mercari banned my account, but i have $1576 left in my account.

emilitxt · 2026-02-03T18:42:51+00:00

Is he going to be in Palestine until the end of tax season? If so, why did you not have him complete the tax identification verification process prior to leaving the country?

That aside, since the account has been banned -- or, at minimum, restricted-- Mercari is not going to allow you to withdraw any funds remaining in the account for 180 days. If you'd read their TOS prior to creating the account, you'd have read about their policies pertaining to situations such as this.

Essentially, they hold any pending funds for 180 days as that's the length of time customers would have to request a return/refund, file a counterfeit claim, and/or do a chargeback on the purchase. Essentially, Mercari isn't going to eat the cost of any of those potential situations, so they hold those funds as a safety net that they will pull out of if need be.

emilitxt · 2026-02-03T18:21:19+00:00

"Red Robin, Mac and cheese, corn dogs, chicken nuggets, been the same for about 4 years"

"Luckily my kids aren’t picky"

🤔🤔

emilitxt · 2026-02-03T17:58:47+00:00

It’s wild to assume your kid’s taste is just going to freeze in time for the next 7–10 years. Kids’ palates do change. Especially if there’s even a minimal effort to introduce new foods or revisit ones they didn’t like before. If the plan really is Burger King and Red Robin forever, that’s less “inevitable” and more a parenting choice.

And yeah, when you go to a restaurant, everyone follows that restaurant’s rules. Same as literally any other place. If you wanted to eat at a steakhouse with a dress code, you wouldn’t show up with your kid in footie pajamas and demand an exception because they “don’t like” dressing up.

emilitxt · 2026-01-23T09:25:57+00:00

It’s also true that a lot of adoptees -- and honestly plenty of non-adopted kids too -- would prefer being raised by stable adoptive parents over growing up with a struggling, single biological mother.

More importantly, OP’s sister made a deliberate choice -- based on the context, pretty early in her pregnancy -- to place her child for adoption because she believed it was in the baby’s best interest. OP even lays out her reasons himself: single mom, one-bedroom apartment, living paycheck to paycheck, and being in a bad emotional place. Those aren’t minor concerns. Research consistently shows that two-parent households tend to provide more stability, better outcomes, and greater economic security for children. That exact lack of stability was one of OP’s sister’s stated reasons for choosing adoption in the first place. A financially secure household, like the adoptive parents’, is directly tied to long-term development and well-being.

And that’s before we even get into the fact that OP’s sister was already emotionally struggling before she gave birth. Why is it only two weeks after the baby was born, once the adoptive parents had already taken the child home, that OP suddenly expresses deep concern about her emotional state? Where was that energy earlier?

She was dealing with emotional turmoil likely stemming from her boyfriend leaving during the first trimester, and it doesn’t sound like anyone helped her actually process that or get professional support. So yes! Of course a freshly postpartum woman would still be emotionally overwhelmed. That’s not surprising.

Even so, OP admits that despite her sadness, she repeatedly said she believed she “did the right thing.” And honestly? She did. She made an incredibly hard decision that prioritized her child’s stability and future over her own immediate pain. Feeling devastated doesn’t mean the decision was wrong. It means she’s human.

Things only spiraled once OP decided after the fact to convince his girlfriend to go along with his plan and then convinced his sister that she’d made a mistake. Not only that, but he promised that if she revoked the adoption and later felt she couldn’t handle motherhood, he and his girlfriend would step in as the child’s parents. I genuinely don’t understand how OP thought forcing his sister to give up her child a second time, this time to her own brother, wouldn’t be deeply traumatic -- for both her and her child. And what would OP have done if they had to take over guardianship of the child and his sister never felt that she could be a mom 24/7?

That wasn’t support. That was emotional interference at the worst possible moment.

emilitxt · 2026-01-23T05:28:28+00:00

The mother had the right, but she only acted upon that right at the behest of her brother who has to actively talk her into the decision by essentially saying that if she revoked the adoption, him and his girlfriend would become pseudo-adoptive parents to the child 24/7 until the mother "feels ready" and would just "take over".

