comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robb #gotheSwans (U22716)
posted 10 minutes ago
The question to ask is ‘why’ Tate is saying these ‘smart’ and ‘inspirational’ things and the answer to that can shape how you judge said person.
Is Tate saying these things to inspire a generation of men that need to hear these things out of a sense of societal responsibility?
Or is he grifting them to pay for his university and get him social media traction that brings in more income peddling an androcentric way of looking at the world?
Chances are it’s probably #2 and that’s why it’s a valid viewpoint to take pleasure in their downfall.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I agree.
But that wasn't what I was responding to.
He's not a stupid guy. That's all I'm arguing. Claiming he is is just burying your head in the sand and I don't know how you can tackle a problem without understanding it.
So sit and call him stupid all you like, that won't do anything to address the potential damage he could do though. He's not a nice guy but he's not stupid. That's kind of all I'm arguing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, he was stupid enough to get into an online war with Greta and reveal his secret location via a pizza box 😂
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Robb #gotheSwans (U22716)
posted 10 minutes ago
The question to ask is ‘why’ Tate is saying these ‘smart’ and ‘inspirational’ things and the answer to that can shape how you judge said person.
Is Tate saying these things to inspire a generation of men that need to hear these things out of a sense of societal responsibility?
Or is he grifting them to pay for his university and get him social media traction that brings in more income peddling an androcentric way of looking at the world?
Chances are it’s probably #2 and that’s why it’s a valid viewpoint to take pleasure in their downfall.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I agree.
But that wasn't what I was responding to.
He's not a stupid guy. That's all I'm arguing. Claiming he is is just burying your head in the sand and I don't know how you can tackle a problem without understanding it.
So sit and call him stupid all you like, that won't do anything to address the potential damage he could do though. He's not a nice guy but he's not stupid. That's kind of all I'm arguing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is street smart. Which is what we used to refer to the kids at school who would sell drugs as.
comment by Robb #gotheSwans (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robb #gotheSwans (U22716)
posted 10 minutes ago
The question to ask is ‘why’ Tate is saying these ‘smart’ and ‘inspirational’ things and the answer to that can shape how you judge said person.
Is Tate saying these things to inspire a generation of men that need to hear these things out of a sense of societal responsibility?
Or is he grifting them to pay for his university and get him social media traction that brings in more income peddling an androcentric way of looking at the world?
Chances are it’s probably #2 and that’s why it’s a valid viewpoint to take pleasure in their downfall.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I agree.
But that wasn't what I was responding to.
He's not a stupid guy. That's all I'm arguing. Claiming he is is just burying your head in the sand and I don't know how you can tackle a problem without understanding it.
So sit and call him stupid all you like, that won't do anything to address the potential damage he could do though. He's not a nice guy but he's not stupid. That's kind of all I'm arguing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, he was stupid enough to get into an online war with Greta and reveal his secret location via a pizza box 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't say he was always smart haha.
I just think that strawmanning or mischaracterising someone does nothing to help combat it. It's so lazy.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 58 minutes ago
Everytime I ask somebody to tell me the smart things Tate has said, they don't reply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This was one of the few things I kinda nodded my head with...I'm paraphrasing..He once said if you ever see a guy filling up his lambo, you never think he must have worked hard, you wonder what dodgy questionably immoral stuff he has been up to to afford it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's true. However I'd genuinely like to know the smart things people think he has said. I've only ever heard people tell me stupid stuff he has said, although they described it as smart, being the kind of people they are, right wing, conspiracy theory nutjobs, racists and sexist to name but a few.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are definitely things to take from young men being accountable, responsible, owning their own 'destiny' or path, working hard and striving to achieve better than what others might believe you capable of. There is value in the idea that sitting around and doing very little of yourself is doing yourself a disservice.
As annoying as people are who worship the ground he walks on, the same can be said of the opposite. If you genuinely don't think there's anything that can be extracted from his mentality and work ethic then i suspect its because of some lazy prejudice.
As I said, bad people can have good idea and good people can have bad ideas. An incredibly smart person can also be incredibly cruel. An incredibly altruistic person can be incredibly stupid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, there are literally thousands of people out there preaching self-reliance and a strong work ethic, and most of them don't package that in with extreme woman-hatred.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know, I'm simply responding to the question of what he has ever said that makes any sense.
You can't keep shifting the goalposts, I don't know why this has to be such an emotional, anger inducing conversation for people to have.
A claim was made that when asking for anything 'smart' he's ever said, no answer had ever been given.
So the question is "had he ever said anything intelligent or meaningful". I answered this.
I am not 'defending' him, you seem to have immediately taken this as though I am. I've never tried to suggest that as a package he's a good role model or anyrhing like that.
When you ask for an example of something someone has said that makes sense and I give one but you then shift the goalposts then it really begs the question of why you are bothering to engage? What are you wanting here?
The question was not "is he a good role model". Someone asked if he's ever said anything clever. I pointed out that he had.
Really don't get why that's so triggering.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't ask the original question, so I haven't shifted any goalposts that I set out. And I'm simply critiquing positions you have defended; I guess you are implying that in being 'triggered', I'm responding emotionally rather than rationally, and this somehow bolsters your position. It adds nothing to your argument, and I'd advise against deploying it during a debate unless you've run out of substantive points to make.
