The Problem with Andrew Tate (and Incel Radicalization)

[Des-Bal]

And all the misogyny?

You're trying really hard to make Tate seem neutral when he's not. Hence why I asked how bad you think the average uncle is. 'Cause my uncles don't go around trumpeting about how women are property and don't go around engaging in MLM schemes.

He explicitly did not say women are property, he was clear that wasn't his position. What he said was that a man by sheer token of being in a relationship with a woman is entitled to a share of any revenue she generates using her body. What he said was already bad, I don't know why people keep trying to spin the bad thing he said to make it sound bad.

On that note I'm not in any way suggesting he's neutral. When actual evidence was presented that he's pushing sexist ideas rather than the same out of context snippets I immediately and without equivocation said he was bad. This entire back and forth has been about the fact I think it's bad to spread sexism but don't care about someone operating a legal business.

Kubra said the difference between Tate and an uncle was that he was making money. I have at no point by word or deed said Tate was better, worse, or morally equivalent to an uncle. It is wildly unimportant how Tate stacks up to an uncle.

[Fahran]

And all the misogyny?

You're trying really hard to make Tate seem neutral when he's not. Hence why I asked how bad you think the average uncle is. 'Cause my uncles don't go around trumpeting about how women are property and don't go around engaging in MLM schemes.

He explicitly did not say women are property, he was clear that wasn't his position. What he said was that a man by sheer token of being in a relationship with a woman is entitled to a share of any revenue she generates using her body. What he said was already bad, I don't know why people keep trying to spin the bad thing he said to make it sound bad.

On that note I'm not in any way suggesting he's neutral. When actual evidence was presented that he's pushing sexist ideas rather than the same out of context snippets I immediately and without equivocation said he was bad. This entire back and forth has been about the fact I think it's bad to spread sexism but don't care about someone operating a legal business.

Kubra said the difference between Tate and an uncle was that he was making money. I have at no point by word or deed said Tate was better, worse, or morally equivalent to an uncle. It is wildly unimportant how Tate stacks up to an uncle.

No, no, no. I provided you a link. The phrase “women are property” is very explicitly made, with an elaborate rationalization about fathers giving their daughters to husbands. That’s not “out of context.” He’s literally said it multiple times. You or Kubra bringing up uncles is a bit weird, but you’ve pretty consistently minimized and downplayed how heinous and harmful the stuff this guy says is. While repeatedly saying “I don’t care.”

You may have had a (very) slight point with regard to criminality, but you’re completely wrong in how flippant, neutral, apologetic, and dismissive you’ve been about the sexism. This guy is a raging sexist by almost any standard. It would behoove you to stop obfuscating that fact.

[Des-Bal]

No, no, no. I provided you a link. The phrase “women are property” is very explicitly made, with an elaborate rationalization about fathers giving their daughters to husbands. That’s not “out of context.” He’s literally said it multiple times. You or Kubra bringing up uncles is a bit weird, but you’ve pretty consistently minimized and downplayed how heinous and harmful the stuff this guy says is. While repeatedly saying “I don’t care.”

You may have had a (very) slight point with regard to criminality, but you’re completely wrong in how flippant, neutral, apologetic, and dismissive you’ve been about the sexism. This guy is a raging sexist by almost any standard. It would behoove you to stop obfuscating that fact.

I don't recall you ever doing that. If you had I probably would have been moved by it since that's worse than the thing I watched him say. I've seen articles say he's claimed women are property but the only clip I've seen is him being accused of saying that and explicitly denying it then saying something also horrible.

I'm not mininimizing anything he is without question a bad guy and I just broke down exactly what he said, the context he said it in it's horrible. I am not downplaying anything I'm declining to be moved by anything other than evidence and your evidence has sucked.

[Fahran]

No, no, no. I provided you a link. The phrase “women are property” is very explicitly made, with an elaborate rationalization about fathers giving their daughters to husbands. That’s not “out of context.” He’s literally said it multiple times. You or Kubra bringing up uncles is a bit weird, but you’ve pretty consistently minimized and downplayed how heinous and harmful the stuff this guy says is. While repeatedly saying “I don’t care.”

You may have had a (very) slight point with regard to criminality, but you’re completely wrong in how flippant, neutral, apologetic, and dismissive you’ve been about the sexism. This guy is a raging sexist by almost any standard. It would behoove you to stop obfuscating that fact.

I don't recall you ever doing that. If you had I probably would have been moved by it since that's worse than the thing I watched him say. I've seen articles say he's claimed women are property but the only clip I've seen is him being accused of saying that and explicitly denying it then saying something also horrible.

I'm not mininimizing anything he is without question a bad guy and I just broke down exactly what he said, the context he said it in it's horrible. I am not downplaying anything I'm declining to be moved by anything other than evidence and your evidence has sucked.

I linked you a video of him saying “women are property” a couple days back. He’s said it in multiple videos though. It’s one of the phrases that gained him notoriety alongside the more or less open confession that he’s a misogynist.

[Kubra]

He explicitly did not say women are property, he was clear that wasn't his position. What he said was that a man by sheer token of being in a relationship with a woman is entitled to a share of any revenue she generates using her body. What he said was already bad, I don't know why people keep trying to spin the bad thing he said to make it sound bad.

On that note I'm not in any way suggesting he's neutral. When actual evidence was presented that he's pushing sexist ideas rather than the same out of context snippets I immediately and without equivocation said he was bad. This entire back and forth has been about the fact I think it's bad to spread sexism but don't care about someone operating a legal business.

Kubra said the difference between Tate and an uncle was that he was making money. I have at no point by word or deed said Tate was better, worse, or morally equivalent to an uncle. It is wildly unimportant how Tate stacks up to an uncle.

