Andrew Tate - Trigger Warning - DV and SA
 

Some may have heard of this human piece of excrement. I am creating a thread about him so others can be aware of the damage he is doing to young boys and women in general. He's been banned from Twitter, YouTube and Instagram due to the videos and audio of him being violent towards his ex girlfriends and now there are women and girls coming forward to speak of their harrowing, horrific abuse, including SA and RP.

I am very concerned that it's taken other male influencers speaking up about him in order for him to get banned. What do you think is the next best form of action regarding him? I wish other creators would stop giving him a platform to spread his vitriol.

Yeah all you can do is just hope social media deplatforms him. There's not even any substance there to debate. He's just sort of human waste with a megaphone. Here's hoping he fades into irrelevance like Milo Yiannopoulos.

I don't know that much about him and he seems like a scam artist but I think banning him is par for the course for the kind of bitch made society we are apparently trying to construct. I can only hope this attempt to course correct backfires and makes him even more alluring to vulnerable young men.

Banning scammers is for bitches. Gotcha.

Andrew Tate is ****ing hilarious, no one knows what a troll looks like anymore.

Acquitted of all charges btw

Among my favorite Tateisms, “tap water is for poor people,” and “a woman should cook and clean unprompted.” He’s been around forever, he’s only become a buzzword recently.

andrew tate is one of those individuals i'm torn between taking 100% seriously and laughing at his stupid face or taking 0% seriously and respecting him for the long con, tbh. unfortunately i'm like 90% sure it's the former considering i know people in real life who fit tate's target demographic to a T

Why are there so many (or enough) young men drawn into supporting Tate's content such that it makes him relevant or worth reporting on?

I don't think Alex Jones got banned/deplatformed for selling Caveman though.



I think the explanation is probably simpler. They're not getting laid.

Fair point. I think social media plays a role as well when it comes to dating, in ways that are negative for everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzpgqrzZ-KE

first time seeing this https://boxden.com/smilies/FuXR5sT.png

This reminds me of the time you got offended by people telling you that being a fan of Kobe Bryant for dribbling good wasn't a good reason to ignore rape charges.

Shrinking something, anyway.

Actually? or did I miss it posted somewhere else?

I only saw the dude on BFFs barstool podcast, he was so cringed I didn't watch much. But the "reading is for slow brains" is funny asf.

banning Alex Jones was also a bad move. I'm fine with financially punishing him for the Sandy Hook **** as retribution to the families but why should I be deprived of watching his content on YouTube? It's all this patronizing attitude that the fragile public must be protected from themselves and that we can't be trusted to decide for ourselves whether or not to follow some Nazi or some PUA type like Tate. I think it should all be allowed for contents sake.

Now as for Tate being a scam artist, he was probably not even banned for that but just for being a viral misogynist. I don't think it was made clear why. He was classified as a dangerous person or something nebulous like that. And I think if his MLM scheme is legal then you can't do **** about that and if people fall for it they deserve the poverty that awaits them.

Tate and Peterson, whatever you think of them, are speaking to the problems of young men who are for the most part ignored by the left. That is largely why they are so successful. Even if you don't like the answers they provide, who is the leftist alternative? Or do you just reject the questions they're trying to answer altogether?

It's like people mock the self help **** yet 90% of it is more useful than anything they could possibly offer themselves as advice.

Yup, hit the nail on the head. This was partly what I was getting at with my initial question. Young men do not get the consideration, attention, and concern that young women do, at least in regards to media coverage or public outreach campaigns (besides military recruitment). Young men face their own problems. The right-wing solutions to these problems are often ridiculous, but there's not really an equivalent counterbalance to it on the left. Until there are sensible alternatives, expect young men to gravitate towards these outlandish characters because at the very least, these guys are speaking to them and their concerns and issues.

I hardly know anything about Tate, but from what I've gathered he's a red-pill type. There's kernels of truth, in some instances, through all that smoke, but if we're being honest, Peterson's tired trope of "cleaning your room" is a better starting point than anything Tate likely prescribes.

Can I be honest? I also think inherently men are going to look up to the idea of having a Haram of 20 bitches and a Bugatti. It's like the pinnacle of success in the society we live in. Or rather having the ability to if you wanted to.

He was acquitted

And no, I was never offended, OH was offended that I defended mourning celebrities in general. If you’re gonna call me out at least get your facts straight.

Also lol @ young men looking up to dorky jorpy and his weepings

When I got into him the whole bootstraps message was the first time I ever entertained the idea of self help **** and it's not even that he had specific advice that was useful but that general mentality of trying to take control is what felt more useful.

Sure, but this is like a teenage boy's or a frat boy's perception of what masculinity is and should be - or what success as a man looks like.

It should be focused more on confidence, ambition, self-care, honor, integrity, and discipline. Less of a focus on materialism/sex and more of a focus on character and developing your potential and talent to its fullest.

I know a fair amount of dudes - friends of mine - who haven't even sorted out their **** yet. Still living with their parents, chose ****ty college majors (this is perhaps substance for a different discussion), have to pay back a lot of money etc. Before you worry about the fancy car and women, you gotta handle your business. In my experience, women aren't typically into dudes that they have to mother.

That's why I said the last line. The ability is the key, not the specific goal. You can ridicule the aesthetic itself as superficial or childish but ultimately it's just a clear and grotesque display of being at the top of the sort of "dominance heirarchy" Peterson preaches about. The entire point is distinguishing yourself from the vast hoards of other men through one or another type of high status.

