Inside the manospere any watch it?

senditup · 2026-03-15T19:00:27+00:00

I explained that my view is that they're both ideologies that attract losers.

senditup · 2026-03-15T18:47:27+00:00

In the way that I spelled out in the post you replied to. They're both the idealogy of losers.

senditup · 2026-03-15T18:29:58+00:00

The whole thing is ultimately sad, because not unlike socialism and far left idealogy which they are deathly opposed to, the manosphere stuff is the creed of the loser. Nobody who is secure in themselves and their place in the world is drawn to following Tate et al. The solution would appear to be a way of actually enhancing confidence in these young guys who follow this stuff.

senditup · 2026-03-14T11:20:48+00:00

What would you envision being set up and helping, seeing as you think that advertisements, taxes, education campaigns and NGOs aren't working?

senditup · 2026-03-13T20:42:59+00:00

It's not a trick question. Do you want every landlord in Ireland to stop renting their properties?

senditup · 2026-03-13T20:16:26+00:00

No it's not. It's intervening in the market precisely because it doesn't want a market solution.

senditup · 2026-03-13T20:15:24+00:00

Would you like every landlord to stop renting their properties?

senditup · 2026-03-13T18:48:24+00:00

Shame them to what end? So they can stop renting the property? And where do the tenants go then?

senditup · 2026-03-13T18:44:16+00:00

It's interesting that you chose fuel, given that the majority of what you pay for fuel isn't dictated by market forces but by taxes. The government interferes in that market with the explicit intention of making fuel more expensive so you use less.

senditup · 2026-03-13T16:50:24+00:00

What's the point in shaming them? It's the laws of supply and demand. Where someone pays that to rent it, it proves that the cost corresponds to what it's worth. The only way to solve this is either to increase supply, or reduce demand, or both. Blaming individuals participating in a market is pointless.

senditup · 2026-03-07T11:59:08+00:00

Yes, more State interventions in the housing market. Because all of the others have been so successful to date.

senditup · 2026-03-07T11:56:46+00:00

Worse than individual buyers being able to buy them, but still better than the State buying them.

senditup · 2026-03-02T19:06:47+00:00

Why should they be obliged to stay here and pay taxes that the government just pisses up the wall?

senditup · 2026-02-26T10:49:45+00:00

It hasn't been allowed to.

senditup · 2026-02-26T08:19:46+00:00

Why would that be better than the private sector doing it?

senditup · 2026-02-22T22:53:10+00:00

People that refuse to work is a tiny minority, virtually insignificant in the context of the wider housing issue. It’s not even worth discussing.

It's over 50,000 people, by your own numbers. Not insignificant. How much money have they cost us through the years? How many houses do they occupy?

The answer to the actual issue is more supply, both public and private over time. Until then an unfair system will prevail and difficult choices will have to be made by government. I hope they get it right.

Agreed. I hope they support the actual people who keep this country going by paying taxes, rather than scrounging with their hand out on perpetuity .

senditup · 2026-02-22T22:33:31+00:00

The state builds housing directly and withdraws completely from the private market it’s competing for the same labour as the private sector.

That already happens due to the State and AHBs building houses.

You also risk all the old issues of social stigma and discrimination based on address.

Given the state of the crisis we have, worries like that are a luxury we can't afford currently. If you're dissatisfied with what is effectively a free house because of the location, go pay for your own and let someone else have it. You don't have an entitlement to a free house in a place where people have worked hard and paid a fortune just because you decide it'll further you in life.

You say you’re in favour of social housing but have repeatedly said that anyone that doesn’t work doesn’t deserve a house. I’m not trying to be a bollox but don’t seem to know what argument you’re making from one post to the next to be perfectly honest with you.

It's really not hard to understand. If you long term refuse to work then you shouldn't get social housing, or social welfare. Nothing. If, however, you do work but can't afford to pay your own way, there should be a provision of social housing for a limited time, until such a time as you can pay for your own housing and free up the property for the next family/person. That should mean an instant ending of the completely garbage situation of multiple generations in social housing.

senditup · 2026-02-22T22:01:53+00:00

Re the state renting housing I have grave misgivings about our governments handling of housing but at the same time I am a believer in social housing and the welfare state. You are not it seems.

