Posts by Bradley Scott2

Ashley Rodriguez20 said:We all know I'm basically a softie when I say someone's just being a total wimp.

That term is actually a pretty specific way to describe how certain guys act and their whole outlook on life.
How would you even label them?
Try coming up with an American slang term for it.

I don't see why anyone would take offense at it.
Some people get offended if you call them old, or if you address a woman as "ma'am" or "miss," or whatever.
And honestly, nowadays you can't even call a thief a thief without worrying about getting sued for emotional distress... everyone's so sensitive...

As for what I said about the Duluth model—yeah, it's brainwashing. I could say that on TV or right in the middle of Times Square. Go ahead and sue me; I'll just bring five experts to court who will back me up.

Charles Fox10 said:You're right, I'll ask the moderators to fix that.

Are you going to fix those two warnings you handed out to me too, or at least explain what was actually so offensive about them?
By that logic, you could have flagged half the posts in this thread.

Charles Fox10 said:Sorry for the delay, I honestly didn't see your complaint until now.

And the verdict is that I resorted to personal attacks or ad hominem, which isn't allowed, especially when paired with insults.

If my posts are worth a penalty (and I’m not saying they aren't), then at least one out of every four or five posts in this thread qualifies. You docked me 30 points twice, while Skldz only got 10 for direct insults without any provocation. Previously, my posts earned 10 points while his earned 30.

What exactly was "ad hominem" about my posts?
Could you clarify that for me?

Is it an ad hominem to tell someone to "use their brain" when they're performing insane mental gymnastics that defy all logic (which is how this whole discussion is going)?
And is it an insult to jokingly suggest someone is just trying to drag you down to their level by acting like an expert? That female user responded to that post in the exact same way.

Because, again, some women here post incredibly offensive things every other time, including in threads I've replied to.
The moderator allows them to derail discussions, spam the thread, and use strawman arguments. They even get away with insulting people and making false accusations.

Even you felt how that went down in this specific thread, having to defend yourself against senseless accusations.

Since nobody got back to me on the general complaints thread, I figured I’d just start a new one here.

I ended up getting two strikes right away on this thread:

and

My issue is that the moderation feels really unfair and selective.
If my posts were offensive, they were mostly just reacting to other equally offensive posts that didn't get flagged at all.

The whole discussion has spiraled out of control, and insults are flying everywhere.

It’s interesting, though—most of the debate stays somewhat civil until a certain group of users can't win an argument with actual facts or evidence, so they just pivot to personal attacks. Instead of the moderator stepping in to stop the conversation from turning into a shouting match, it's tolerated, and then the penalties seem to be applied selectively.

There are hundreds of posts before and after mine that haven't been flagged, even when they are straight-up insults.
Sure, my posts have some sarcasm and maybe a bit of an edge, but there's still an actual argument behind them.

Banning just my two posts while ignoring a sea of trolls feels like a way to dismiss someone's points entirely.

To give you an idea, look at this post:

ahhh Bradley Scott2...that guy is just too frustrated because he can't see his own dick from his desk, who wouldn't be in his shoes.

That is a direct ad hominem attack, even though I had basically stepped away from the debate because it was impossible to have a normal conversation.
That insult got a 10-point strike, yet my posts got 30 points, even though I wasn't being personally abusive like that.

And it doesn't stop there; the same user comments on the moderation just a few posts later:

But there's no strike for that either, just like there are generally no strikes when people throw insults or constantly use strawman arguments, even against the moderator.

It’s pretty straightforward.

Ever since the revolution, leftist ideology has basically boiled down to one slogan:

First, we rob the wealthy, and then we figure out how to split the loot.

Most revolutionaries stick to that script because they don't bother distinguishing between people who built legitimate businesses and those reckless industrialists looking to exploit everyone.

Back during the era of communist rule, hatred toward the rich was systematically stoked by framing them as imaginary "internal and external enemies." The goal was to remind the masses that they only had the party to thank for protecting them from those terrifying capitalists. Of course, the smarter folks knew that workers' wages under those "evil" capitalists were actually way higher than their own—even though they were supposedly the "self-managed" owners of their own factories.