You indeed haven't explicitly said you support Tate. But your insistence on taking a neutral stance between extreme bigotry and ethical disgust at that bigotry positions you as not not supporting him. You've described people who have a fundamental problem with him as exhibiting a lazy prejudice on the basis that you think he has valuable things to say that presumably should be enough to shrug off discourse dehumanising women and hanging out with Tommy Robinson. You've extended that principle to the suggestion that a member of the KKK might be worth listening to, because perhaps part of their worldview could be of value.
My view is that when someone's worldview is polluted with ideas that certain groups are subhuman, then you should proceed with extreme caution around the other stuff they say.
Incidentally, when I first heard about Tate, I wasn't aware of his business model or filthy misogyny. The first thing I heard, unprejudiced by that, was him talking about self-reliance, and my immediate impression was that it was trite and one-dimensional stuff that has been around for decades.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't said anything about shrugging anything off. Look it's really clear that this isn't going anywhere productive. I'm not playing this game of needing to 'prove' I don't prescribe to his entire world view.
And yes, when the person I first responded to says that their entire opinion of him is based on what they've heard of other people, I think it's fair to call that lazy.
People cna just keep thinking he's stupid, that's fine but don't ask for examples of him saying things that resonate with people, not liking the answer and then keep wondering why he's resonating with people.
Writing him off as stupid does nothing to understand how or why he's been successful in reaching so many people.
Forgive me for getting it wrong on the goal post thing, I'm responding casually on a phone and haven't always checked whether I'm responding to the same person or not which is a pretty lazy thing to do, so my bad on that.
All I'm saying is he's not stupid. That's not an endorsement of him, his world views, his ideas etc and yes, I think there's value to not immediately disengaging with people who you don't agree with. I only use daryl Davies as an extreme example of proof that there's value to be had even in really extreme cases.
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 3 hours, 35 minutes ago
People seem to really struggle with separating ideas or things people say and personal/character judgements.
Someone says something you agree with? Good person. They say something you disagree with? Bad person.
Andrew Tate makes some very valid points on some issues. That doesn't mean he makes valid points on every issue and it doesn't mean he's a good person.
People seem to need to be all in or all out and there's very little inbetween. I know loads of people who I think are right on certain topics but wrong on others and there are plenty of people I agree with on certain things but don't like them personally.
Andrew Tate is a prime example. People tend to either think he's a god or utter trash with nothing of value to say but as with most things, the truth is somewhere inbetween.
If you tell people that they will have similar views to Hitler on some things, not even important things, just anything. They will share certain opinions he had, like egg on toast being a good start to the day. But if you mention that they will share some views and opinions with Hitler they tend to recoil and take it like a personal insult.
Because people cannot separate ideas from people. Learn to do that and this gets loads easier. Do I think he's trafficked people? I don't care enough to look into but as a very lazy observation it wouldn't surprise me. That doesn't mean that he's completely wrong about the some of the things young men are currently missing or certain attitudes like taking accountability, ownership etc for your life. You can agree with him on X without needing to validate his entire being.
So for me he sits in a similar to camp to many other people, Candace Owens is an example. People who I think make good points on certain issues at certain times but who I also pretty heavily disagree with on other issues and suspect I wouldn't like to associate with them on a regular basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue that raping and trafficking women categorically makes you a horrible pathetic scuumbag of a person, regardless of whether or not he has a few opinions on other issues that might actually make sense.
How has he been “mischaracterised”?”?
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 3 minutes ago
I haven't said anything about shrugging anything off. Look it's really clear that this isn't going anywhere productive. I'm not playing this game of needing to 'prove' I don't prescribe to his entire world view.
And yes, when the person I first responded to says that their entire opinion of him is based on what they've heard of other people, I think it's fair to call that lazy.
People cna just keep thinking he's stupid, that's fine but don't ask for examples of him saying things that resonate with people, not liking the answer and then keep wondering why he's resonating with people.
Writing him off as stupid does nothing to understand how or why he's been successful in reaching so many people.
Forgive me for getting it wrong on the goal post thing, I'm responding casually on a phone and haven't always checked whether I'm responding to the same person or not which is a pretty lazy thing to do, so my bad on that.
All I'm saying is he's not stupid. That's not an endorsement of him, his world views, his ideas etc and yes, I think there's value to not immediately disengaging with people who you don't agree with. I only use daryl Davies as an extreme example of proof that there's value to be had even in really extreme cases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't implied you subscribe to his entire world view. I'm taking issue with the comments you've made that suggest people who abhor him can be equated with those who fanatically support him. You went on to make a broader point that reasonable people would do well to listen with an open heart to horrific extremists rather than reject them entirely. This strikes me as a strangely ambivalent stance in relation to bigotry. I think one of the reasons extremist views have penetrated the mainstream is a habit within liberal discourse to opt for a neutral position between two sides rather than an objective one that rigorously critiques its subject. This kind of worked when the political landscape was dominated by more or less moderate parties, more or less adhering to truthful discourse. It's disastrous in a culture where charlatans, grifters and liars realise they aren't going to get called out. I'm all for listening in good faith to different perspectives and viewpoints, but there's very little value in engaging in good faith with trolls, misinformation, gaslighting, etc. Which is why I think we ought to be careful about awarding too much credit when an odious man like Tate spouts a bit of inoffensive folk wisdom.