I think in part the obsession with things like women and materialism is because it's an obsession with tangible results. Said results provide a clear-cut motivation and also a way to track whether you are actually making any progress.

You're a perfect example of the public being highly susceptible to this **** cause you're an edgy 14-year-old moron. If you think any of these manosphere dickheads have anything valuable to say to men then you should go sit in a corner and let the rest of us talk.

Yeah see you're a hypocrite. You'll call yourself a feminist but when it's someone you fangirl over then all of a sudden rape being hard to prove in court ceases to matter.

you literally bring nothing to the table other than a half witted attempt to try to brow beat me into submission and then you tell me I'm the one with nothing to say who should be quiet, lol. You are toxic masculinity without the masculinity.

Because after all this time you're still stumping for obvious grifters and sociopaths just to own the libs out of spite. What debate are we even having? You know these people serve no function and have no value, you just don't care.

Save the stretches for your asshole Charles

Do you read the stoics at all?

Marcus Aurelius's Meditations should be required reading in school. Young men would get more pragmatic advice from that than they ever would watching Andrew Tate.

Concentrate every minute like a Roman— like a man— on doing what’s in front of you with precise and genuine seriousness, tenderly, willingly, with justice. And on freeing yourself from all other distractions. Yes, you can— if you do everything as if it were the last thing you were doing in your life, and stop being aimless, stop letting your emotions override what your mind tells you, stop being hypocritical, self-centered , irritable. You see how few things you have to do to live a satisfying and reverent life? If you can manage this, that’s all even the gods can ask of you.

it's not just out of spite. I would rather have the content out there and decide for myself how to engage with it. Im not a saying you can't run into figures that are going to be problematic but I prefer that over the mob and platform just deciding for us which ideas or arguments are ok to explore which ends up being rather arbitrary. Joel Osteen is probably just as big if not a bigger grifter than Tate and he will never be cancelled for bilking his congregation out of their hard earned money based on a literal lie that they will be going to heaven to be with Jesus and their families. If Tate is a scam artist that feels completely incidental to the fact that he got banned.

All you are going to do is keep playing wack a mole with these people. It's not about the individual. A person like Tate exists because of the niche he found and exploited. He wasn't the first and won't be the last, and banning someone like let's say Alex Jones has done absolutely zero to get people to stop believing in the kinds of conspiracy theories he pushes. So I do think you're quite overstating how effective this method is at actually battling harmful ideas. Not to say arguing with them is necessarily going to yield better results, but at least it would yield better content.

That's a cop out that is pretty emblematic of what I mean. If instead of getting into Jordan Peterson and self help let's say I just decided to sit around and vote for Bernie and hope eventually someday people will have free healthcare. That feels like a completely powerless and hopeless message to give. On an individual level even relatively bland advice like clean your room is infinitely more useful than believing in all the correct policies.

Some nameless conservative guy in an interview once said "the Left is incapable of talking about any relationship other than government." which was his way of saying church, family, yada yada. But it's also true of things like this. People should be free to fly their freak flag, and also the government should help. Those are the two things they stand for. The Left abandoned a lot of the staples of society like, neighbors and communities because of course, those enforce norms, and we don't like norms because they get exclusionary.

When Peterson talks about psychology and the adjacent topics, he's not bad. Just basic. When he talks about politics it's not different than Sean Penn. You're a celebrity for non-political reasons, and now you're going to talk about politics. There doesn't need to be a Left-version of the kind of folks who help young men (which is needed, by the way) because helping young men become Men and not raging incels shouldn't be political. The real question is, why do all these people speaking to young men come up with a Right-wing bent? The only person I know who is out there, attempting to help people in this same vein is Ryan Holiday, though he is completely focused on the Stoics, and isn't targeting young males specifically.

But he's the only one who isn't trying to sell a cult of personality on the side. As for Andrew Tate, I have nothing positive to say.

Ja the left really needs to step it up and provide the validation of misogyny that the bros desire.

No that would be dumb. Instead, when someone asks why guys like Tate and Peterson are having such success giving self help messages to young men we'll scratch our heads and give some vague bull**** about wealth inequality.

Like I said you don't have to give the same exact kind of advice but if you are just going to write the actual questions off rather than try to come up with your own answer then don't be surprised when that field is dominated by the opposition.

Nah you pretty much have to give the same advice to corner the same market because it's easier to let pre-established doctrines of misogyny think for you than to be a vague and overcomplicated nerd. That's why this brand of grifter is so consistent in terms of ideology.

I mean I'm not gonna lie I do think it's going to be easier to grift than to offer any actual useful self help advice the same way it's going to be easier to find some idiot YouTuber to teach you the ways of communism rather than cracking open an actual book. And the more digestible video is also more likely to leave you with over simplified misconceptions. But that's not exactly a reason to abandon the project completely. So while I do think you have a point there I also believe that the left just tends to shy away from placing much emphasis on personal responsibility because they think it gives political fuel to the right. But that kind of approach is literally the only way to give any useful self help advice.

It's probably more because self help is a better vessel for right wing ideas since it focuses on the individual and encourages people to ignore structural factors influencing their lives rather than the left "avoiding" grifting people. The existence of the market doesn't necessitate pursuing it either, since to be similarly effective you're basically asking the left to operate like the right.