Tuesday's Most Active Threads

I am going to make a small change to my style for these posts beginning today. I will no longer routinely report where a thread is in the order of number of views and replies. I may mention those numbers from time to time, but I don't think they are very interesting in most cases so I'll leave them out.

That said, the first thread I'll discuss did lead both in number of views and replies, and by some measure. Titled, "So people will be taxed on venmo and zelle transactions?" and posted in the "Money and Finances" forum, the thread discusses recent changes to Internal Revenue Service reporting requirements. The title of the thread is erroneous with multiple errors. Due to requirements in the American Rescue Plan Act, third party payment systems are required to send 1099-K to users who receive over $600 in payments during a year. However, contrary to what the title of the thread implies, Zelle is not affected by the changes. Moreover, it is also wrong to suggest, as the title does, that funds transfered through these systems will be taxed. As is explained thoroughly in replies within the thread, the rule changes are aimed at businesses that receive payments through payment systems such as Venmo or PayPal. Businesses should have been paying taxes on this income all along and, as such, the rule changes should have no impact on their taxable income. What concerns many posters in the thread is what this means for transactions that are not income, for instance, reimbursements for meals or event tickets. Posters who appear knowledgable on the topic explain that since these transactions are not income, they are not taxable. This may present a record-keeping challenge so that in the event of an audit you can document that these are reimbursements. However, since most people don't get audited, this will not be much of an issue. In addition, several posters pointed out that transactions labeled as "Friends and Family" are not included in the reporting requirement. Many posters asked how they could report to the IRS that money transfers were reimbursements and the answer appears to be that there is no need to report. This is a fairly informative thread which really gets into the weeds of the topic at some points.

A thread in the "Jobs and Careers" forum titled, "'Write it Down!'" described an interaction the original poster had during a team meeting at his job. A General Manager asked the original poster who is the team lead to write down an idea that the General Manager was about to present. The original poster declined, saying he would remember it. The General Manager repeated the request which the original poster again refused and the General Manager angrily pushed a pen and paper in front of him. The original poster still refused and the meeting broke up. It is not clear if the General Manager ever got around to presenting his idea. The original poster concludes by saying he has been called to a meeting with his manager and asks if he should apologize to the General Manager or stand his ground. Almost all of those who responded believe that the original poster is completely in the wrong and several expect him to get fired. Multiple posters insist that the original poster should have complied with writing down the idea and almost everyone thinks the incident reflects very poorly on the original poster. The original poster followed up later to say that he had his meeting and his manager sided with him completely and that he was told that he does not have to take direction from the General Manager. Almost nobody believed this and the original poster was accused of being a liar and a troll. For the original poster's part, he stuck around posting cocky replies and generally reinforcing the impression that he is a bit of a jerk.

A thread in the "Off-Topic" forum covers the very well-trodden ground of gender pronouns. Titled, "Pronouns? Do you visibly share yours?", the original poster wonders if requiring pronouns to be shared in order to be inclusive can actually discourage those who are reluctant to reveal their gender identity publicly. The original poster suggests that disclosing pronouns is also mostly performative. Neither of these points is new to DCUM and I almost skipped this thread because there have been so many of them. But, since I don't think I have written about the topic yet, I'll give it a go. Among those responding are posters who both do and don't share their pronouns. I never understand the posters who seem to get upset by the mere mention of pronouns and they do little to elucidate me as to their thinking in this thread. The objection most often provided is that, as the original poster says, sharing pronouns is seen as simply performative. But, I don't undertand the downside to being performative when it involves such a simple gesture. I think the ultimate explanation is that that it just bugs them and, beyond that, there is no rational explanation. A poster who does share pronouns explained that it has nothing to do with her identity — nobody would ever confuse her for being other than a woman — but as a leader in her company she is signaling to more junior staff to whom pronouns may be important that they will be accepted. So, virtue signaling — something that has essentially been turned in to a insult — but virtue signaling with a purpose. In response to this, posters argue that young people are already comfortable using their preferred pronouns and don't need signals of inclusivity. That attitude strikes me as a bit naive since, as the thread itself demonstrates, if those younger individuals shared their pronouns it would widely be seen as performative at best and triggering in worse cases.

The last thread at which I'll look today is titled, "5 1/2 year old niece only eats hot dogs…" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster writes that her sister and brother-in-law allow their daughter to eat hotdogs at every meal. Their rationale is that the child is severely underweight and the hotdogs at least have calories. The original poster is disgusted by this and wishes she could change it. Most of those responding, even if they agree that eating nothing but hotdogs is unhealthy, don't believe it is the original poster's place to get involved. They suggest that she stay out of it. The bulk of the debate in this thread involves posters arguing that this is simply a behavioral issue that would be resolved if it were not tolerated, often relying on what supposedly happens in other countries as examples. In contrast, many posters explain that there are children whose eating habits are such that they will starve themselves rather than eat anything other than their food of choice. There are suggestions that this can be caused by one of several possible disorders or conditions and that often medical intervention is required. Regardless of whether this eating habit is a sign of an eating disorder, a spoiled child, or something else, the primary concern of many posters is that a hotdog-only diet could lead to colon cancer.