Anyway, if you had initially, explicitly framed what you were saying purely as exploring why an odious human being succeeded in resonating with others, I think this would have been a shorter discussion and no one would have disagreed.
comment by Pierre Reedy (U1734)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Robb #gotheSwans (U22716)
posted 10 minutes ago
The question to ask is ‘why’ Tate is saying these ‘smart’ and ‘inspirational’ things and the answer to that can shape how you judge said person.
Is Tate saying these things to inspire a generation of men that need to hear these things out of a sense of societal responsibility?
Or is he grifting them to pay for his university and get him social media traction that brings in more income peddling an androcentric way of looking at the world?
Chances are it’s probably #2 and that’s why it’s a valid viewpoint to take pleasure in their downfall.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I agree.
But that wasn't what I was responding to.
He's not a stupid guy. That's all I'm arguing. Claiming he is is just burying your head in the sand and I don't know how you can tackle a problem without understanding it.
So sit and call him stupid all you like, that won't do anything to address the potential damage he could do though. He's not a nice guy but he's not stupid. That's kind of all I'm arguing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is street smart. Which is what we used to refer to the kids at school who would sell drugs as.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You still owe me for them
comment by T-SaliBAG (U11806)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 3 hours, 35 minutes ago
People seem to really struggle with separating ideas or things people say and personal/character judgements.
Someone says something you agree with? Good person. They say something you disagree with? Bad person.
Andrew Tate makes some very valid points on some issues. That doesn't mean he makes valid points on every issue and it doesn't mean he's a good person.
People seem to need to be all in or all out and there's very little inbetween. I know loads of people who I think are right on certain topics but wrong on others and there are plenty of people I agree with on certain things but don't like them personally.
Andrew Tate is a prime example. People tend to either think he's a god or utter trash with nothing of value to say but as with most things, the truth is somewhere inbetween.
If you tell people that they will have similar views to Hitler on some things, not even important things, just anything. They will share certain opinions he had, like egg on toast being a good start to the day. But if you mention that they will share some views and opinions with Hitler they tend to recoil and take it like a personal insult.
Because people cannot separate ideas from people. Learn to do that and this gets loads easier. Do I think he's trafficked people? I don't care enough to look into but as a very lazy observation it wouldn't surprise me. That doesn't mean that he's completely wrong about the some of the things young men are currently missing or certain attitudes like taking accountability, ownership etc for your life. You can agree with him on X without needing to validate his entire being.
So for me he sits in a similar to camp to many other people, Candace Owens is an example. People who I think make good points on certain issues at certain times but who I also pretty heavily disagree with on other issues and suspect I wouldn't like to associate with them on a regular basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue that raping and trafficking women categorically makes you a horrible pathetic scuumbag of a person, regardless of whether or not he has a few opinions on other issues that might actually make sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This might be inappropriate to say, but he is not yet found guilty before court.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Cloggy (U1250)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 4 minutes ago
He has obviously said some stupid things, but he has said some smart things too. Like anyone in the world you have to filter out the good messages and what you agree with. Society today is very polarising in the sense that you either share the same opinion 100% of the time or youre "enemies" and a "moron".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who gives fack if he said some good things, the guy is getting done for rape, human trafficking and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women.
Its like saying Hitler did some good things, but lets not polarise over killing 6 million jews.
Yes, Godwin's law, but its the same, innit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So he is guilty before even stepping into court? Don't be a mug. We've seen with Johnny Depp not long ago what happens when people jump to conclusions without a proper trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I wrote above, even without the criminal allegations, the way he described his methods of entrapping and emotionally manipulating women in order to make himself rich, and the horrifically demeaning way he talks about women should be enough to make anyone very queasy about attaching value to anything he says. It's content aimed at an incel culture that sees women as the enemy, as mean gatekeepers who are to be defeated.
To extend the Godwin's Law reference above to your objection, what if Hitler hadn't started WW2 and presided over the Holocaust, and all you had was Mein Kampf, and there were some paragraphs offering fairly benign self-reliance messages in there?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not an incel culture against women, you're talking straight out of your arsse mate and trying to bring Hitler into this is so pathetic beyond words. The two are so incomparible it's unreal. If thats the route you have to take to make a point youve already failed at backing yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue that raping and trafficking women categorically makes you a horrible pathetic scuumbag of a person, regardless of whether or not he has a few opinions on other issues that might actually make sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was already being labelled a horrible,$cumbag, polluting boys etc before the charges tbf, which i thought was extreme at the time.
I've never quite understood the term "influencer"
I mean just who the feck are these people even "influencing"?
And what the fook are they "influencing" anybody with exactly?
comment by comic book guy (U17816)
posted 11 seconds ago
I've never quite understood the term "influencer"
I mean just who the feck are these people even "influencing"?
And what the fook are they "influencing" anybody with exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone “influenced” by these charlatans needs slapping like the red headed stepchild
RR - did you watch the BBC interview or have you listened to any of this guy’s podcasts?
comment by comic book guy (U17816)
posted 1 minute ago
I've never quite understood the term "influencer"
I mean just who the feck are these people even "influencing"?
And what the fook are they "influencing" anybody with exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is how the next generation shop, get ideas, choose holidays, nights out, restaurants, gaming...everything really.....unfortunately
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by comic book guy (U17816)
posted 11 seconds ago
I've never quite understood the term "influencer"
I mean just who the feck are these people even "influencing"?
And what the fook are they "influencing" anybody with exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone “influenced” by these charlatans needs slapping like the red headed stepchild
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Have you given anything a proper listen or do you immediately switch off at the first thing you disagree with and crawl back to your comfort zone.
