TEMPLE BETH DISCOURSE

Rachel/Rachna. Xennial. Mixed Jewish and Bengali. Neurodivergent. Pro-Ukraine. She/They. (messages can be sent to @maintikkunolamorgtfo - apologies in advance for slow answers)

[tikkunolamorgtfo]

Haemorrhaging followers again, so this is just a reminder that I:

Support Ukraine

Block Tankies and TERFs on sight

Will never forgive people who chose not to vote for Harris in 2024

If posts reflecting these views are not what you want to see, then kindly consider fixing your heart and not following in the first place, thanks!

[mariacallous]

[mariacallous]

[aprettyjewishyear]

Esther. photographs of Bri Watson, Elliot Porcher, Sage Cassell-Rosenberg, and Rachel Sadaty-Ellerson by Luis Mercedes Winter for the "Flowers for Our People" exhibition, 2026. the exhibition was directed by Sage Cassell-Rosenberg and produced by Is Perlman with assistance from Ariella Cohen. Saffron Mala Kaplan provides a written reflection for this piece:

While not a queer narrative at first glance, the story of Queen Esther is powerfully relatable to anyone who has ever been in the closet, unable to reveal their true selves. Born Hadassah, the future queen goes by Esther: a non-Jewish name, related to the goddess Ashtoreth, to help her blend into her Persian surroundings. Esther is also connected to the Hebrew root s-t-r, meaning “to hide.” As she enters the royal household, Esther is forced to keep her Jewish identity hidden, though she is eventually required to out herself in an act of incredible bravery in order to save her people. To all the members of the LGBTQ+ who are still closeted, know that you are incredibly strong. We pray that one day we will live in a world where everyone is free to express their true selves.

[jewishaesthetics]

[phillymint]

You and your spouse have been married almost a decade. Your spouse has several bank account, credit cards, and small investments that they haven't shared with you. your finances are separate, save for a groceries account they mete out specific amounts into. You didn't agree to this arrangement, you just didn't really get a say. You've had chronic illness for a while so work has been patchy. You're struggling to cover your cell bill and bus fare in slow months. Your spouse wants to solve this by giving you an allowance ($65/mo). This kind of financial arrangement in a marriage is:

Totally normal, I see no problem with it.

Unusual but not my business.

Questionable.

Worrying.

Secret option (put in the tags)

Voting ended onMar 21, 2025

[phillymint]

Wow. I was not expecting the massive response this post got, but thank you to everyone who's been filling out this poll and/or commenting on it! I feel like maybe I should give some clarification or context?

I posted this poll because my spouse thinks the above arrangement is reasonable and their prerogative. They feel that what is theirs is theirs, and they don't have to share it with their spouse, and wouldn't expect me to share what's mine with them if the tables were turned. I deliberately avoided using language in the poll that made any of the responses leading, because I didn't want to influence the results. When my spouse and I have arguments about how few of my basic needs they meet, and how vulnerable I feel, they tend to dig their heels in and insist that defining what a partnership looks like is up to the individuals and it's ok to deviate from the norm (which I agree with in principle, but only if both parties agree to the arrangements and can do so freely, not through coercion), and sometimes I genuinely feel like I'm crazy for thinking that there's a basic standard we get to expect from each other mutually, not in this one-sided way, and that my partner is being being both neglectful and controlling at the same time. I posted this poll because even when my spouse makes me feel like I'm being unreasonable, I know in my gut I'm not (not least of all because we very much did talk about our expectations of each other in both the best and worst potential situations, and what they promised me is not what I'm living now).

To see how many people have responded by straightforwardly calling this financial abuse, and to see how few people see this as normal, is validating to say the least. I've begun the process of building myself a life raft out of this situation, and I think I needed to see this feedback - so many strangers responding to what I hope is as neutral a summary of the situation as I intended it to be, and still calling it like I see it.

What I didn't put in the above poll is the even crazier stuff: A few years ago I ended contact with my abusive family, and my spouse promised to take care of me. Not long after they stopped giving me emotional support and asked me to seek it from my friends instead of them. When my computer, my main work tool, suddenly stopped working, they would only help me pay for a new one if I paid them back for it (they put me on a payment plan, but it was better than a bank loan because there was no interest and they let late payments slide). I also contracted a serious chronic illness because my partner was careless and ignored my existing health issues which made me vulnerable, and they failed to take care of me to the point I wasn't even eating properly while in bed with a fever, and for months after. Any support they gave was won at the cost of arguments I didn't have energy for, and reluctantly, but to friends and family my partner presented themselves as a caretaker.

