And thats why men arent allowed to some quiet time in the shed?

Removed by mod

Username checks out…

I suppose the most obvious example is men in sheds. It somethings that was created especially to deal with the issue of male loneliness, especially amongst the older community. Basis for being single gender, was to address those older gents who feel pressures to act a certain way around women. This was that one place they could go and just hang out doing wood working and what not. It was for men to make connections with other men, because men, seemingly, struggle with making or even keeping connections.

Enter the women, who think its sexist. Who think that men dont need just time to themselves. Theres mixed sex and single sex(female) things all over the place. But some women see men only spaces, and think “Not on my fucking watch!!!”.

Every day we talk about mens mental health, then some gaggle of cave brained cunts turns up to tell men how they have to sort their own shit out. Men in sheds did just that. Then it got popular, and then that same gaggle of cave brained cunts turns up talking about how male only spaces are toxic… Rinse, repeat, ad Infinium

https://www.4bc.com.au/women-are-demanding-entry-into-mens-sheds https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg5qd9l3094o

Why cant men have male on spaces? Why can we have our man caves? And if we do, why is it a a bad thing?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/29/members-of-londons-savile-club-vote-against-letting-women-join

Theres a guardian hit piece on the “disappointing” vote to have one of the last remaining gentlemans clubs remain male only. They also have a little go at “mostly white” like thats a fucking crime as well.

Same thing happened at the Flyers club. Men only for 141 years, then all of a sudden women want in and its sexist not to let them.

We cant even just play fucking video games, without getting hammered over the head about how its childish and that we need to grow up. God fucking forbid, we have a fucking hobby and some fun together.

“You could hurt me” is an insult. The amount of men who hurt women, is low. Its really fucking low. But for some reason, we all have to carry the water for that low number.

Its sexist. Its no different than if I said I didnt want to be alone with a woman because she might claim I raped her. How likely is that? Not very. And I say that as someone that it did happen to. The idea that men are an inherent risk, is sexist. And Im just sick of pretending its not.

I you cross the street from someone because they are black, we call that racist. But when its man, all of sudden the excuses come thick and fucking fast.

Women enters men only space = stunning and brave

Man enters women only space = sexist and misogynistic and low key sexual assault…

Also, online, womens only spaces are usually just as toxic as fuck as any incel space. We just dont call them what they are. So, IMO, some rules need to take a big long hard suck of societies asshole.

I dont think Ive ever seen a post on mildlyinfurating that wasnt scorched earth, everyone dies, fucking mega mental infuriating. Its right up there with aita and all its “So I reported the guy who raped me to the police. Some friends are saying I did the right thing, but some family are saying I should have just worked it out. Am I the asshole?” posts.

They always could. What appears to be happening is that channels now have the option to turn on “a switch” so that content wont play if a VPN is detected. Most VPN ip addresses are well known, because they arent a secret. Everyone who uses the VPN goes through it.

If you come across the above message, its because the content creator turned it on. I had it come up with “stick to football”. Its the only thing that it comes up with. I just unsubbed and wont watch anymore. Im not turning off my VPN for anyone or anything. Id rather just go with out. I encourage all of you to do the same.

Removed by mod

And the revisionist has entered the chat… lol Right on cue, mate.

Im not whitewashing anything. Thats just an assertion youre making because you cant handle being wrong. DEI solves nothing. Just like affirmative action, solved nothing. Theres a generational gap in the US between blacks and whites when it comes to equality. And you dont solve that with tokenism. The real racist is you, and people like you. Who think black people in the US deserve nothing but handouts and special treatment.

If you want to correct the mistakes of the past, thats money. Thats money to every single black family that was held back 100 years ago by the systemic racism that targeted them, while whites were given every advantage to gain and accumulate wealth.

You just want to say popular thing that gets you worthless internet points, but does nothing to solve the problem. You are the cancer of the internet.

I never said everything he said was good. In fact, I said it wasnt.

I dont know about the Clarence Thomas quote, but I know he said the same about Ben Carson… Which is a big yikes, Im sure you’ll agree.

I already did. Twice in fact. What a silly goose you are. Just desperate to call people racist, so you can get your little up arrow touched.

You think treating black people as human beings and giving them the same access to education as their white counterparts is “mask off”? What mask do you think I was wearing exactly???

