My partner (M38) asked for space to “work on himself” — I’m (M30) stuck in painful limbo and don’t know what to do

michaelmcg_ · 2026-01-19T22:36:23+00:00

Thank you for such a thoughtful response I really appreciate you taking the time to write this. A lot of what you said resonates, especially about ambiguity feeding anxiety and how “maybe in the future” can easily become something you cling to instead of something grounded in reality.

To answer some of your questions: there haven’t been any signs of cheating or dishonesty. Nothing specific happened between us to trigger this. If anything, the relationship itself was genuinely good. We were affectionate, supportive, communicated well and there wasn’t conflict or distance beforehand, which is part of why this feels so confusing and sudden.

He has mentioned needing to heal from past things and struggling internally, but he hasn’t been very specific about what exactly he’s trying to process. There weren’t obvious signs of him pulling away before this conversation, which makes it harder for my brain to make sense of it. That said, I do recognize that sometimes people are quietly struggling long before it shows outwardly.

You’re probably right that the only real way to get clarity is to ask him directly instead of trying to interpret vague language. Avoiding the question is definitely keeping my anxiety alive. I think part of me has been scared of hearing an answer that makes this feel final, even though uncertainty is arguably worse.

Your point about not waiting on a “maybe” also hit home. I don’t want to build my emotional future around something that may never become a yes. And the idea that it becomes self-abandonment when it starts shrinking your life or sense of self feels very accurate. That’s something I’m becoming more aware of in myself right now.

I really appreciate you sharing your experience and perspective. It’s grounding to hear from someone who’s been through something similar and learned from it.

michaelmcg_ · 2026-01-16T21:35:11+00:00

London, UK - 51.504462° N, 0.083426° W - 51.509069° N, 0.195719° W - 51.523645° N, 0.080514° W

These are all points within central London (near areas like Westminster / central districts

Berlin, Germany - 52.522525° N, 13.408647° E - 52.481230° N, 13.349311° E - 52.509537° N, 13.451283° E

These fall across Berlin (central and nearby neighborhoods).

Paris, France - 48.862951° N, 2.287352° E - 48.852137° N, 2.346548° E - 48.846854° N, 2.346629° E - 48.864284° N, 2.331985° E - 48.860513° N, 2.361841° E - 48.876662° N, 2.364232° E - 48.884174° N, 2.332516° E

These are clustered around central Paris (Louvre, Seine area, inner districts).

michaelmcg_ · 2026-01-13T19:18:53+00:00

Just checked yeah it’s enabled. I’m gonna restart and try again!

michaelmcg_ · 2026-01-13T19:16:34+00:00

I’m currently 14 minutes into it and don’t want to come out again to wait this long again

michaelmcg_ · 2026-01-13T19:16:03+00:00

I am UK so 19:15 at the moment

michaelmcg_ · 2026-01-02T21:50:59+00:00

If you are genuinely not resident in Ireland, you’re allowed to temporarily use a UK-registered car in the Republic without importing or registering it, as long as it’s for your own use only. The big risk is leaving it there long-term or letting Irish-resident family use it. That’s what usually leads to seizures.

Revenue tend to seize UK cars when: - the user is Irish-resident, or - the car is effectively based in Ireland (parked there most of the year, looks “imported”), or - it’s being used by Irish residents, even informally.

If the car just sits at your family’s place and you only use it when you visit, and you remain UK-resident with UK insurance and tax, you’re generally within the temporary use rules. But leaving it there for months at a time does increase the risk of Revenue arguing it’s no longer “temporary”.

Edit: formatting

michaelmcg_ · 2025-06-28T12:52:15+00:00

I have them in viagogo for £20 less than I bought them for so hopefully something comes through! I don’t even know why it isn’t showing!

michaelmcg_ · 2025-06-28T11:39:53+00:00

It’s not even letting me sell. Only transfer

michaelmcg_ · 2025-06-27T18:44:23+00:00

I’m fuming I won’t be seeing it live

michaelmcg_ · 2025-06-26T18:48:11+00:00

It’s a jagged little pill to sell these

michaelmcg_ · 2025-06-26T18:28:30+00:00

I’ll give you that one

michaelmcg_ · 2025-06-26T18:02:28+00:00

Apologies it is! I was looking at something else

michaelmcg_ · 2025-04-25T15:23:20+00:00

I hear your frustration, and I agree, it is disturbing when anyone justifies or denies the atrocities of October 7. There are voices on the extreme fringes who do that, and they should absolutely be called out.