Once democratic governments took over, they all turned out to be essentially leftist, as every administration competes to see who can snatch more from those with means to redistribute to the masses. That’s why they sow resentment against anyone successful; it makes them easier targets for theft. In their eyes, a business owner who avoids an excessive tax bill is a far worse criminal than a car thief. But that works perfectly for a leftist government, because a car thief is just stealing from citizens the state doesn't care about. The government cares deeply about having enough cash in the coffers to buy votes and fund social programs.
Politicians are always bragging—WE gave you this, WE gave you that!
Well, they didn't.
They took it from the people who actually work and produce, just to spend it on buying votes.
And, honestly, it’s much easier to line your own pockets when you're stealing from a massive pile.

Morgan Carter said:Apparently, it's trendy now to act like the Taliban and just let everyone get away with anything without any consequences.

People are getting labeled as "hardcore Taliban" in other threads.
So, what's the plan?
I think the moderators should probably look into whether someone is actually trying to be offensive, or if they're just using the term metaphorically to describe people with more extreme views—in this case, religious ones.

Elizabeth Davis said:I don't need to look any further; what was linked in the first post covers it. I'm not going to argue with you. I've already said what I think about your posts, and I really don't see how you aren't trolling, lying, being insulting, or just being unoriginal.

Well, those are some pretty heavy accusations.
Per the forum rules, you'll need to back them up with actual proof or take them back.
So, specifically—where exactly am I being disrespectful toward single mothers?

Elizabeth Davis said:I’m with Lyanna, this feels like blatant trolling and honestly kind of insults single moms. You can check

Can you give me one specific example where I was actually being rude or insulting to single mothers?

Your post is just a reach and a false accusation.

Chloe Roberts2 said:Saying the American Red Cross is some kind of haven for people with mental health issues and calling psychiatry a pseudoscience is just awful. It feels like a direct attack on both the American Red Cross and mothers (it implies mothers are mentally ill without any proof). Attacking psychiatry is basically an indirect way of attacking moms—starting by labeling them as unwell and then saying psychiatry can't help, which leads to the conclusion that kids should only ever be left with their fathers.

I stand by everything I've said.
You can always report this to the District Attorney; I could easily gather evidence to back up my claims.
Maybe you should personally visit a father's rights group and hear firsthand what they and their children are actually going through?

Most of what I’ve posted here was already included in a formal petition I hand-delivered to various government agencies five years ago—The Administration, federal departments, relevant Congressional committees, the Attorney General for civil rights, the child advocate, the Ombudsman, and even the Democratic Party...
So, none of this will come as a surprise to them.
Why do you think these legal amendments are happening? It's because even the Secretary herself realizes the current system is broken!

And now, I'm preparing to send another formal letter to the Department regarding these legislative changes.

Both myself and other users on Reddit have provided examples and links documenting this behavior in various threads—anyone who looks will find them. We haven't shared many here because no one really asked; most discussions are held by those of us who already know the sad reality of the situation.

What I am talking about is a very serious societal issue. My children are victims of the system, just like so many others.

I'm not claiming that every mother is a malicious manipulator or a psychiatric case. There are absolutely problems with fathers too, in all forms—violence, alcoholism, neglect, etc. I even know of cases where it's the opposite, where the system works against the mother, such as when a manipulative father has the mother (the child's grandmother) acting as the judge in family court. Where in my writing does it say I justify that kind of behavior?
But the system tries to fight against that (how effectively is another question), while problematic mothers are simply ignored.

If the mods and admins feel that my writing—and my advocacy for the truth and the well-being of children and society—needs to be sanctioned, then so be it. One day, that will be a stain on this forum too.

I have already put my story in writing and had it notarized (and I am adding recent events to it). Once my children are adults, this story will see the light of day in a book alongside at least twenty other stories from fathers and their children who were harassed and abused by the very system meant to protect them. If Reddit wants to be included in that book as a negative example, then go right ahead!

But why?
It’s a silly question, I know, but I’m just curious.

I suspect it might be more about the fact that not everyone is focused on politics right now—plus, I’ve been running into 503 and 504 errors for the last couple of days, so maybe that's part of it too...

Someone has deleted about four or five of my posts in the politics section over the last couple of days.
It happened across several different threads, including some replies I wrote to others.

Does anyone know what’s going on? Did they roll out some new moderation guidelines or criteria?