I've struggled to work steadily and most of my limited income went to repaying the cost of my computer, so I depleted any savings I had left after the pandemic. As a result I sometimes couldn't even afford basics like toiletries or even clothes (I once showed up half an hour late to a doctor's appointment because the zipper on my only jeans broke and I had to wear a skirt in the freezing cold), and my partner, while expressing sympathy verbally, didn't take any action to offer tangible support, ie. buying me a new pair of jeans. I didn't have my family to rely on for safety and support. Anything I want or need, whether it's a necessity or something like a trip to visit family or friends who all live far away, I have to meet my partner's parameters since they're the one footing the bill. It took many arguments and detailed explanations of my difficulties and expectations before they would give me basic support like a one-off clothing purchase, and even more negotiation for it to be given in a way that allowed me autonomy in decision making (ie. they handed me a limited budget instead of going shopping with me or asking me to run purchases by them first).

I've given my partner a lot of leeway because they're struggling with several simultaneous neurodiversities and they tend to be passive observers in most situations, rather than active participants. I can see the ways in which they struggle to understand my experience because of their NDs. It has also been several years now since their diagnosis, and they use their ND as an excuse, but won't seek support for it. I have to do the emotional heavy lifting for us both, and if my expectations of them feel reasonable to me, it doesn't matter because if it's outside of their comfort zone, even the simplest things become contentious and they get the final say, since they're the only one in the relationship who have financial independence right now. I have no access to, nor do I get updated on, any of their bank accounts or savings (worrying in case of an emergency), except for a debit card which has a set amount on it at any given time and is only for groceries and recurring bills.

My spouse will give me information on their financial standing occasionally if I ask, but they are very hesitant and reluctant. I have a bank account of my own, and my spouse has asked to see my monthly earnings for the purpose of understanding my needs, but I'm hesitant to show them because of how much of my trust they've compromised, and how private they've always been about their financials (not to mention that it indicates they don't trust me to state my needs reasonably and reliably). I believe that everyone in a marriage should have at least one personal bank account, but our finances aren't shared at all, save for the one shared groceries/bills account. That account does, however, include medical costs, and as long as my spouse approves the spending, I can use it for things like amenities.

I don't know if I will show my partner this poll, but it's really good to have in case I would like to. It shows what I've been saying to them for a very long time, which is that my expectations are based in widely socially accepted ones that most people are aware of, and while I want to respect that my partner's ND may preclude them from having understood this, I also feel it's reasonable to ask that they accept that I'm not unreasonable in having these expectations (especially since they had justified this with commitments they made when we got married and have since broken).

[phillymint]

It's been well over a year since this post and I wanted to add an update:

I never did show my spouse this poll, but what I did do was go to

A lawyer

A domestic abuse non-profit

A government agency

and had all three confirm that the situation was economic abuse. It took me several months but I scraped together enough to have a consultation with a divorce lawyer and learned what my options were. I wasn't expecting to get much - even though they'd have to either sell our home and give me half of what he got for it, or buy out my half, I didn't think they'd be willing to do the former or have the money for the latter, but I could at least get alimony and I could take care of my needs and my health problems better and get away from the stress of the marriage. So I asked my spouse for a divorce.

The divorce process itself was... illuminating. I found out that my spouse had several massive savings accounts they had conveniently forgotten to tell me about. And what was lucky for me, they didn't seem to understand that in a marriage all things are legally shared. They seemed to think that if something was only under their name, it was theirs exclusively - like putting a label in your clothes for summer camp. So they didn't secure any of their accounts, and most of them consisted of funds accumulated during the marriage. Not long after that came to light, they moved out (their ND includes being severely conflict averse and you can imagine things became... tense). It took a long time until I could start to relax and feel like I could be safe again.

In the end I walked away with enough to have a safety net. I bought an apartment that meets my disability needs, and have enough to live on for a few years while I get back on my feet (though hopefully it won't take that long). Moving, and doing all this on my own was really hard, but luckily I've had wonderful friends who've helped me and been incredibly supportive. I still feel like I'm putting myself back together and finding myself, but am doing worlds better.

Thank you to everyone who commented and reblogged and added tags - that massive and unapologetic naming of this situation as abuse was so so validating and meant the world to me. I was significantly luckier than most people facing a similiar situation and found a way out. I hope you'll consider donating to one of these domestic abuse non-profits if you're able to, to help others who are struggling:

12 Domestic Violence Nonprofits to Support in 2026

If you want to volunteer with domestic violence nonprofits, make donations, fundraise for them, or gather information, this can be the ultim

[trying-trying2lyk]

i love writing out numbers and then putting them in parentheses like "one (1)" even when i dont need to i think its funny

[justatiredlittlesnail]

[miamaimania]

“What will remain of us” (2020) ⧗ Mansour Aoun ◆ 32GB suspended in amber

[thememedaddy]

[sixohsixoheightfourtwo]

The Art of the Deal

By wearing this watch you confirm that you are not Anish Kapoor

The Fence has published an exposé on Stuart Semple (of Anish Kapoor 'feud' notoriety) which they have been working on for six months.