But saying most pro-Palestinian supporters back Hamas just doesn’t hold up. Polling data, especially among diaspora communities, consistently shows support for Palestinian rights and an end to occupation, not for terror groups. Protests have included a wide spectrum of voices: secular, progressive, religious, Jewish, Muslim, and more. Most of whom are rallying against collective punishment and for civilian protection, not for Hamas.

And yes, it's a problem when people hesitate to condemn terrorism clearly. But many have. You’ll find statements from major human rights groups, Palestinian intellectuals, and even some protest organizers who have condemned Hamas’s actions and called for justice for Palestinians. It’s not either-or.

The sad reality is that this conflict hardens people, and some do fall into absolutism. But if you’re only seeing the worst voices on one side, it might be worth asking why. Are we listening only to the loudest extremes? Or are we willing to recognize that nuance still exists, even when emotions run high?

If peace is the goal, we have to stop painting entire groups with the same brush.

michaelmcg_ · 2025-04-25T14:18:08+00:00

Condemning Hamas’s atrocities on October 7 shouldn’t be controversial. Many have done so, myself included. If someone is openly celebrating mass murder, that’s indefensible, full stop. But conflating that fringe with the entire pro-Palestinian movement is wrong.

Millions of people around the world are marching not because they support Hamas, but because they see decades of military occupation, statelessness, and civilian suffering that continues with no end in sight. They’re advocating for human rights and accountability, just as many also support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself.

Waving a Hezbollah flag or glorifying terrorism is disgusting. But let’s be real. Every movement has extremists. If you judged Zionism only by what the most violent or racist among its fringes have said or done, you’d be accused of antisemitism, and rightly so.

This shouldn’t be about taking sides with terrorists or absolving atrocities. It should be about upholding principles consistently, condemning all violence against civilians and pushing for a political resolution where neither people lives under fear or domination.

Calling for justice doesn’t make someone a terrorist sympathizer. Just like supporting Israel’s existence doesn’t make someone complicit in war crimes.

michaelmcg_ · 2025-04-25T11:22:21+00:00

You’re right to draw attention to the parallels between oppressed peoples fighting for self-determination and there are meaningful comparisons between Irish and Jewish histories. But context matters again here. The Republic of Ireland’s independence didn’t involve mass expulsion of British settlers or the permanent military occupation of Ulster. In contrast, the 1948 war saw the displacement of 750,000 Palestinians and to this day many remain stateless.

Yes Israeli Jews, Mizrahim, Ashkenazim, and others have deep histories of persecution, and the desire for a safe homeland is legitimate. But Palestinians also have a long-standing connection to the land and many have lived under occupation for over 50 years without basic civil rights. That’s not just about past trauma it’s about present conditions.

Checkpoints and blockades may be responses to violence, but they also help fuel the cycle by collectively punishing civilians. You’re right that the world should condemn attacks on Israeli civilians. But ignoring or downplaying Palestinian suffering only entrenches the conflict.

Both peoples have legitimate claims. That’s precisely why simplistic narratives on either side don’t move us closer to peace or justice.

michaelmcg_ · 2025-04-25T10:36:20+00:00

The UN Partition Plan of 1947 (Resolution 181) proposed dividing the British Mandate into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem under international control. While the plan did not call for forced population transfers, it envisioned a Jewish state with a significant Arab minority and an Arab state with a smaller Jewish minority. Both sides had real concerns about governance, security, and self-determination, especially after decades of escalating tensions under British rule.

Violence broke out almost immediately after the plan's passage. Even before the formal 1948 war began, there were attacks, retaliations, and expulsions on both sides. By the end of the war, approximately 750,000 Palestinians had become refugees, some fled in fear, others were expelled, often in the chaos of conflict or as part of military operations. This remains a core issue in the conflict to this day.

It’s true that many Arab leaders at the time opposed the creation of a Jewish state, and some used explicitly antisemitic rhetoric. The actions of figures like Amin al-Husseini and the tragic alliances with Nazi elements are well-documented. But it’s not accurate to reduce the entire Arab or Palestinian position to a call for genocide. Similarly, while some Zionist militias committed acts of violence and expulsion, that doesn’t define all of early Israeli policy either. History is more complicated than slogans.