I mean, it's a bit frustrating to put effort into a long post just to have it wiped away without any explanation.
What's even the point of writing if that's how it works?
🙂

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Husbands won't be able to register at the main house while the wife stays at the vacation home:

Robert Rubin stated today in Indianapolis that utility fees are essentially a relic of the old socialist era—which, let's face it, we've moved past—and therefore they should be replaced by a property tax. His goal? To make the American tax system actually transparent so that any entrepreneur out there has a clear, predictable roadmap of what they're dealing with.

Rubin believes this new legislation will effectively shut down fraud attempts. "We can't have situations where a husband is registered at the primary residence while his wife is listed at a seasonal getaway," he noted. Apparently, since we started using Social Security numbers to track everyone, the computer systems have become incredibly pedantic—they flag every single inconsistency. Now, the government knows exactly how much water you use, your electricity consumption, your salary, and where you’re officially living... If a couple wants to live apart, fine, that's their business, but if it's just a paper sham to dodge taxes, they'll be hit with massive fines. According to The New York Times, Rubin insists this isn't a tax hike, just a structural swap.

He expressed confidence that The Cabinet will have the final draft of the property tax bill ready by March, with the congressional debates expected to kick off in April.

On paper, sure, this looks great for the treasury because the state gets to collect more revenue. But honestly? I know several couples who REALLY do live separately despite being married.
For instance, my neighbor—his husband inherited a cottage on the coast and makes his living fishing, while his wife inherited an apartment in the city and works as a nurse. They aren't playing games; they just live different lives.

Linić is just talking nonsense.
What law actually requires spouses to live under the same roof?
Nowadays, courts rule that common-law relationships are equal to marriage, even if the couple never lived at the same address.

And honestly, even if our government tried to implement something like this, people would just pretend to get divorced. What then? Will they pass a law saying people aren't allowed to divorce?😂

Richard James2 said:It’s easy for this debate to spiral into petty bickering, but hey, that’s just how these topics go. Given the way everyone is throwing around credentials from all sides and the fact that we’re all hanging out on the internet, I’m just going to drop one thought here. Please, don't quote me; I have zero intention of engaging in a back-and-forth, but I feel almost obligated to say this. Last week in Rome, a 15-year-old boy took his own life—most likely because he was gay. What pushed him over the edge? Cyberbullying. After enough people on Facebook piled on with insults about his manicured nails or his pink pants, he reached his breaking point. Since we're operating in digital spaces, we shouldn't forget that words actually have consequences and they hurt. If you can't dismantle an opponent's argument with actual logic, it’s better not to sink into shallow, crude ad hominem attacks. This isn't just happening anywhere; it’s a trend among *everyone*, and if you ask anyone, they'll tell you that playing the mudslinging game is the favorite pastime of those who claim to be "enlightened." Don't think for a second that I'm pointing my finger at any specific group, oh no.

Look, don't stoop that low. In the heat of a process, you might end up dragging down someone who doesn't deserve the smear.

Even though you asked me not to quote you, I’m going to do it anyway, because what you just said is really the common thread in all these kinds of discussions.
Tolerance.
It’s just encouraging intolerance.

Who exactly is fueling intolerance these days?
It’s mostly those gay activists, really. They seem to be everywhere. Even here on this forum, just through how certain threads get moderated—not that I'm trying to criticize anyone specifically, but that whole experience left me feeling so frustrated that I find myself being a bit less tolerant toward any kind of gay activism lately.

The issue is that some gay activists can't handle the fact that society has actually become tolerant toward them. They don't want peace; they want conflict. When things stay calm, they feel the need to stir the pot with increasingly radical demands or by openly insulting people just to provoke a reaction.
Do you really think those activists actually care about that 15-year-old kid? Honestly, I don't think so. They're probably just thrilled to have a fresh topic to run with—homophobia, hate speech, and all that.

I consider myself a pretty tolerant person. I don't care what others do as long as they aren't disrupting my life, the lives of those close to me, or harming society at large. But when people constantly try to label me a homophobe just because I'm not 100% enthusiastic about pride parades or adoption requests, I have to wonder who's actually driving that narrative. Is that really the consensus among the gay community—that they need parades, adoption rights, and for legal unions to be called "marriage"?
It's either because they're forcing certain values on my kids at school that I just don't agree with, or because I simply don't feel like I'm allowed to say so.
Well, if people are going to label me a homophobe just for having an opinion, then fine—I’ll lean into it. I guess I have no choice but to embrace the title. If being "intolerant" means standing my ground against anyone trying to force their views on me, then that's exactly what I'll be. The more they try to push things down my throat, the more I'm going to resist.