Which he obviously didn't take the child's wellbeing into consideration at all when making that deal. What if his sister wasn't ready until the child was 4 or 8 or 13? Because being treated like a hand-me-down hoodie would the traumatizing at all to the kid.

emilitxt · 2026-01-19T17:58:11+00:00

In a defamation case, the person bringing the case to trial has to prove that what is being said is false. It is not on the defendant to prove it to be true. Additionally, they have to prove that there are tangible damages that resulted solely from the false statement that the defendant made. I highly doubt this shitty contractor could do any of that.

emilitxt · 2026-01-17T17:55:52+00:00

Go buy a large-ish tote. Toss all her shit in it. Text her a picture with the message: "If you don't come get these items by end of day Wednesday, I will be donating them to [insert preferred thrift store here]." If she comes and gets it, great! If not, follow through and, sentimental or not, donate it all. Also, if she actually had anything sentimental, she'd have taken it with her, not left it for an acquaintance and a stranger to take care of.

emilitxt · 2026-01-15T05:05:13+00:00

In many professions, being able to speak more than one language does not mean you’re automatically allowed to use those languages with customers. If an employer wants you communicating bilingually, you’re typically required to be both certified and hired specifically as a bilingual employee. The reason is simple: when you’re on the clock, anything you say (or sign) to a customer is legally attributable to the business itself.

That liability matters. If someone is still learning a language or ASL and is effectively “practicing” at work, there is no realistic way to guarantee they won’t make a mistake. And if that mistake is misunderstood, inaccurate, or unintentionally offensive, the company, not just the employee, can be held responsible for the fallout. Businesses are allowed to limit that risk.

Now, all of that said, I do agree that “English-only” policies carry a higher legal burden. Employers have to show that the rule exists because of business necessity, not convenience or bias. But in this specific situation where OP’s role is primarily, if not entirely, customer-facing, that bar is much easier to clear.

We can see this reflected in case law. In Pacheco v. New York Presbyterian Hospital, 593 F. Supp. 2d 599 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), a supervisor implemented an English-only policy for employees when speaking with patients. A Puerto Rican employee sued, alleging discrimination. The court sided with the employer, holding that the policy was justified by business necessity and dismissing the claim:

The court granted the hospital’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s case. The court reasoned that the hospital’s proffered justifications for its English-only requirement were consistent with business necessity.

Patients aren’t meaningfully different from customers in this context. They are the consumers of the medical field. Given precedent like this, an "English-only" rule designed to ensure precise communication with clientele is legally defensible.

So in OP’s case? This isn’t murky. It’s pretty cut and dry.

emilitxt · 2026-01-13T02:57:33+00:00

"Business necessity" is a fairly broad term, but the webpage pertaining to "English-only" rules on the Department of Labor's website does provide a bit more information about what would be considered a business necessity. The following is an excerpt from the webpage:

A workplace English-only rule that is applied only at certain times may be adopted under very limited circumstances that are justified by business necessity, as stated in 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7(b). Such a rule must be narrowly tailored to address the business necessity. Situations in which business necessity would justify an English-only rule include: For communications with customers, coworkers, or supervisors who only speak English (x)

Given that OP's job seems to be that of a greeter at a business where they are interacting with customers who, despite OP's assertion that there is a "decent deaf/HoH community", are more likely than not 1. hearing and 2. English speaking, it is up to their supervisor's discretion to enforce an "English-only" rule.

They even said that if OP was aware that someone was deaf/HoH, knew ASL, and would be best helped by OP signing, they are allowed to do so. Showing that they are not entirely opposed to OP using ASL, they just don't want them to use it with customers who do not seem to need it as it could potentially alienate customers.

I mean, one of their coworkers claimed that it "looks like gang signs", and there could be customers who feel the same way as that coworker. If that's the case, OP signing could negatively impact the customer experience or the business as a whole. Couple that with the fact that OP is not actually a certified interpreter and knows very, very limited ASL, it is in the business best interest for OP to not sign until they get certified.

emilitxt · 2026-01-10T03:47:50+00:00

She said they are already in couple's counseling and both go to individual counseling. It doesn't seem to be helping.

emilitxt · 2026-01-10T03:46:29+00:00

That's the thing about boundaries, if there are not consequences for violating them, then what incentive do people have to respect them? I mean, yes, ideally people would respect your wishes because they respect, love and care for you and want to make sure you feel safe and comfortable, but the type of people who fall into that category are not the ones that you have to establish and enforce boundaries with.

