's only life insurance is equal to one year of his current salary, so essentially nothing. She has been a stay at home mom, but plans to go back to work in the fall as a teacher. However, that won't get them very far. The value of the responses varies, with some not being of much help, but some offering what appears to be very good advice. A number of posters suggest that since the credit card debt is in her husband's name, the original poster should not pay any of that. That debt will fall on her husband's estate. Meanwhile, anything for which she is the beneficiary will pass through to her. Therefore, she should ensure that she is the beneficiary of his life insurance and retirement accounts. The basic strategy emphasized is to separate herself from her husband's debts as much as possible while simultaneously ensuring that she is the beneficiary of anything that might pay out. Her primary goal should be to protect assets. Several posters warn not to spend his retirement account, but leave that alone to grow. Other suggestions are to sell one of the cars and maybe even the house and find a cheaper alternative. Posters also advise that she confirm the home ownership arrangement and that she open a bank account that is solely in her name if she doesn't already have one. The original poster asked about the ramifications of divorce at this point, but a number of posters explained financial advantages to remaining married. Posters also explained social security benefits that both she and the kids could expect. This thread is not without its flaws. As is fairly common, some posters didn't bother reading the thread and repeated previous ideas or ones that had already been rejected. There are also a couple of posters for whom it might have been better had they not offered their input. But, all in all, posters do their best to be helpful and non-judgemental. Many of the responses are quite detailed and demonstrate both knowledge and a willingness to help. I have said this about other threads in the money forum, but I have to think that much of the advice in this thread is as good, if not better, than what you might pay a professional to provide. That does not mean that the original poster should not talk to a lawyer and financial advisor, she absolutely should, but the information she is obtaining here will go a long ways towards preparing her for those meetings.