Let's take a closer look at that protest in Paris. It was actually quite peaceful; most of the people there seemed like family types—maybe even religious folks or traditionalists. They were just showing they disagree with the new law. Nobody was out there spreading hate or being intolerant. I didn't see anyone carrying signs with hateful slogans or anything like that, you know?
And then you have groups like Femen showing up just to spread hate, carrying hateful signs and starting trouble everywhere they go.
Can you imagine if some far-right radicals showed up to a Pride parade acting like this—carrying signs that say "hate gay" or "in Hitler we trust" and spraying participants and police with fire extinguishers? How many years of prison time would they actually face under summary judgment?

Alexander Garcia5 said:Those Sharia wet dreams fight gay parades pretty effectively, I guess. 🙂

So, they're actually organizing a massive Pride parade in Riyadh.
😂😂😂

The FEMEN mercenaries will show up too, waving their breasts around and carrying signs that say "Gay is great!" and "Gay akbar!"

Here, take a look at this:

Alexander Garcia5 said:Exactly—this whole debate over same-sex marriage is probably gonna be, as Americans say, beating a dead horse in about ten years. ☕

I think you missed my point.
The topics won't even exist because people probably won't be publicly declaring homosexual (or "lesbo-peder" as darktiger12 puts it) inclinations or demanding those "rights." In two generations, we'll likely be seeing a referendum in Europe to introduce Sharia law.

Alexander Garcia5 said:I guess I'm just glad that in maybe ten years, this won't even be a debate anymore. It'll just be normal—kind of like how we don't sit around debating the morality of slavery or why women shouldn't vote or own property.☕

That optimism might not last as long as you think.

It’s a bit like that old joke where a guy tries to teach his horse not to eat. He almost pulls it off, but then the horse drops dead!
😂

dustybear7 said:"dustybear7" says: The sheer audacity required to present such a hollow argument is almost impressive. It’s exhausting.

I suppose my initial post gave that impression, but that isn't the case at all. You made a fair assumption regarding other assets like real estate, but the apartment the elderly couple lives in is quite small. Given how much more valuable the brother's place is due to its prime location, their current home holds significantly less value.
That’s exactly why property isn't divided on some idealistic "one for you, one for me" basis. It’s all about reaching an agreement where I actually see a payout now, while the other unit just sits there waiting for its turn... only to be split fifty-fifty down the line. 🙂

To that point, I receive the exact same amount my brother gets for renovations, thanks to my long-standing rental income. This places us on completely equal footing once again. Therefore, this isn't about me being in denial or playing blind; there is simply no question of favoritism or special treatment involved. Quite the contrary.
The elders have decided to play the martyr in this whole affair, obsessing over old divisions just to wrap everything up under one convenient, collective label. 😉

No, let us return to the matter of the "increased value."

"dustybear7," you seem remarkably optimistic about this. It’s a naive perspective, frankly.

Second, real estate prices have absolutely cratered, and they aren’t stopping anytime soon. It's a massive question mark whether any of these properties are actually worth what people claim. Everyone lives in a fantasy land, but once they hit the market, they can't find a single buyer willing to offer even half of their asking price. On top of that, the crisis is just getting worse with new property taxes on the horizon. Prices are bound to keep sliding. So, that apartment your brother insists is worth some $290k—counting all those inflated numbers—probably wouldn't even fetch $120k on the actual market.

That apartment is worth significantly more than that; this $200k figure is pure fiction. 😉

"dustybear7," you’re being optimistic. It won't happen.

My advice would be to simply accept his calculation; it works in your favor.

Is this working in my favor? The old folks and I are currently leaning toward the idea that it isn't helping at all—it’s actually doing us harm.

My brother’s logic is essentially this— The apartment is valued at those imaginary $290,000. Theoretically, I should be handing my sister $145,000, but since I am... I suppose I am here. The investment yielded a 90% increase in value. "Fifty percent goes toward actual overhead, while the rest is just pure window dressing designed to inflate his perceived value." Actually, I don't pay my sister $145; I pay her exactly $145.-90Exactly. Fifty-five bucks.
It’s an insult to anyone with a functioning brain.