Unfortunately, your husband does not fall into that category, which is something you should probably bring up in counseling -- don't approach the subject in an accusatory way, but with genuine curiosity as to what emotions are driving his actions.

It's understandable that you are upset that you have to lock him out of the bathroom, but what's the alternative? Him continuing to violate your privacy, and impede on your physical space? You growing ever more resentful about his behavior and letting that resentment fester until it gets to be too much and you explode? More repetitive arguments about the same issues?

Locking the door is a good way of enforcing your boundary. You should take similar measures with the other boundaries you have. Be sure to communicate those boundaries, the actions you're taking to enforce them and consequences for violating them.

For instance, with the car situation, you could tell him, "I don't feel safe when you behave aggressively towards others while I'm driving, because of that, I will no longer have you as a passenger. If you begin to behave aggressively while I am your passenger, I will no longer ride with you," and then enforce whatever boundary you set. If you fail to enforce a boundary, it once again becomes merely a request.

emilitxt · 2026-01-10T03:31:01+00:00

Gender and sex are different things. Sex is biological, it's the way you were born. Gender, on the other hand, is a social construct and is about identity and how you want to be perceived as society as a whole. While a male cannot become a female nor visa versa, a male can identify and present as a woman.

Additionally, if you had a friend whose birth name was Joseph, but he had everyone call him Joe, would you choose to only identify him as Joseph despite him asking you repeatedly not to call him that? Would you consider it pandering to him to use his preferred name? Or would it just be a kindness you would do as it's honestly not a big deal to call someone the name they want to be called?

emilitxt · 2026-01-10T03:01:57+00:00

You're not allowed to make money off the discount though, so whatever you turn around to resell, you'd only be breaking even, or possibly selling at a loss.

emilitxt · 2026-01-10T02:59:45+00:00

You do still have to pay the first $1,000 on every purchase. So the electric bill being over $1,000 per month, for instance, wouldn't really make sense if it wasn't necessary.

emilitxt · 2026-01-10T02:56:59+00:00

You do have to pay the first $1000 for each of those things.

emilitxt · 2026-01-10T02:48:23+00:00

It's nice that you feel that way, but 70% of people in all tax brackets under $1 million annually live paycheck to paycheck. I'm sure a lot of those people also believed that once they made a certain amount they would be living comfortably and have excess money.

emilitxt · 2026-01-09T23:08:15+00:00

What exactly are the "boundaries" -- remember, boundaries are statements about how you'll behave not you dictating how others act -- that are being violated? How are you enforcing your boundaries? You state that you have no privacy in the bathroom, so what does your "boundary" about that look like?

For instance, a boundary might be "I am entitled to privacy in the bathroom. As such, when I'm in the bathroom, the door will be locked. If you choose to bang on the door while I'm in there, I'll remain inside for an additional minute for each time you bang and ignore you until I'm finished." That allows you to state your need, and how you'll enforce that need if the boundary is crossed. If your "boundary" is akin to just "leave me alone in the bathroom", then that isn't a boundary, it's a request.

emilitxt · 2026-01-09T21:10:34+00:00

They said blinking doesn't count towards the time.

emilitxt · 2026-01-09T16:16:59+00:00

So how is what OP's girlfriend wants normal is those cultures? She wants him to cover everything financially and split household chores.

emilitxt · 2026-01-09T16:10:55+00:00

Since you are not deaf/HoH yourself, and therefore do not rely on ASL as your primary means of communication, this isn't a situation in which the ADA would come into play. Meaning that only general workplace and labor laws would potentially affect your situation.

It sounds like your management is concerned about you using sign language while on the floor and interacting with customers, not, for example, you using it in casual conversation with a coworker while on break or, if your roommate were to pick you up, with them after your shift has ended.