investigation reveals Semple / his studio / his partner Emily Mann (who's described as acting as his 'enforcer' in his business) :

mishandled £400k grant of public money intended for a public gallery, allowing the money to flow freely between the public project, his own personal studio and personal projects such as Culture Hustle (his online business selling paint etc)

underpaid or failed to pay many of his assistants to the tune of several thousand pounds each.

former assistants have taken him to court and he simply hasn't bothered to show up and he's threatened to sue former assistants who asked for their back pay

repeatedly funds ambitious projects that never see release eg Abode, an 'Adobe-rivalling' suite of creative software (he claims he still intends to release this)

encouraged a cult-like atmosphere at his studio in Bournemouth

was frequently in debt and having to negotiate with bailiffs etc for his debts while at the same time crowdfunding various projects

ran fake social media accounts boosting Semple and his work

The portrait that emerges is one of decades-long scam artistry tbh and someone who's juvenile, manipulative, narcissistic.

The Fence btw is a decent fairly small-circulation quarterly magazine from the UK which specialises in satire, investigative journalism, culture, and fiction. You can read the piece in its entirety if you register (which is free).

a few links:

The Fence's newsletter from April discusses this article & how Semple has tried to muddy the SEO waters

Semple threatened to sue The Fence for publishing this story - many of you are American so here's the relevant UK law on defamation.

& the subreddit r/culturehustle is worth a look to get an idea of just how badly run his paint business is

[sweaterkittensahoy]

Lordy loo. I was a big fan of Semple for years but fell away once I read some stuff on how his feud with Kapoor had some antisemtic issues running through it, but I would not have guessed this was going on. What awful news.

[sighinastorm]

@tikkunolamorgtfo

[tikkunolamorgtfo]

I am very gracefully celebrating a vindication ten years in the making.

[nondelphic]

editing is just you vs. past-you in a duel of questionable comma placement and emotional instability

[mariacallous]

Three-Ingredient Banana Tahini Pops Are the Perfect Summer Dessert Hack | The Nosher

Remember when one-ingredient banana ice cream broke the internet? If not, let me refresh your memory. A while back a ...

[mariacallous]

A Court Has Ruled That Google Is Liable for False Statements Generated by AI Overviews

The ruling holds that a company that designs, trains, operates, and manages an AI system must assume legal liability for any damages caused

A local court in Germany has issued a ruling that could reshape the operation of search engines and artificial-intelligence-based chatbots worldwide. The Munich Regional Court preliminarily ruled that Google is liable for a series of false statements generated by its AI Overviews feature, requiring the company to prevent the dissemination of erroneous or inaccurate claims through its search engine.

The ruling stems from a case first reported by the Decoder, in which two publishers discovered that Google’s AI-generated summaries linked them, in certain searches, to questionable business practices, scams, and subscription-related frauds, without any basis for doing so.

Earlier this year, the affected companies sent the tech giant a cease-and-desist letter, according to the report. Google denied liability, arguing that its automatic summary feature warns users that the information may contain errors and should be independently verified.

The court's analysis concluded that Google’s AI combined information corresponding to other companies that had been flagged for possible illicit practices with data from the plaintiffs, generating associations that did not appear in any of the sources linked by the search engine.

The authorities found that, unlike traditional search engines, which merely display lists of links with statements made by third parties, Google’s tool produced “independent, new, and substantial statements” based on a misinterpretation of information available on the internet.

According to the court, correcting misinformation is not the responsibility of third parties. Google is the only entity with the ability to modify the technology underpinning its AI-generated summaries and, therefore, “must be held accountable.” Furthermore, the court found that Google's line of defense lacked merit, since the challenged summary “contains statements that do not appear at all in the search results.

A New (and Forceful) Interpretation of AI on the Web

The court's interpretation of AI’s role in presenting search results could make this case a historic precedent. It finds a large tech company responsible for the influence of its most advanced developments on widely used platforms.

Until now, in most legal systems, search engines have been considered tools that merely facilitate access to content created by third parties and available on the web. This status has afforded them a certain level of protection when the published information is false, inaccurate, misleading, or even defamatory.

However, the German court held that this safeguard no longer applies when search engines incorporate generative AI systems. According to its reasoning, this technology is capable of producing nonexistent claims based on multiple sources and, consequently, the companies responsible for operating it must assume liability for the resulting content.

The judges also concluded that while Google encourages users to verify information due to the potential for hallucinations inherent in AI models, this warning does not absolve the content distributor of liability. Otherwise, they argued, victims of false statements would be virtually defenseless, since the original sources never made those statements and, therefore, could not be subject to legal action.

Likewise, the court held that results generated by an AI system cannot be protected under the principles of free speech, as they are the product of an algorithm designed, trained, and managed by a company, and not the expression of an individual opinion.