Look, once those seniors get their expenses reimbursed, his actual investment drops to zero.Zero. It’s all about the money.
Furthermore, if we actually consider the increased valuation, then once the funds are returned, it wasn't his brother who inflated the value—it was the old guard.
Thirdly, if we follow that absurd logic where he invested a measly million dollars into the property, then I should be the one cutting him a check instead of him paying me out. 😲😁

And let's not forget, he wasn't paying rent while living there. Instead, he and his wife were actually generating income from renting out her property all those years. Since the apartment is located in a major vacation destination, they even took advantage of the seasonal tourist market.

In short, he was profiting from our property—both his and mine—while essentially "consuming" its value by living in it. My parents and I find his logic, to put it mildly, highly questionable and frankly quite brazen.

So, I have to ask... how is that increased property value handled?
What happens when someone invests capital into a property they don't fully own, especially while simultaneously drawing income from it and utilizing it as their primary residence?
How is this legally resolved?

That’s how I saw it too.
Look, if the regulators actually want to be fair, they just need to show everyone that Bradley Scott2's math doesn't add up.
Quincy

Let's get back to talking about that "increased value." So, my brother's logic is basically this— The apartment is worth those imaginary 290 bucks. In theory, I should give my sister 145, but since I'm... I'm here. I managed to bump up my value by 90 through some investing. Half of that goes straight to actual costs, while the rest is just for show—basically paying extra just to make it look more expensive than it really is. Actually, I don't pay my sister $145, just $145.-90Yeah, that’s $55. Honestly, this just feels like an insult to common sense. Basically, once his parents get their money back, his actual investment ends up being zero.Zero. I'm just out of cash. Even if we look at that increased value, once he gets his money back, it wasn't his brother who bumped it up—it was those old guys. Thirdly, if we follow that logic—assuming he put a million dollars into the house—then I should be the one paying him, rather than him paying me out. 😲😁

Well, you pretty much laid out all the arguments yourself there.
If parents are paying money back, they’re essentially just making an investment.

Quincy:

So, he was generating revenue in... ours When it comes to our property, he basically claimed he was "contributing" just by living there. Honestly, both my parents and I think his logic is pretty skewed—if not downright disrespectful. That's why I'm asking... What exactly happens with that increased property value, and how does it actually work? What actually happens when someone pours money into a property they don't fully own, especially if they're the ones running it and pocketing the profit? How do you even go about fixing this?

If you're living in an apartment, you really have a responsibility to take care of the place. Even if you're just renting, you should still handle the basic upkeep.

It’s honestly pretty tough to tell the difference between an actual value-add investment and just basic maintenance sometimes.
Adding more square footage through an addition obviously bumps up the property value.
It’s the same deal when you're looking at things like putting on a new exterior, installing central heating, or swapping out all the windows.
Things like repainting walls, refinishing hardwood floors, or swapping out an old faucet or water heater are just standard maintenance, especially if you've been living in the same place for a while.
Interior design is such a toss-up. It’s honestly tough to tell if those upgrades actually add any real value to the house.
If you've been living in the same house for 15 or 20 years, things like updating the siding, replacing old windows, or swapping out an aging furnace aren't really "investments" anymore—they're just necessary maintenance.

dustybear7 said:So...
I’ve been debating whether to post this here or over on Inheritance because the issue touches on both topics.

Basically, after my grandmother passed away, my parents inherited an apartment that my brother eventually moved into. Over the twelve years he lived there, the place underwent several renovations—mostly because they couldn't afford to do everything at once—even though it was already decent, just "old-fashioned."
To be clear, it wasn't as if we were dealing with a total wreck that needed a complete overhaul just to be livable.

Throughout those years, my parents kept telling him they were keeping track of all the renovation costs and that he would be reimbursed one day.
There was this unspoken assumption that the apartment would eventually belong to him, even though it was "understood" that half the place belongs to me—meaning that upon my parents' passing, since I live in a different city, I would be bought out for my half.

However, the decision was made to settle the ownership now and have me bought out immediately, which has triggered a whole chain of arguments and logic.

Looking back... considering the title of this thread, I probably could have explained this entire mess with much, much fewer words... 🙂

My brother has sunk tens of thousands of dollars into the place, yet he claims that by doing so, he has effectively increased the property's value (which I don't doubt). According to his logic—if the apartment was worth $200k before his various partial renovations, and he put $50k into it, he argues he increased the value by the actual $50k plus an extra $40k 😵(his own estimate).