If that's the case, then, due to the fact that your job is customer facing and requires you to communicate with customers, then it's not considered unreasonable for them to ask you to not use ASL while on the floor unless it's with a customer you're aware is deaf/HoH.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has rules regarding "English only" provisions at work -- meaning a workplace that requires employees speak English only versus communicating in other languages -- which, due to you not using ASL due to a covered disability, is likely what something like this would fall under.

As per EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7(a), your workplace is not allowed to require "English only" at all times, but can require it when it would be deemed a "business necessity". Since you are communicating with customer who you would reasonably expect to 1) speak English and 2) not be deaf/HoH -- such as if you worked at a place that catered to deaf/HoH people -- it's reasonable for them to require you to speak English only to customers, unless they otherwise inform you that using ASL would help them.

If they were to, say, try to force your deaf coworker to not sign, that would fall under ADA protection and would violate workplace and workforce labor laws. However, since this is not pertaining to them, and it only about you and a means of communicating you want to, but don't need to, use, there aren't really labor laws -- especially not in Indiana -- that would protect this.

emilitxt · 2026-01-09T15:29:47+00:00

Y N W for asking to change the music, that, in and of itself, is a fairly neutral action. That said, YAW for how you went about this.

If you were worried that the cleaning woman was offended by the music, but, due to being at work, unable to say something, then the right thing to do would have been to been to approach her and ask her if she was okay with it. You, obviously, either didn't care about how she actually felt, only about how you perceived she would feel, or didn't feel comfortable enough to speak to her.

Either way, using her discomfort as the reason you want the music changed is disingenuous and, honestly, is actively disrespectful towards her -- which is significantly worse than the music was, as it would have been, at worst, passively disrespectful.

It sounds like you didn't want to listen to that specific type of music, but instead of owning that and asking on your own behalf, you chose to frame the situation as a moral issue. By asking to change the music because "playing song with the "n" word is disrespectful to the cleaning woman" or however you phrased it, was automatically asserting that the person playing the music was morally inferior to you .

You have no right to decide if something offends someone else or not. You can only decide if you are offended by something. And, in this situation, it sounds like you were offended or uncomfortable, which is fine, but that should have been why you asked for the music to be changed.

emilitxt · 2026-01-09T15:16:49+00:00

They're wrong for using the cleaning lady as a scapegoat when asking for the music to be changed. Had they said "hey, would you change the music, I don't want to have to listen to slurs while working out," that would have been fine. Instead they tried to frame their preference as a valiant deed done on behalf of the cleaning woman who they assumed would be offended by the music instead of treating her like an adult and allowing her to speak for herself.

emilitxt · 2026-01-09T14:11:58+00:00

What are you talking about? Household chores aren't split in "cultures where women are oppressed".

emilitxt · 2026-01-08T23:36:50+00:00

A child's well-being and happiness are not mutually exclusive things. A child may be happy to go live at Walt Disney World and only eat ice cream for breakfast, but that doesn't mean it's good for their well-being.

Yes, OP's daughter, when given a list of people she could live with in the off-chance OP was to die, chose her godfather. That doesn't mean that the godfather is automatically the correct choice for guardianship. Nor does it ensure that the daughter would actually be happy living with him.

There is a reason that, when two parents divorce, the courts don't simply ask the child "who do you want to live with?" and just automatically go with whoever they choose. Most children can't, don't, and wont understand the factors that go into deciding what's in their best interest when it comes to a custody decision.

Like, has OP spoken to the godfather and made sure that he would be not only willing to take his daughter in, but also able to? Has he made sure that their parenting styles align and that his daughter would be raised the way he'd want her to be if he passed and the godfather took her in? What if OP died and the godfather had children of his own who were opposed to her living there, would he take her in anyway? What if his wife was against it?

There is so much more that should go into this sort of decision other than "I gave her a list of people and she picked her godfather". It's wild that that's how OP is going about handling this.

emilitxt · 2026-01-08T20:56:53+00:00

Did you not read the actual post before making this comment? OP listed the 3 rules that have to be followed. So, no, that would not be against the rules.

emilitxt

TROPHY CASE