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by comic book guy (U17816)
posted 11 seconds ago
I've never quite understood the term "influencer"
I mean just who the feck are these people even "influencing"?
And what the fook are they "influencing" anybody with exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone “influenced” by these charlatans needs slapping like the red headed stepchild
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Have you given anything a proper listen or do you immediately switch off at the first thing you disagree with and crawl back to your comfort zone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither I have a brain and can think for myself
I don’t need to be influenced but hey Ho whatever makes folk happy
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by comic book guy (U17816)
posted 11 seconds ago
I've never quite understood the term "influencer"
I mean just who the feck are these people even "influencing"?
And what the fook are they "influencing" anybody with exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone “influenced” by these charlatans needs slapping like the red headed stepchild
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Have you given anything a proper listen or do you immediately switch off at the first thing you disagree with and crawl back to your comfort zone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither I have a brain and can think for myself
I don’t need to be influenced but hey Ho whatever makes folk happy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was influenced by One by Metallica when I was a kid.
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by comic book guy (U17816)
posted 11 seconds ago
I've never quite understood the term "influencer"
I mean just who the feck are these people even "influencing"?
And what the fook are they "influencing" anybody with exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone “influenced” by these charlatans needs slapping like the red headed stepchild
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Have you given anything a proper listen or do you immediately switch off at the first thing you disagree with and crawl back to your comfort zone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither I have a brain and can think for myself
I don’t need to be influenced but hey Ho whatever makes folk happy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you talking about? If you agree with some view points it doesnt make you dont suddenly swallow that persons entire personality and become the same.
Everybody is influenced by something or someone or multiple things during a lifetime
Would i look up to Andrew as an idol id like to be exactly like? Of course not. Does he make a lot of valid points which i can resonate with and understand? Of course.
Without reading or watching something you can never understand. You probably judge based on 10 second shorts and biased media as opposed to actually listening to a full podcast or interview
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 7 minutes ago
Its not an incel culture against women, you're talking straight out of your arsse mate and trying to bring Hitler into this is so pathetic beyond words. The two are so incomparible it's unreal. If thats the route you have to take to make a point youve already failed at backing yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you could read, you'd understand that I'm not saying Tate is comparable to Hitler, but using an extreme example to illustrate a point, and in fact I explicitly extending an analogy to Hitler that a previous poster had made, where they too had already made it clear they weren't making a direct comparison. I'd probably have come up with a different analogy had that one not already been part of the discussion.
Sometimes on a football forum someone says something idiotic like "this player is terrible because he's bald" and it's refuted with "Zidane was bald, and he wasn't bad" and the first person retorts "how can you compare this player with Zinedine Zidane?" That's essentially what you've done in miscomprehending the discussion above.
As for incel culture, I fully stand by what I wrote. I've watched recordings of Tate describing how he groomed women, manipulating them into becoming emotionally dependent on him with the aim of convincing them to s3xually perform on camera for his personal enrichment. No one can watch that and be his fan without seeing women as commodities and adversaries.
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 2 minutes ago
Would i look up to Andrew as an idol id like to be exactly like? Of course not. Does he make a lot of valid points which i can resonate with and understand? Of course.
Without reading or watching something you can never understand. You probably judge based on 10 second shorts and biased media as opposed to actually listening to a full podcast or interview
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any of his “valid points” have also been made by countless other peopke butt without all the urher sheet he vomits out
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 15 minutes ago
RR - did you watch the BBC interview or have you listened to any of this guy’s podcasts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I watched the BBC interview. I clicked on links shared by UWW when he was promoting Tate on this forum, which was the first I'd ever heard of him. I didn't have any prejudicial ideas about him before hearing from the man first-hand, except I guess from a certain foreboding that he came with the recommendation of UWW's rather unhinged mind.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 7 minutes ago
Its not an incel culture against women, you're talking straight out of your arsse mate and trying to bring Hitler into this is so pathetic beyond words. The two are so incomparible it's unreal. If thats the route you have to take to make a point youve already failed at backing yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you could read, you'd understand that I'm not saying Tate is comparable to Hitler, but using an extreme example to illustrate a point, and in fact I explicitly extending an analogy to Hitler that a previous poster had made, where they too had already made it clear they weren't making a direct comparison. I'd probably have come up with a different analogy had that one not already been part of the discussion.
Sometimes on a football forum someone says something idiotic like "this player is terrible because he's bald" and it's refuted with "Zidane was bald, and he wasn't bad" and the first person retorts "how can you compare this player with Zinedine Zidane?" That's essentially what you've done in miscomprehending the discussion above.
As for incel culture, I fully stand by what I wrote. I've watched recordings of Tate describing how he groomed women, manipulating them into becoming emotionally dependent on him with the aim of convincing them to s3xually perform on camera for his personal enrichment. No one can watch that and be his fan without seeing women as commodities and adversaries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, that stuff i disagree with and i would say that the majority of people who have listened would say the same.
Sign in if you want to comment
Andrew Tate
Page 4 of 19
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 20/6/23
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robb #gotheSwans (U22716)
posted 10 minutes ago
The question to ask is ‘why’ Tate is saying these ‘smart’ and ‘inspirational’ things and the answer to that can shape how you judge said person.
Is Tate saying these things to inspire a generation of men that need to hear these things out of a sense of societal responsibility?
