cogtri.bsky.social
Streamer, YouTuber, aspiring novelist. Also producer for Push The Tempo and It’s A Vibe on @c895radio.bsky.social. ADHD, anxiety, probably autistic.
He/Him for now but growing more convinced I’m genderfluid.
All opinions my cats’.
402 posts
30 followers
51 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
The Lord Of Water to return their lost socks to them and actually start believing in said gremlins because of the shitpost
comment in response to
post
I wouldn’t even say they’re the tools of the right - they’re the tools of authoritarianism. The kernel of truth to horseshoe theory is that authoritarianism turns any political ideology into a vehicle for further authoritarianism, and even the most principled can and do fall down that rabbit hole.
comment in response to
post
A healthy boundary is “this hurts me, don’t do it.” A boundary that doesn’t attempt to restrict another person’s behavior does nothing. So the question for whether a boundary is valid is always “does the boundary cause more harm than it prevents?” and unless the answer is “100% yes” it’s valid.
comment in response to
post
To go a bit more in-depth: the way I see it, there are three possible outcomes. 1: He shuts up about this (her controlling his behavior). 2: She caves (him controlling her behavior). 3: They break up (whichever one spearheads that controlling the other’s behavior). I’m rooting for 3 but 1 is also OK
comment in response to
post
boyfriend’s proposed “boundary” would mean giving him authority over her dress purely to make himself feel more secure; her boundary causes less harm than his, and so is the justified one.
comment in response to
post
it’s healthy and justified. If it prevents harm - whether intentional or unintentional - without inflicting a greater harm, it’s healthy and justified. In the situation described in the screenshots, the woman posting is right to set a boundary around her ability to dress as she wishes, while her
comment in response to
post
To clarify this post a bit: I’m responding to the bloop (skeet, whatever) above more than the situation in question. Setting boundaries is controlling, but necessary to mitigate or prevent controlling behavior from others. If the boundary prevents behavior more controlling than the boundary itself,
comment in response to
post
The “boundary” he’s trying to set isn’t healthy, so as far as I’m concerned, it’s not a boundary but a demand made by someone who prioritizes his emotional comfort over the physical comfort of others and doesn’t seem to see his girlfriend as an independent person with her own autonomy.
comment in response to
post
You are. Healthy boundaries - like her telling him not to try and control what she wears - are inherently an attempt at controlling other people’s behavior, but a necessary one because the alternative is allowing the other person to exert such control over you in a way that’s demeaning or harmful.
comment in response to
post
I mean, it is. But it’s a situation where it’s the lesser of two evils, the same way government (which is inherently tyrannical) is necessary to mitigate (if not prevent) individual or corporate tyranny.
comment in response to
post
Ah but you see he said we *shouldn’t* bring back segregation so he’s a woke Marxist
comment in response to
post
The last time Eurovision mattered was when Dschinghis Khan played and you cannot change my mind. I was not alive for this, nor do I live in Europe. I do not care. That was the peak.
comment in response to
post
Unfortunately the people who think the Imperium are the good guys think all those atrocities are good things to do to people who aren’t sufficiently “pure” or supportive of the state
comment in response to
post
I’m not called “meat sack” but it’s still what I am
comment in response to
post
Just art in general. That’s honestly the main reason I initially started supporting UBI; people should be able to make passion projects and not be forced to put them behind paywalls in order to survive.
comment in response to
post
And of course since it’s my birthday I have to pretend to be all happy and excited so I don’t hurt or worry anyone. Already fucked that up by being overheard crying in the shower but I’m about 80% sure I managed to bluff it off.
I don’t like that I’m audible when I write dialogue in there though.
comment in response to
post
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like I want to die. I don’t. But vicarious happiness from watching people I know succeed when I’m too lazy, stupid, and incompetent to do the same can only last me so long and it’s starting to run out.
I wish I had a better reason to live but I missed my chance.
comment in response to
post
All I have is another 25, maybe 40 if I’m lucky, years before I start succumbing to Alzheimer’s and have to stop it the only way I know how because that is *not* something I’m willing to go through. And I have to do it without any real skills and nothing to look forward to.
I hate birthdays.
comment in response to
post
And of course I realized to a degree that I did actually care, but I shoved those thoughts into a box in the same musty basement as my attraction to my then-best friend, and the ones about being able to switch between male and female bodies that I couldn’t write off as “straight curiosity.”
comment in response to
post
But yuo dont understand11!!! If there names arnt secret how can they be secret police1!!1!1!1!!!!
FR though I expect that to be the main response from ICE stans
comment in response to
post
Man the emoluments clause just… straight up stopped even being a thing we try to use against him huh
Nobody cares when we pointed it out in his first term and now we basically just expect it
comment in response to
post
Or when your socks are solid as a board
comment in response to
post
Based on the watermark it was done at CPAC
comment in response to
post
I mean, technically, a letter opener can more easily injure someone than a spoon. But I can’t help but notice that their definition of weapons is very limited… so maces, grenades, brass knuckles, hammers, staves, and any other blunt implement are fine by this policy. Malicious compliance time?
comment in response to
post
It merges “if you aren’t healthy that’s your fault and the government shouldn’t step in” with “you being healthy strengthens the state;” this model of “small government” offers nothing and demands everything, thus appealing to the pride of libertarians and the hatefulness of authoritarians.
comment in response to
post
So this is kind of blowing up (by the standards of someone with my follower count), and I wanted to add something I realized as I watched. This mindset is the link between libertarians and the auth-right; it frames what should be a government duty as a personal duty to the government.
comment in response to
post
The anti-LGBT stuff broadly sticks within Catholicism as well, especially the anti-trans part.
comment in response to
post
“It’s your job to be healthy for your country” vs. “it’s your country’s job to care for you, its citizen, and protect you from those who would dump poison into the water since it’s cheaper than safely disposing of it”
comment in response to
post
Unfortunately my country is *also* having travel warnings issued about it
comment in response to
post
Biden since the SC ruling that presidents can’t be prosecuted came during his term