Go back 100 years, and you’ll find white people in the US putting up barriers to social mobility towards black people. That means not giving mortgages, or if they did, only for certain areas, and even then only at silly mark ups. The problem started back then, and its never been corrected. And no, DEI does not address this. Giving special treatment to the chosen few is not any kind of solution to the problem. Its little more than a way of saying “look, we’re one of good ones. We let you into our private club!”. If not supporting that shit makes me racist, well, thats fine. Cos the only people who would call me racist, are the type of people who always want black people with their hand out so they can get a pat on the back when they put some loose change in it.

Im not explaining why its correct, Im explaining why he made it. Because the general idea is that he was just straight up racist. Which may very well be true, but if you have the context of why he said it, or at least the context in which he presented the argument, then you can understand it and challenge it. No? If all you think of someone is that they are a racist, then you can easily dismiss them. But that doesnt challenge the point. And if you hate that so many others are listening to the point, then its on you to challenge them with truth, rather than just calling them bigots and getting a pat on the back from like minded internet strangers.

Im advocating for people to arm themselves with information. I dont really see why thats so wrong.

Its all ragebait, mate. Left, right, doesnt matter. Media, both social and mainstream, wants your engagement. And there no better way to do that than rage. The brown man who just got off the boat and raped a young girl, the blue haired landwhale who said “all men are rapists by design!”, Charlie Kirk said black people suck, etc etc etc etc. Its all ragebait, all the time. Anything to keep you engaged, and them making money off of you.

Because those are examples of what he was talking about. Im adding context. Information is king. Do you not agree? If you dont know something, how can you ever hope to understand a persons point of view? If you dont understand their point of view, how can defeat them in debate?

The easy way to look at this, is the thing that almost everyone does these days. They take one example of something that offends them, and then applies it to the whole. The immigrate who rapes a child 2 minutes off the boat, the left wing lunatic with blue hair that says all men are rapists, the right wing lunatic that says all women should be in the kitchen. We see these examples everyday, and people use them as excuses to be horrible people. Does my pointing out the RAF and the Oxford Union instances make something true? No. But you need to know them, so that you know where someone else is coming from. So you that you can say “yes, but…”. Too much of online discourse is “thats lie!” with nothing to back up the claim. You can google those two things, and see that they are true. And you can then understand why someone might make a claim based on those two examples. But thats when you would, or should, point out the instances where it wasnt the case. Thats how the debate goes. We dont just accept what strangers on the internet tell us is true, or worse what gets us worthless internet points.

The only way to combat hate is with truth. And in order to gain truth, you must have information. Even when that information breaks what you thought to be true, or just makes it harder to prove whats true. I cant just be circlejerking all the time.

Well, Im not going to take offence, but I will point that you have in fact misrepresented what I said. The question is why?

I mean, you currently have Trump in the white house. He seems to be setting the stage for a tyrannical government that controls freedom of speech. His followers call for violence against those who dont agree. Its at this point you should be asking yourself, are you glad you have weapons to defend yourself if this orange buffoon comes knocking on your door to take away your citizenship and send you to a 3rd world prison for the crime of wrong think?

The question then becomes, was the few deaths every year a price worth paying for that protection? Its up to each of you to answer that question. There is no wrong answer.

The actual more important question is how can you have that protection, while at the same time lowering the amount of gun related deaths every year. But for some weird fucking reason, both sides want an all or nothing solution. No room for compromise, just anger and hate.

Also, lets see you get dogpiled and not just give up and start telling people to fuck off.

Which is my point, he doesnt need to be edited.

As for the rest of what you said, sorry, but thats just not true. People who werent qualified or as qualified as others got preference over others because of their skin colour in those instances that I mentioned. If you want to argue that its not that wide spread, thats fair enough. But it does happen, and I proved it with these two easily variable truths. Im sorry that hurts your feelings, but maybe you need to grow up a little bit, and understand that the heroes and villains of the world dont fit so neatly into the boxes youve prepared for them.

Also, the point about DEI isnt that black people or women or whoever else gets a job. The point is about the companies making these token gestures of representation so they can get a pat on the back from social media. And that its these companies that have created this atmosphere where people are looking at black people in jobs and unsure if they gained that job through merit or because some company wanted to fill a quota.

More to the point, because they create these token placements, we dont address other areas like black people have fewer opportunities to get the education needed to compete on an equal level. Black people arent stupid, but its easy to see that they are limited, especially in the US, to having access to higher education. And even more so prestigious higher education.

The problem, IMO, of DEI is that it addresses the symptoms in a superficial way for social media back slapping purposes, but doesnt address the causes of why these programs need to exist at all. Is this a right wing view? I think black people should have better access to the tools needed to compete, you think they should just be handed things as they need the charity. But you call me the asshole? Hmm…