Or is he grifting them to pay for his university and get him social media traction that brings in more income peddling an androcentric way of looking at the world?
Chances are it’s probably #2 and that’s why it’s a valid viewpoint to take pleasure in their downfall.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I agree.
But that wasn't what I was responding to.
He's not a stupid guy. That's all I'm arguing. Claiming he is is just burying your head in the sand and I don't know how you can tackle a problem without understanding it.
So sit and call him stupid all you like, that won't do anything to address the potential damage he could do though. He's not a nice guy but he's not stupid. That's kind of all I'm arguing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, he was stupid enough to get into an online war with Greta and reveal his secret location via a pizza box 😂
posted on 20/6/23
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Robb #gotheSwans (U22716)
posted 10 minutes ago
The question to ask is ‘why’ Tate is saying these ‘smart’ and ‘inspirational’ things and the answer to that can shape how you judge said person.
Is Tate saying these things to inspire a generation of men that need to hear these things out of a sense of societal responsibility?
Or is he grifting them to pay for his university and get him social media traction that brings in more income peddling an androcentric way of looking at the world?
Chances are it’s probably #2 and that’s why it’s a valid viewpoint to take pleasure in their downfall.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I agree.
But that wasn't what I was responding to.
He's not a stupid guy. That's all I'm arguing. Claiming he is is just burying your head in the sand and I don't know how you can tackle a problem without understanding it.
So sit and call him stupid all you like, that won't do anything to address the potential damage he could do though. He's not a nice guy but he's not stupid. That's kind of all I'm arguing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is street smart. Which is what we used to refer to the kids at school who would sell drugs as.
posted on 20/6/23
comment by Robb #gotheSwans (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Robb #gotheSwans (U22716)
posted 10 minutes ago
The question to ask is ‘why’ Tate is saying these ‘smart’ and ‘inspirational’ things and the answer to that can shape how you judge said person.
Is Tate saying these things to inspire a generation of men that need to hear these things out of a sense of societal responsibility?
Or is he grifting them to pay for his university and get him social media traction that brings in more income peddling an androcentric way of looking at the world?
Chances are it’s probably #2 and that’s why it’s a valid viewpoint to take pleasure in their downfall.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I agree.
But that wasn't what I was responding to.
He's not a stupid guy. That's all I'm arguing. Claiming he is is just burying your head in the sand and I don't know how you can tackle a problem without understanding it.
So sit and call him stupid all you like, that won't do anything to address the potential damage he could do though. He's not a nice guy but he's not stupid. That's kind of all I'm arguing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, he was stupid enough to get into an online war with Greta and reveal his secret location via a pizza box 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't say he was always smart haha.
I just think that strawmanning or mischaracterising someone does nothing to help combat it. It's so lazy.
posted on 20/6/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 58 minutes ago
Everytime I ask somebody to tell me the smart things Tate has said, they don't reply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This was one of the few things I kinda nodded my head with...I'm paraphrasing..He once said if you ever see a guy filling up his lambo, you never think he must have worked hard, you wonder what dodgy questionably immoral stuff he has been up to to afford it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's true. However I'd genuinely like to know the smart things people think he has said. I've only ever heard people tell me stupid stuff he has said, although they described it as smart, being the kind of people they are, right wing, conspiracy theory nutjobs, racists and sexist to name but a few.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are definitely things to take from young men being accountable, responsible, owning their own 'destiny' or path, working hard and striving to achieve better than what others might believe you capable of. There is value in the idea that sitting around and doing very little of yourself is doing yourself a disservice.
As annoying as people are who worship the ground he walks on, the same can be said of the opposite. If you genuinely don't think there's anything that can be extracted from his mentality and work ethic then i suspect its because of some lazy prejudice.
As I said, bad people can have good idea and good people can have bad ideas. An incredibly smart person can also be incredibly cruel. An incredibly altruistic person can be incredibly stupid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, there are literally thousands of people out there preaching self-reliance and a strong work ethic, and most of them don't package that in with extreme woman-hatred.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know, I'm simply responding to the question of what he has ever said that makes any sense.
You can't keep shifting the goalposts, I don't know why this has to be such an emotional, anger inducing conversation for people to have.
A claim was made that when asking for anything 'smart' he's ever said, no answer had ever been given.
So the question is "had he ever said anything intelligent or meaningful". I answered this.
I am not 'defending' him, you seem to have immediately taken this as though I am. I've never tried to suggest that as a package he's a good role model or anyrhing like that.
When you ask for an example of something someone has said that makes sense and I give one but you then shift the goalposts then it really begs the question of why you are bothering to engage? What are you wanting here?
The question was not "is he a good role model". Someone asked if he's ever said anything clever. I pointed out that he had.
Really don't get why that's so triggering.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't ask the original question, so I haven't shifted any goalposts that I set out. And I'm simply critiquing positions you have defended; I guess you are implying that in being 'triggered', I'm responding emotionally rather than rationally, and this somehow bolsters your position. It adds nothing to your argument, and I'd advise against deploying it during a debate unless you've run out of substantive points to make.
You indeed haven't explicitly said you support Tate. But your insistence on taking a neutral stance between extreme bigotry and ethical disgust at that bigotry positions you as not not supporting him. You've described people who have a fundamental problem with him as exhibiting a lazy prejudice on the basis that you think he has valuable things to say that presumably should be enough to shrug off discourse dehumanising women and hanging out with Tommy Robinson. You've extended that principle to the suggestion that a member of the KKK might be worth listening to, because perhaps part of their worldview could be of value.
