I'm an amateur student of history, but I'm not very familiar with this episode. However, a quick internet search indicates that Oscar Wilde's famous lovers (Robbie Ross and Alfred Lord Douglas) were 18 and 21, respectively, when they began their romantic affairs with Wilde, who was also young at the time. Alan Turing's lover was 19 when they met.

Wilde apparently also slept with a succession of gay prostitutes, but their identities are unknown now.

That was pretty courageous of her... mental health issues still carry a stigma above and beyond other types of disorders, at least in the United States. If the OP isn't comfortable with revealing his/her schizophrenia, a possible middle ground would be to say: "I have a chronic illness that I have to be on medication for, and my moods can be unpredictable at times. Please don't take anything personally." Most people would attribute behavior fluctuations to side-effects of the meds, and that would be that.

I disagree with you about this. The problem is, if he says to others "I have some kind of illness", without specifying that it's schizophrenia, then that's treating it like a mystery or a stigma, not to be spoken about. That's treating it in hushed tones, once again, which causes the kind of rumors which the poster might prefer to avoid. Also mentioning "moods" will seem like an attempt at concealment or understatement, like he's depressed or moody.

If the poster has schizophrenia, then his co-workers are going to find out about it, sooner or later. It may as well be on the poster's terms.

Just treat it in a very matter-of-fact way. He could mention that he has schizophrenia in the same way you'd mention that you have diabetes and need to take an injection every once in awhile. It's a simple fact, like any other medical condition. It's out on the table right away--no need to be hidden or spoken about in hushed tones. That de-mystifies it.

I'd avoid medication if you can.

Don't advise people with schizophrenia to discontinue their medications! For many schizophrenics, it's important that they take their meds consistently. Many schizophrenics do not notice when they are getting worse.

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, if you can get it, is helpful to many people (including me).

It's possible that you have a mental condition which is different from the poster's. What works for you might not be good advice for him.

You might try telling any new co-workers right away that you have schizophrenia. That way, there will be less confusion and misunderstanding by others. You could just mention it in a matter-of-fact sort of way, by talking about schizophrenia as just a chronic illness like so many others. That might de-mystify it for some people.

I worked with someone who had schizophrenia, and she simply told new co-workers right away. I thought it was a good way of handling it.

Best of luck.

I love how the protesters decide how much landlords charge for rent.

That's not what I claimed, at all.

What great imaginary bullshit land do you live in?

You're relying on name-calling as a form of argumentation.

Oh wait, protesters do not control the market prices. The one who sets the market price is the landlord.

Market prices are set by supply and demand, not landlords. If landlords controlled market prices then they would charge $10,000 per month for an apartment in rural Kansas. The problem is, people who prevent the construction of any new housing are interfering with supply.

When exactly again did we all agree on these rules?

You don't have to agree on the rules. Supply and demand will continue to function even if you don't agree on it. So will gravity.

Oh yeah, only in the made-up fantasy-land where everyone has to listen to you and do whatever you say.

You're relying on name-calling as a form of argumentation again.

Sounds like 100% bullshit to me.

You're relying on name-calling as a form of argumentation again.

Please take your trickle-down economics pyramid and shove it right back up your ass where it belongs.

I didn't say anything about trickle-down economics. Read the post again. Also, you're relying on name-calling as a form of argumentation.

[With regard to the political left], I'd love to meet them, but they don't actually exist

The political left doesn't exist in San Francisco? I live not even 1/10th of a mile from the new headquarters of the Black Panther Party.

Kind of ruins your fairy tale, doesn't it?

You're relying on name-calling as a form of argumentation again.

Noone "deserves" anything. Noone asked to be here. Noone asked for any of this.

Whether you "ask for it" or not, you still deserve things. It has nothing to do with whether you asked for it. It has to do with whether you caused it.

how old are you again to be spreading such rubbish?

That's ad hominem, which is a basic logical error. Also, you're relying on name-calling as argumentation again. Also, I suspect I'm actually a lot older than you are, so your ad hominem fallacy is factually wrong.