As a precautionary measure to prevent possible recurrence, the ruling required Google to remove a large portion of the statements deemed defamatory in this case, and to cover 80 percent of the legal costs arising from the proceedings.

A company spokesperson, quoted by Ars Technica, suggested that the decision could be appealed. “We invest deeply in the quality of AI Overviews to ensure that the overwhelming majority of responses provide accurate information, and they are designed to reflect the information that exists on the web," the statement says. "We’re carefully reviewing this decision, which is not yet final.”

[popbubblepngs]

baby lego hotdog

[oceantoyz]

:|

[dionysiaproductions]

Tumblr should never have given us polls. Everyday I have to see years-old polls cross my dash proudly proclaiming past-me's vote which I now disagree with. Let me change my vote!! I have rethought which Tetris piece is the sexiest.

[mariacallous]

LGBT Pride Parades Bring Rainbow Celebrations to Athens, Bucharest, Sofia

Tens of thousands of people joined marches for LGBTQ+ rights in the capitals of Greece, Romania and Bulgaria at the weekend – but right-wing

Tens of thousands of people joined marches for LGBTQ+ rights in the capitals of Greece, Romania and Bulgaria at the weekend – but right-wing traditionalists also held counter-rallies in Bucharest and Sofia.

[mariacallous]

[prose-n-scripts]

Transphobia is about to be signed into law in the UK. We can fight this.

I am begging the UK trans community and its allies to attend the Mass Lobby at Parliament on June 25th, 11am-4pm, organised by Trans Solidarity Alliance.

Mass Lobby for Trans Equality

Last year we broke the record for an LGBT+ mass lobby of Parliament. Will you help us break it again? Join us on 25th June 2026 to demand be

The new EHRC Code of Practice pushes trans people out of toilets, hospital wards, and community spaces. It normalises gender policing based on appearance and stereotypes. It becomes statutory guidance in the UK by the end of June.

Trans people are now legally their assigned gender at birth and must join gendered spaces accordingly, but if they are perceived as their lived gender, they can also be ejected from those spaces. The guidance says: either break the law, or don’t pass too well.

A mass lobby is where you invite your MP to discuss your concerns with you in-person. Ask your MP to:

Demand full parliamentary scrutiny, debate, and use their free vote on the EHRC Code of Practice.

Support any motions rejecting the EHRC guidance. As of June 4th, Labour MP Nadia Whittome has submitted a prayer motion - Early Day Motion 240.

Write to Bridget Phillipson, the Minister for Women and Equalities about our concerns

Your MP does not have to be an ally, they do not have to respond to your email for you to show up and greencard them (details below the cut.) What matters is that as many people as possible show up.

I cannot stress this enough: Showing up in person matters. It is much more effective than petitions, emails, and letters.

It is a horrible, stressful time, and I am so sorry if you're trans and live in the UK. But I was at last year's mass lobby and the line for greencarding alone stretched around the back gates. It was a record breaking mass lobby and made us impossible to ignore. Let's do even better this time. Details under the cut:

Worried about what to say? Bring your personal worries about transphobia being signed into law, and trans friends being excluded from public spaces. You are a living person who deserves dignity. Remind your MP of that. You will also get guidance and brochures from Trans Solidarity Alliance that outlines our demands. This is mine from last year.

Money issues? Trans Solidarity Alliance provides a travel bursary that you can sign up for via the link.

Got a refusal or no response from your MP?  Come anyway! You can request a same-day appointment with your MP through a process called greencarding. They will come and see you if they’re already in Parliament. Even if they don’t, they’re made acutely aware of your cause because you showed up in person. This is my greencard from last year.

Here is the EHRC Code of Practice in full. It's a tough read, but some highlights are:

Organisations can’t provide trans-inclusive, single-sex services, or they risk being sued for discrimination. e.g. domestic violence support for women including trans women, men’s rugby group including trans men (12.68).

Trans people will have nowhere safe to pee. If you’re a trans man, businesses can't allow you to pee in the men's, and you can also be ejected from women’s bathrooms if you’re perceived as a man. Vice versa for trans women. EHRC suggests a ‘third space’ bathroom, which is discriminatory and unworkable for most businesses. (13.130-133)

Sports organisations must exclude trans people from single-sex competitions (13.73).  A women’s only sports competition must exclude trans women because of their biological advantage or face potential lawsuits (13.74), but a trans man who has undergone testosterone treatment can also be excluded based on fairness rules (13.81).

Trans women are stripped of the legal definition of ‘lesbian’, and therefore no longer have legal protections if they’re discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. (2.50, 2.92).

Here is the Good Law Project's better explanation of the EHRC Code.

I have also made a PDF printout of QR codes for the government petition, email your MP tool, and mass lobby link to pass around your communities. DM me and I'll send it to you.