My view is that when someone's worldview is polluted with ideas that certain groups are subhuman, then you should proceed with extreme caution around the other stuff they say.
Incidentally, when I first heard about Tate, I wasn't aware of his business model or filthy misogyny. The first thing I heard, unprejudiced by that, was him talking about self-reliance, and my immediate impression was that it was trite and one-dimensional stuff that has been around for decades.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't said anything about shrugging anything off. Look it's really clear that this isn't going anywhere productive. I'm not playing this game of needing to 'prove' I don't prescribe to his entire world view.
And yes, when the person I first responded to says that their entire opinion of him is based on what they've heard of other people, I think it's fair to call that lazy.
People cna just keep thinking he's stupid, that's fine but don't ask for examples of him saying things that resonate with people, not liking the answer and then keep wondering why he's resonating with people.
Writing him off as stupid does nothing to understand how or why he's been successful in reaching so many people.
Forgive me for getting it wrong on the goal post thing, I'm responding casually on a phone and haven't always checked whether I'm responding to the same person or not which is a pretty lazy thing to do, so my bad on that.
All I'm saying is he's not stupid. That's not an endorsement of him, his world views, his ideas etc and yes, I think there's value to not immediately disengaging with people who you don't agree with. I only use daryl Davies as an extreme example of proof that there's value to be had even in really extreme cases.
posted on 20/6/23
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 3 hours, 35 minutes ago
People seem to really struggle with separating ideas or things people say and personal/character judgements.
Someone says something you agree with? Good person. They say something you disagree with? Bad person.
Andrew Tate makes some very valid points on some issues. That doesn't mean he makes valid points on every issue and it doesn't mean he's a good person.
People seem to need to be all in or all out and there's very little inbetween. I know loads of people who I think are right on certain topics but wrong on others and there are plenty of people I agree with on certain things but don't like them personally.
Andrew Tate is a prime example. People tend to either think he's a god or utter trash with nothing of value to say but as with most things, the truth is somewhere inbetween.
If you tell people that they will have similar views to Hitler on some things, not even important things, just anything. They will share certain opinions he had, like egg on toast being a good start to the day. But if you mention that they will share some views and opinions with Hitler they tend to recoil and take it like a personal insult.
Because people cannot separate ideas from people. Learn to do that and this gets loads easier. Do I think he's trafficked people? I don't care enough to look into but as a very lazy observation it wouldn't surprise me. That doesn't mean that he's completely wrong about the some of the things young men are currently missing or certain attitudes like taking accountability, ownership etc for your life. You can agree with him on X without needing to validate his entire being.
So for me he sits in a similar to camp to many other people, Candace Owens is an example. People who I think make good points on certain issues at certain times but who I also pretty heavily disagree with on other issues and suspect I wouldn't like to associate with them on a regular basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue that raping and trafficking women categorically makes you a horrible pathetic scuumbag of a person, regardless of whether or not he has a few opinions on other issues that might actually make sense.
posted on 20/6/23
How has he been “mischaracterised”?”?
posted on 20/6/23
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 3 minutes ago
I haven't said anything about shrugging anything off. Look it's really clear that this isn't going anywhere productive. I'm not playing this game of needing to 'prove' I don't prescribe to his entire world view.
And yes, when the person I first responded to says that their entire opinion of him is based on what they've heard of other people, I think it's fair to call that lazy.
People cna just keep thinking he's stupid, that's fine but don't ask for examples of him saying things that resonate with people, not liking the answer and then keep wondering why he's resonating with people.
Writing him off as stupid does nothing to understand how or why he's been successful in reaching so many people.
Forgive me for getting it wrong on the goal post thing, I'm responding casually on a phone and haven't always checked whether I'm responding to the same person or not which is a pretty lazy thing to do, so my bad on that.
All I'm saying is he's not stupid. That's not an endorsement of him, his world views, his ideas etc and yes, I think there's value to not immediately disengaging with people who you don't agree with. I only use daryl Davies as an extreme example of proof that there's value to be had even in really extreme cases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't implied you subscribe to his entire world view. I'm taking issue with the comments you've made that suggest people who abhor him can be equated with those who fanatically support him. You went on to make a broader point that reasonable people would do well to listen with an open heart to horrific extremists rather than reject them entirely. This strikes me as a strangely ambivalent stance in relation to bigotry. I think one of the reasons extremist views have penetrated the mainstream is a habit within liberal discourse to opt for a neutral position between two sides rather than an objective one that rigorously critiques its subject. This kind of worked when the political landscape was dominated by more or less moderate parties, more or less adhering to truthful discourse. It's disastrous in a culture where charlatans, grifters and liars realise they aren't going to get called out. I'm all for listening in good faith to different perspectives and viewpoints, but there's very little value in engaging in good faith with trolls, misinformation, gaslighting, etc. Which is why I think we ought to be careful about awarding too much credit when an odious man like Tate spouts a bit of inoffensive folk wisdom.
Anyway, if you had initially, explicitly framed what you were saying purely as exploring why an odious human being succeeded in resonating with others, I think this would have been a shorter discussion and no one would have disagreed.
posted on 20/6/23
comment by Pierre Reedy (U1734)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Robb #gotheSwans (U22716)
posted 10 minutes ago
The question to ask is ‘why’ Tate is saying these ‘smart’ and ‘inspirational’ things and the answer to that can shape how you judge said person.