Theoretically, this shouldn't affect me since I'm not the one paying him back, but in practice, it lowers the payout for my half.

I hope I've been clear enough. 🤷

Since my parents are going to reimburse him for every single cent he actually spent, my theory is that they, rather than him, are the ones actually increasing the property's value, because they are ultimately financing all those improvements. Therefore, I should receive a true half of the current appraised value.

Am I overthinking this?

You've got it backward.
😁

There are two main things to consider here.
First, it feels like our parents are favoring my brother and pushing me to the sidelines. I won't get into why or how unfair that is, but that's just how it looks. It seems they have other assets to distribute down the road. Honestly, fighting them over this might be counterproductive. Usually, anything gifted to one heir early on is factored into the final inheritance unless everyone agrees otherwise. But if you push too hard, they might just leave everything to him, leaving you with nothing but the bare minimum required by law. Or even worse, they could sign a support agreement with him, which would cut you out entirely.

Second, the real estate market has taken a massive hit, and prices are likely to keep sliding. There's no telling what that house is actually worth right now. People tend to fantasize about equity, but when they try to sell, nobody is offering even half of the asking price. On top of that, the economy is shaky and there's talk of new property taxes. Prices are definitely going down.
So, that house your brother thinks is worth $290k ($200k + $50k + $40k) might realistically struggle to fetch even $120k.

My advice? Just go along with his math, because it actually works in your favor.
If the house is "worth" $290k, but he only spent $50k on it and lived there rent-free, he shouldn't get credit for that extra $40k "value increase." He should just pay you half of the base value minus his investment—so, $120k. And honestly, $120k might be more than enough to buy a similar place tomorrow!

Could someone please explain why this thread was deleted? It felt a bit controversial.

I'm asking this because of the recent CNN decision regarding the fine issued to those local bakeries for "forming a cartel."
I want to bring up two other groups for comparison—the Bar Association and the AARP (architects and surveyors).

Let's look at the facts.

The bakers basically made an informal agreement on pricing, which isn't even strictly binding for everyone.
Some people at the meeting didn't even agree to the terms (but they still got penalized, right?)
And honestly, most small-scale producers probably weren't even there.
Plus, the variety of baked goods is so huge these days that nobody can really keep track of those price points anyway.
How can you even call it a cartel when anyone can just bake bread at home if they wanted to?

Professional associations basically force you to join them if you want to work in the field, which means you have to follow their rules.
In this case, the association set minimum prices that feel ridiculously high.
If you aren't a member, you can't legally practice.
There's no way for a regular citizen to just do the job themselves, much like how you can just bake your own bread at home.

Take lawyers, for example. You technically have the right to represent yourself, but let's be real—that's a stretch. You’d need to be incredibly well-read and know the law inside out (and most people struggle with basic literacy these days). If you don't, you might not only fail to protect your rights even when the law is clearly on your side, but you could actually face condescension or even disrespect from "professionals" in court.
Pro bono work is usually reserved for the most extreme cases of poverty.

With architects and surveyors, you don't even have the option to "do it yourself."

So, are these professional associations actually just cartels?
I'd love to hear your thoughts or any personal experiences you've had.

Jose White18 said:Did I ever actually mention anything about being offensive? The post was taken down simply because I made a quick diagnosis. Nothing more, nothing less.

Are you sure I'm not a specialist neuropsychiatrist? (That was my title back when I was in school).

Even if you were... feel free to slide into her DMs and offer your services. 🤷

Uncle Sam is here.
I wasn't quoting you specifically; I was just answering both of them.

The post was taken down because I was playing doctor a little too much. Nothing more, nothing less.

You always get all sorts of wild diagnoses on threads like this. Nothing more, nothing less.
And different labels.
Someone wrote something to that girl like, "you're here." I think you might have sent an incomplete message. What was on your mind? It turns out she’s just a bit of a lightweight—which is pretty much a fact based on what she's been posting lately.

Why is it such a big deal to say someone probably has a disorder? I mean, if I’m sharing it as an opinion or just what I believe, rather than using it as an insult—which you even said isn't the case here—why does it still cause so much friction?

How would you even go about telling someone on a forum like this that you think they might be struggling with some kind of disorder?
Just stating a medical fact here—I really hope this post doesn't get deleted. We already agreed it isn't an insult, right?