...You didn't come anywhere close to making even a single rational point. Insofar as I can tell, you're just throwing an emotional fit.

Instead of saying, "hey, hey - not US, dummies.. go get the RICH people!", maybe an open discussion and a little more political balance from people on both sides is in order?

Except rich people are not the problem either. The people themselves--especially people on the left--have caused this problem. They have only THEMSELVES to blame.

I have lived in the SF Bay Area for almost my entire life. For decades now, the left has protested, and vociferously opposed, the construction of any new housing, and especially dense urban housing (such as high-rise apartment buildings). When the inevitable consequences occur, and prices skyrocket, the left does not blame itself. Instead, they search for scapegoats. "FUCK TECHIES", and so on, as if techies were the ones preventing the construction of urban housing. As if the CEO of Google is the one preventing new urban housing.

go get the RICH people!

NO!!! That is just providing another scapegoat, which is the last thing the left needs. It's not rich people who show up and vociferously oppose building new units.

The protestors (and the people who prevented the construction of urban housing) need to accept the consequences of their own actions. They must learn to blame themselves for what they have caused. They do not need another scapegoat..

They need to accept the consequences of their actions, and STOP PROTESTING when new dense urban housing is going to be built. If they keep protesting the construction of new urban housing, and they don't wish to buy a place either, then they SHOULD be kicked out of their homes when there isn't enough urban housing. It's better that they get kicked out, than other people (who did not cause the problem) are prevented from living here.

Then the left would protest the consequences of their own actions, once again. "FUCK GOOGLE FOR LEAVING", "FUCK TAX RECEIPTS FOR GOING DOWN" and so on.

A particularly amusing case of this was when the left in San Rafael (just north of San Francisco) protested every single thing which Lucasfilm (one of two major local employers) ever tried to do. Lucasfilm wants a new building? ABSOLUTELY NOT. They want to build new offices? ABSOLUTELY NOT. They want to build a wider road into their facility? NO. In fact, let's try to engineer taxes to fuck over Lucasfilm specifically.

Then Lucasfilm actually left San Rafael. What was the response from the left? Fuck Lucasfilm!

I have lived in the SF Bay Area almost my entire life. In this area, every single time anyone tries to build new urban housing, the left shows up and protests. Are you trying to build a new condo building? PROTEST. Trying to build new apartments? PROTEST. The political left has fought, tooth and nail, for decades, to restrict severely, or even to reduce the supply of housing in the SF Bay Area, and ESPECIALLY urban housing like high-rise apartment buildings. Then, the consequences of their actions occurred: the price of real estate went up, especially for renters.

When the price of real estate started going up, because of absolutely restricted supply, the left started rebelling against the consequences of its own actions. They started protesting again--not against themselves who actually caused the phenomenon, but against Google, who had nothing to do with it. Now the left has people holding banners saying "FUCK GOOGLE" and "Techies not welcome here".

Of course, if the protestors really succeeded in "fucking Google" etc, and tech companies were really not welcome here, then silicon valley would have to move somewhere else. Then the tech industry which supports this entire area (like GM used to support Detroit) would vacate, and the tax base would implode, and San Francisco would increasingly resemble Detroit--not at first, of course, but gradually over decades. Then the left would protest the consequences of their own actions, once again. "FUCK GOOGLE FOR LEAVING", "FUCK TAX RECEIPTS FOR GOING DOWN" and so on. Perhaps they would demand that tech companies and workers continue to pay local taxes despite not working or living here anymore.

I find it ironic that one of the protesting organizations is called "just cause". Because "just cause" is what was already happening. People are getting what they DESERVE--unaffordable real estate--which is what they caused by their own actions. That is what "just" means, or used to mean.

Frankly, I think it should be easier to evict renters. If they do not allow the construction of new housing units, and they have never bought a house, then they should have nowhere to live. They have only themselves to blame.