Is Tate saying these things to inspire a generation of men that need to hear these things out of a sense of societal responsibility?
Or is he grifting them to pay for his university and get him social media traction that brings in more income peddling an androcentric way of looking at the world?
Chances are it’s probably #2 and that’s why it’s a valid viewpoint to take pleasure in their downfall.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I agree.
But that wasn't what I was responding to.
He's not a stupid guy. That's all I'm arguing. Claiming he is is just burying your head in the sand and I don't know how you can tackle a problem without understanding it.
So sit and call him stupid all you like, that won't do anything to address the potential damage he could do though. He's not a nice guy but he's not stupid. That's kind of all I'm arguing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is street smart. Which is what we used to refer to the kids at school who would sell drugs as.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You still owe me for them
posted on 20/6/23
comment by T-SaliBAG (U11806)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 3 hours, 35 minutes ago
People seem to really struggle with separating ideas or things people say and personal/character judgements.
Someone says something you agree with? Good person. They say something you disagree with? Bad person.
Andrew Tate makes some very valid points on some issues. That doesn't mean he makes valid points on every issue and it doesn't mean he's a good person.
People seem to need to be all in or all out and there's very little inbetween. I know loads of people who I think are right on certain topics but wrong on others and there are plenty of people I agree with on certain things but don't like them personally.
Andrew Tate is a prime example. People tend to either think he's a god or utter trash with nothing of value to say but as with most things, the truth is somewhere inbetween.
If you tell people that they will have similar views to Hitler on some things, not even important things, just anything. They will share certain opinions he had, like egg on toast being a good start to the day. But if you mention that they will share some views and opinions with Hitler they tend to recoil and take it like a personal insult.
Because people cannot separate ideas from people. Learn to do that and this gets loads easier. Do I think he's trafficked people? I don't care enough to look into but as a very lazy observation it wouldn't surprise me. That doesn't mean that he's completely wrong about the some of the things young men are currently missing or certain attitudes like taking accountability, ownership etc for your life. You can agree with him on X without needing to validate his entire being.
So for me he sits in a similar to camp to many other people, Candace Owens is an example. People who I think make good points on certain issues at certain times but who I also pretty heavily disagree with on other issues and suspect I wouldn't like to associate with them on a regular basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue that raping and trafficking women categorically makes you a horrible pathetic scuumbag of a person, regardless of whether or not he has a few opinions on other issues that might actually make sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This might be inappropriate to say, but he is not yet found guilty before court.
posted on 20/6/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Cloggy (U1250)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 4 minutes ago
He has obviously said some stupid things, but he has said some smart things too. Like anyone in the world you have to filter out the good messages and what you agree with. Society today is very polarising in the sense that you either share the same opinion 100% of the time or youre "enemies" and a "moron".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who gives fack if he said some good things, the guy is getting done for rape, human trafficking and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women.
Its like saying Hitler did some good things, but lets not polarise over killing 6 million jews.
Yes, Godwin's law, but its the same, innit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So he is guilty before even stepping into court? Don't be a mug. We've seen with Johnny Depp not long ago what happens when people jump to conclusions without a proper trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I wrote above, even without the criminal allegations, the way he described his methods of entrapping and emotionally manipulating women in order to make himself rich, and the horrifically demeaning way he talks about women should be enough to make anyone very queasy about attaching value to anything he says. It's content aimed at an incel culture that sees women as the enemy, as mean gatekeepers who are to be defeated.
To extend the Godwin's Law reference above to your objection, what if Hitler hadn't started WW2 and presided over the Holocaust, and all you had was Mein Kampf, and there were some paragraphs offering fairly benign self-reliance messages in there?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not an incel culture against women, you're talking straight out of your arsse mate and trying to bring Hitler into this is so pathetic beyond words. The two are so incomparible it's unreal. If thats the route you have to take to make a point youve already failed at backing yourself.
posted on 20/6/23
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue that raping and trafficking women categorically makes you a horrible pathetic scuumbag of a person, regardless of whether or not he has a few opinions on other issues that might actually make sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was already being labelled a horrible,$cumbag, polluting boys etc before the charges tbf, which i thought was extreme at the time.
posted on 20/6/23
I've never quite understood the term "influencer"
I mean just who the feck are these people even "influencing"?
And what the fook are they "influencing" anybody with exactly?
posted on 20/6/23
comment by comic book guy (U17816)
posted 11 seconds ago
I've never quite understood the term "influencer"
I mean just who the feck are these people even "influencing"?
And what the fook are they "influencing" anybody with exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone “influenced” by these charlatans needs slapping like the red headed stepchild
posted on 20/6/23
RR - did you watch the BBC interview or have you listened to any of this guy’s podcasts?
posted on 20/6/23
comment by comic book guy (U17816)
posted 1 minute ago
I've never quite understood the term "influencer"
I mean just who the feck are these people even "influencing"?
And what the fook are they "influencing" anybody with exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is how the next generation shop, get ideas, choose holidays, nights out, restaurants, gaming...everything really.....unfortunately
posted on 20/6/23
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by comic book guy (U17816)
posted 11 seconds ago
I've never quite understood the term "influencer"
I mean just who the feck are these people even "influencing"?
