Well, I guess in that case the Governor of Cali should probably just let the military attack U.S. citizens in his state.

/s

It’s what it’s

Too many to count then? Me too buddy, me too.

6? ish?

Eh, posts like this give people a chance to reflect on their own relationships, and bounce their thoughts off of the internet in a relatively safe space. Half of what you are hearing is folks imprinting on the situation. Things are gonna get a little weird.

But you should at least give it the college try first, right?

Frankly, I don’t have enough information to know if this is the case. It’s certainly possible that this is a relationship well worth saving, and that the overall net benefit is worth the toxicity brought on by his insecurities. The fact that she can joke about it certainly might indicate that the relationship is a safe and comfortable space for both of them despite his controlling behavior.

It’s also hypothetically possible that she is exacerbating his insecurities by being overly flirtatious (or even flat out cheating on him) with her friends. In which case he might want to end it, as being in that situation will only reinforce his insecurities in his next relationship. (Hell, it’s possible he is cheating, and that guilty conscience is making him project his infidelities onto her.)

It’s also possible that she is not even in a relationship, and posted this simply as a joke she thought was funny.

So all things considered, the information provided only gives me enough to confidently say that trolling toxicity is pretty funny.

As far as the “correct answer here” and the value of giving it “the old college try”, that’s more between her, the hypothetical him, and maybe a therapist, and their friends, and innumerable other factors I’m not really qualified to speak on.

What a breath a fresh air to see a witches’ house be done up in such a bright and fun color scheme! Makes me want to go read some Terry Pratchett!

Great job! I had a lot of fun looking at all the little details.

I mean, I completely agree that if he went about this in a non-toxic/non-controlling way, and instead clearly just wanted to protect her from legitimate threats, it would be completely different… But the funny thing about that is…

Sure, but this small window of context also still indicates that “he”:

1. Doesn’t trust her to not cheat
2. Wants to control who she can be around

Which sounds pretty toxic imho. Given that, if she wants to respond to toxicity with trolling, it certainly is pretty funny. Which seems to be the main point of the post, and the added nuance doesn’t really undermine that.

Presumably the fact that she isn’t hanging around his male friends when he is not around? Otherwise they would technically also be “her male friends”. Beyond that, he probably has more context to trust his friends.

Apples to apples would be saying they should stop hanging around his female friends, but given how he is implied to act, I would think it unlikely he has any (or at the very least they are unlikely to want to fuck him).

Though frankly, if he is worried about her male friends to the extent that he wants her to stop hanging around them, then the relationship is already on shaky ground. Because he is overly possessive and controlling, and possibly also because she really is giving him reasons to feel insecure. If it’s just the former, then her trolling his toxicity is very funny. If it’s also the latter, then… well it’s still kinda funny, but in a more mean spirited way.

So I’m not sure the nuance between the asks really changes the point of the post.

I more got the vibe that they were just tired of arguing about why they wanted to keep the bed where it was. After enough arguments, they just said “it needs to be here or you will die… cuz of… reasons…”.

Compared to the usual game console os windows offers a A LOT of freedom

Compared to the usual jail cell, the prison yard affers A LOT of freedom, just because you personally hate prison does not make the statement any less true.

To be fair, they only claim to be Pole-ish.

Sure, but just to clarify/reiterate my point, you can be a real member of a group that believes fake things.

That’s different from something like Judaism or Christianity whose views weren’t created by people with the intent of creating a faith.

I would disagree with this on a couple levels.

First off, we do have records of many faiths being created by compiling previously established beleifs. The Council of Trent compiling the cannonical faith of Catholic doctrine stands out as a great example.

And even if a faith was intentionally created, why should that undermine the concept that its adherents could claim to be real members? Buddhism for example was cannonically an intentionally constructed belief system.

I fail to see why a person who describes themselves as a Wiccan has any less right to choose their beliefs of their own accord, and then be counted as a real member of that group. Or alternatively, why a long standing faith system gets to be exempt.

Thanks for agreeing with and emphasizing my points! I thought using Jedi to elaborate the universality of my statement might be too subtle, so I’m glad you caught it.

But your last point about internal conflicts over authenticity within a religion did make me reconsider the necessity of “genuine” belief. Since spirituality is so personally definable, I guess all that is really necessary is for a person to claim the title. Technically, your papi was a priest despite a lack of a genuine belief.

We could (and people have) argue the requirements and definitions until we are blue in the face, but trying to get a working definition is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Sure, but that could be said about any belief system depending on when you start the clock.

While I don’t personally believe in the authenticity of claims from any non-testable belief/faith/spiritual system, I do believe that any person who genuienly says they hold to one can fairly be called a member of that group.

Be it Wiccans, Christians, Scientologists, Saitanists, or Jedi. Hence why I say this is a linguistics conversation. An “authentic Wiccan” dosen’t need our approval, nor is the validity of their beliefs relavent to them using the term to describe themselves.

That’s a linguistics debate. Are all Christians fake christians just because the god they believe in is an imaginary friend? Or are they real christians because they actively believe in their imaginary friend?

Or was your argument that the age of a belief lends creedence to it’s legitimacy regardless of its truth value?

Pardon the trite advice, but it really is a marathon, not a sprint.

How ever you’re feeling is a-okay, but if you find things to look forwards too, lean into them.

That’s not really a fair statement…

There is an ongoing linguistics debate about water being wet.