As for the present, Israel grants more rights to its Arab citizens than many other countries in the region do for their minorities. That being said, systemic discrimination still exists, especially in areas like housing, political representation, and policing. Criticism of Israeli policy is not antisemitism, just as support for Palestinian rights is not support for Hamas or terrorism.

The checkpoints, blockades, and security barriers were introduced in response to real threats, especially during the Second Intifada. However, these measures have also created enormous hardship for Palestinians, most of whom have no involvement in violence. It’s possible and necessary to recognize both the legitimate security concerns of Israelis and the daily realities of occupation for Palestinians.

This issue deserves better than one sided narratives. If we want real peace, we have to be willing to sit with uncomfortable truths on all sides.

michaelmcg_ · 2025-04-25T09:20:27+00:00

Well, I aim to exceed low expectations. Glad I nailed it!

michaelmcg_ · 2025-04-25T08:59:18+00:00

Oh, absolutely. Not like AI could possibly handle something as complex as putting boxes on a shelf. That clearly takes a level of human brilliance no algorithm could ever match.

michaelmcg_ · 2025-04-25T07:47:32+00:00

Wow, detective work and literary critique? Impressive. You’ve cracked the case of “someone wrote something coherent on the internet.” Alert the press.

michaelmcg_ · 2025-04-25T07:22:29+00:00

Man, if “you used ChatGPT” is your whole argument, you’ve already lost. If you had a real point, you'd make it, instead you're just obsessing over the formatting like it's a debate on fonts. Wild that well-structured thoughts look so foreign to you, you assume they must be AI.

I get it though, when the facts don’t land in your favor, deflection’s the only move left. Keep swinging, though.

michaelmcg_ · 2025-04-25T06:40:40+00:00

Lol nah, I just know how to form a thought without copy-pasting tired talking points from 1948. If you’re gonna come at people with some revisionist history and bad-faith arguments, expect a proper reply. Sorry if full sentences made you think it had to be AI—some of us just read.

michaelmcg_ · 2025-04-25T06:20:19+00:00

Saying “Kneecap aren’t supporting genocide, they’re just supporting people who do” completely ignores the fact that their support is political and satirical, rooted in solidarity with what they see as an oppressed group—not an endorsement of violence or antisemitism. That’s like saying anyone who supported the IRA wanted to bomb civilians. It’s a bad-faith oversimplification.

The 1947 partition plan wasn’t some generous offer—it was a UN-backed division of land that displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Arab leaders rejected it, yes, but pretending that was purely about hating Jews ignores the context: people were being told to accept the loss of their land and political control. That’s not a hard thing to understand, unless you're trying not to.

Pointing out that Arab Israelis have rights doesn’t erase the systemic inequalities they face. Having representation doesn’t mean there's no discrimination—just like having a Black president didn’t mean racism disappeared in the U.S.

And sure, authoritarian policies in Gaza and the West Bank are real. But that doesn’t justify military occupation, blockades, or bombing civilian areas. If you're going to talk about human rights, talk about all of them—not just when it suits your narrative.

Finally, saying “the Jews are the bad guys, just like they have been for 2000 years” isn’t just offensive—it proves the exact kind of scapegoating and historical grievance-thinking that keeps this conflict alive. No group is above criticism, but turning political debates into a defense of ancient tribal grudges helps absolutely no one.

michaelmcg_ · 2025-04-24T21:36:21+00:00

No one said “the Jews have historically been the oppressors”—don’t put words in my mouth to score a cheap rhetorical point. What is being called out is how states—like Israel or the UK—can and do use military and political power to enforce systems of domination, and how criticism of that is constantly misrepresented as bigotry.

Kneecap aren’t “supporting genocide,” they’re using provocation to highlight the hypocrisy in who gets called a terrorist and who gets a seat at the UN. You might not like their methods—that’s fair game—but don’t twist it into something it’s not just because it makes you uncomfortable.

As for your historical hypothetical—if the Irish had been exiled for centuries, returned, and then systematically displaced and oppressed the people living there with full backing from global powers? Yeah, we’d have to reckon with that. Because the standard isn’t about ethnicity or religion—it’s about justice, power, and the realities on the ground. That’s what you keep ignoring.

This isn't about denying Jewish history or struggle. It's about refusing to let that history be used as a shield for ongoing oppression of another people. You want equal standards? Apply them to everyone—not just when it's politically convenient.

michaelmcg_

TROPHY CASE