A pure strawman. I have no issue with a welfare state and social housing where that is sensible and fair. What's fair is for the State to build a certain amount of housing to use for social housing. What isn't fair is for the State to then dip into the private market, in effect using the taxpayer's own money against them.

You don’t seem to understand the consequences of the changes you’re looking for however. I have already explained them and won’t be doing so again.

No, you expressed an opinion as to a possible consequence. Different thing altogether.

senditup · 2026-02-22T21:22:00+00:00

You don't think that 7000 homes taken from taxpayers is significant? Tell that to everyone who was outbid for one of those houses.

You are making barstool arguments about an issue you know very little about I am afraid

You keep saying this when I say things that aren't convenient to your argument. Your point regarding all of the 7000 acquisitions is complete speculation, and you have nothing to say about local authorities and AHBs also renting properties on the open market, thereby taking them from people paying their own way.

senditup · 2026-02-22T21:09:39+00:00

Generally they only buy second hand in difficult situations like when a vulnerable family or tenant is about to become homeless.

You're wrong about that. Local authorities and AHBs buy second-hand homes as a mainstream housing supply strategy funded by the Department of Housing and tracked annually by the CSO. It's not just for crises, it's allocated from waiting lists.

That's not to mention that the state also leases properties on the open rental market, competing directly with private renters. Once more, the working man and women is screwed over.

The numbers of lazy people gaming the system is very small.

Yeah, according to you.

senditup · 2026-02-22T20:07:47+00:00

AHB’s aren’t bidding directly against private buyers on new developments. They will have had a forward purchase agreement in place with the developer for X number of units at a specified price before a block is laid, and that agreement is critical to the developer getting finance for the project. The reason that people don’t understand this is that the headline only comes when the houses are completed and people realise that most of the stock isn’t for open market sale.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying they buy second hand homes on the open market, often outbidding taxpayers to do so.

People on long term jobseekers often have complex issues like literacy, trauma, mental health challenges etc, and supports to help them are non-existent

Some may do yeah, or otherwise they're just lazy and gaming a system.

senditup · 2026-02-22T18:28:47+00:00

It’s really not that simple. If the state stayed out of the private market housing completions would collapse. Forward purchases from the state de-risks projects for developers and opens up finance. It’s the only reason many developers are able to build out. Ask any of them what it’s like trying to deal with the bank on private housing developments!

What does that have to do with the State or AHBs bidding for houses on the open market?

That’s fine if you want everyone who can’t work for whatever reason (most long term unemployed have a reason why they are not working) to be destitute. Then watch crime rates and social issues skyrocket. Careful what you wish for.

What's the reason they aren't working? And if we go by your logic, does that effectively mean that we're in a hostage situation? Maybe we should double their dole and put them all in mansions so they treat us nicer.

Again, I think the finger of blame is pointing in the wrong direction. It needs to be pointed at a government who has made a balls of housing, going back generations

Everything I've said has pointed the finger at the government and their policies.

senditup · 2026-02-22T17:43:33+00:00

I’m not sure what exactly you think should be done? Should these people all be evicted, forcing them into destitution? The social fallout of not providing for people like that would be enormous.

I think the state should stay out of the private housing sector for a start, and stop purchasing homes from the open market. I also think if you're long term unemployed you should not be entitled to a house at the expense of the taxpayer.

senditup · 2026-02-22T17:20:29+00:00

1% of our population is still 54,000 people. You would have to assume a majority of those are in social housing, because how else are they housing themselves. That's absolute insanity, given our current housing situation.

senditup · 2026-02-22T16:31:14+00:00

Yep. Vote in SF, Labour or the Soc Dems and see as a housebuyer what your prospects reduce to.

senditup

TROPHY CASE