And what the fook are they "influencing" anybody with exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone “influenced” by these charlatans needs slapping like the red headed stepchild
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Have you given anything a proper listen or do you immediately switch off at the first thing you disagree with and crawl back to your comfort zone.
posted on 20/6/23
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by comic book guy (U17816)
posted 11 seconds ago
I've never quite understood the term "influencer"
I mean just who the feck are these people even "influencing"?
And what the fook are they "influencing" anybody with exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone “influenced” by these charlatans needs slapping like the red headed stepchild
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Have you given anything a proper listen or do you immediately switch off at the first thing you disagree with and crawl back to your comfort zone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither I have a brain and can think for myself
I don’t need to be influenced but hey Ho whatever makes folk happy
posted on 20/6/23
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by comic book guy (U17816)
posted 11 seconds ago
I've never quite understood the term "influencer"
I mean just who the feck are these people even "influencing"?
And what the fook are they "influencing" anybody with exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone “influenced” by these charlatans needs slapping like the red headed stepchild
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Have you given anything a proper listen or do you immediately switch off at the first thing you disagree with and crawl back to your comfort zone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither I have a brain and can think for myself
I don’t need to be influenced but hey Ho whatever makes folk happy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was influenced by One by Metallica when I was a kid.
posted on 20/6/23
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by comic book guy (U17816)
posted 11 seconds ago
I've never quite understood the term "influencer"
I mean just who the feck are these people even "influencing"?
And what the fook are they "influencing" anybody with exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone “influenced” by these charlatans needs slapping like the red headed stepchild
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Have you given anything a proper listen or do you immediately switch off at the first thing you disagree with and crawl back to your comfort zone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither I have a brain and can think for myself
I don’t need to be influenced but hey Ho whatever makes folk happy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you talking about? If you agree with some view points it doesnt make you dont suddenly swallow that persons entire personality and become the same.
posted on 20/6/23
Everybody is influenced by something or someone or multiple things during a lifetime
posted on 20/6/23
Would i look up to Andrew as an idol id like to be exactly like? Of course not. Does he make a lot of valid points which i can resonate with and understand? Of course.
Without reading or watching something you can never understand. You probably judge based on 10 second shorts and biased media as opposed to actually listening to a full podcast or interview
posted on 20/6/23
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 7 minutes ago
Its not an incel culture against women, you're talking straight out of your arsse mate and trying to bring Hitler into this is so pathetic beyond words. The two are so incomparible it's unreal. If thats the route you have to take to make a point youve already failed at backing yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you could read, you'd understand that I'm not saying Tate is comparable to Hitler, but using an extreme example to illustrate a point, and in fact I explicitly extending an analogy to Hitler that a previous poster had made, where they too had already made it clear they weren't making a direct comparison. I'd probably have come up with a different analogy had that one not already been part of the discussion.
Sometimes on a football forum someone says something idiotic like "this player is terrible because he's bald" and it's refuted with "Zidane was bald, and he wasn't bad" and the first person retorts "how can you compare this player with Zinedine Zidane?" That's essentially what you've done in miscomprehending the discussion above.
As for incel culture, I fully stand by what I wrote. I've watched recordings of Tate describing how he groomed women, manipulating them into becoming emotionally dependent on him with the aim of convincing them to s3xually perform on camera for his personal enrichment. No one can watch that and be his fan without seeing women as commodities and adversaries.
posted on 20/6/23
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 2 minutes ago
Would i look up to Andrew as an idol id like to be exactly like? Of course not. Does he make a lot of valid points which i can resonate with and understand? Of course.
Without reading or watching something you can never understand. You probably judge based on 10 second shorts and biased media as opposed to actually listening to a full podcast or interview
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any of his “valid points” have also been made by countless other peopke butt without all the urher sheet he vomits out
posted on 20/6/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 15 minutes ago
RR - did you watch the BBC interview or have you listened to any of this guy’s podcasts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I watched the BBC interview. I clicked on links shared by UWW when he was promoting Tate on this forum, which was the first I'd ever heard of him. I didn't have any prejudicial ideas about him before hearing from the man first-hand, except I guess from a certain foreboding that he came with the recommendation of UWW's rather unhinged mind.
posted on 20/6/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Boss By Hugo (U18550)
posted 7 minutes ago
Its not an incel culture against women, you're talking straight out of your arsse mate and trying to bring Hitler into this is so pathetic beyond words. The two are so incomparible it's unreal. If thats the route you have to take to make a point youve already failed at backing yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you could read, you'd understand that I'm not saying Tate is comparable to Hitler, but using an extreme example to illustrate a point, and in fact I explicitly extending an analogy to Hitler that a previous poster had made, where they too had already made it clear they weren't making a direct comparison. I'd probably have come up with a different analogy had that one not already been part of the discussion.
Sometimes on a football forum someone says something idiotic like "this player is terrible because he's bald" and it's refuted with "Zidane was bald, and he wasn't bad" and the first person retorts "how can you compare this player with Zinedine Zidane?" That's essentially what you've done in miscomprehending the discussion above.
As for incel culture, I fully stand by what I wrote. I've watched recordings of Tate describing how he groomed women, manipulating them into becoming emotionally dependent on him with the aim of convincing them to s3xually perform on camera for his personal enrichment. No one can watch that and be his fan without seeing women as commodities and adversaries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, that stuff i disagree with and i would say that the majority of people who have listened would say the same.
Page 4 of 19
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10