No, no, no. I provided you a link. The phrase “women are property” is very explicitly made, with an elaborate rationalization about fathers giving their daughters to husbands. That’s not “out of context.” He’s literally said it multiple times. You or Kubra bringing up uncles is a bit weird, but you’ve pretty consistently minimized and downplayed how heinous and harmful the stuff this guy says is. While repeatedly saying “I don’t care.”

You may have had a (very) slight point with regard to criminality, but you’re completely wrong in how flippant, neutral, apologetic, and dismissive you’ve been about the sexism. This guy is a raging sexist by almost any standard. It would behoove you to stop obfuscating that fact.

the joke was that uncles have vile opinions (as a stereotype, just a little joke) but most don't monetise said opinions.
Tate, as we all know, does. it ain't just opinions, it's his straight up brand image.

[Des-Bal]

I linked you a video of him saying “women are property” a couple days back. He’s said it in multiple videos though. It’s one of the phrases that gained him notoriety alongside the more or less open confession that he’s a misogynist.

Went through your post history, I didn't see that. So yeah he definitely did say women are property.

[Saiwania]

What do we know about Andrew Tate's family? If enough women sufficiently complained to his mother about what he's doing, would she stand by him or really confront and take him to task about all the crap he's saying about "women being property" and other such misogynistic nonsense?

The idea in my mind, is that most sons are close enough to their mothers because by default that is who really raised them until they reached adulthood. If his mother really punishes or disavows him, he'll be hurt "too close to home" and will relent if not beg/seek forgiveness and change his behavior for the better (maybe). Similar to how the social media deplatformings are hurting him.

Most men out there on some level, seem to most listen to their wife/girlfriend and their mother second if not more (depending on how much respect she holds) if his upbringing was the typical scenario.

[Ayytaly]

What do we know about Andrew Tate's family? If enough women sufficiently complained to his mother about what he's doing, would she stand by him or really confront and take him to task about all the crap he's saying about "women being property" and other such misogynistic nonsense?

The idea in my mind, is that most sons are close enough to their mothers because by default that is who really raised them until they reached adulthood. If his mother really punishes or disavows him, he'll be hurt "too close to home" and will relent if not beg/seek forgiveness and change his behavior for the better (maybe). Similar to how the social media deplatformings are hurting him.

Imagine making misogynistic memes of Andy's mom.

[Fahran]

Went through your post history, I didn't see that. So yeah he definitely did say women are property.

It's fine. It happens to the best of us.

[Ifreann]

What do we know about Andrew Tate's family?

His father, for whom he is named, was an accomplished chess grandmaster, and Tate clearly idolises the old man.

[Dronth]

Might it be that both woke and incel have radicalised, and both need to take it back a notch or three?

This is not "both-sides"-ism.

I´m rather of the opinion that radicalisation and polarisation go hand in hand here.

I was once told a fairy tale, about one such situation.

Paul and Jenny were playing together.
Then Paul said something to upset Jenny.
Then Jenny said: you are an ********** for saying that.
Then Paul said: don´t call me an **********, you -----.
Then Jenny said: don´t call me a -----, and she slapped him in the face.
Then Paul pushed her away.
Then Jenny started crying to her mother.
So her mother came over to give Paul a piece of her mind, and another slap - on the wrist.
Then Paul started crying to his morther, and his mother came over to give Jenny-s mother a piece of her mind, and a slap on her wrist.
Then Jenny´s mother complained to Jenney´s father, and guess who came over to shout at Paul´s mother?
So Paul´s mother got her husband over, and now there were two adult men shouting at each other.

...........

The fairy tale goes on until two armies of neighbouring countries are invading.

...................

Polarisation is usually a reaction born from a sense of injustice. Even when the polarising group cannot tell you what exactly hurts their sense of justice, it should still be a concern to us.

Woke groups feel hurt. We need to talk about why.
Incel groups feel hurt. We need to talk about why.

I guess that solutions to one injustice will overlap with the other injustice.
I also guess that the solution both groups would propose are going to be radically opposed.

So maybe we should ignore the radicals, on both sides, and look for ways to make almost everyone feel included and valued.
I suspect that that will come - partly at least - from economic reform, with less economic volatility and less income disparity.

I suspect the radicals on both sides will attack any such proposals, and suggest we abridge the rights of the other side.

..............

Polarisation is mutual traumatisation.
You don´t solve it by traumatising one side more than the other, by way of revenge.

[Ifreann]

Might it be that both woke and incel have radicalised, and both need to take it back a notch or three?

No.

[Fahran]

What do we know about Andrew Tate's family?

His father, for whom he is named, was an accomplished chess grandmaster, and Tate clearly idolises the old man.

I've heard about that. As someone who plays every so often and needs to grind back up, it's honestly pretty neat. His regard and affection for his father is pretty touching too, though that don't really wash out all the bad.

[Ifreann]

His father, for whom he is named, was an accomplished chess grandmaster, and Tate clearly idolises the old man.

I've heard about that. As someone who plays every so often and needs to grind back up, it's honestly pretty neat. His regard and affection for his father is pretty touching too, though that don't really wash out all the bad.

For anyone else it would be positively charming to see a man paying homage to the great achievements of his father, despite himself following a very different path in life. Doesn't seem like Cobra Tate learned anything terribly positive from his father, though. I recall seeing a clip of Tate talking about how he learned from his father to be very animated with his hands when he speaks. Supposedly Emory Tate Jr. learned this on the chess circuit from barely undercover KGB agents, who would keep their hands moving constantly so as to disguise a sudden draw of a weapon or swing of a fist. Tate claims to practice this himself, because he is always one step closer to "kicking someone's ass" than people around him realise.

The father learned to capture en passant, the son learned to sucker punch people.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

-snip-

We can understand why a group feels hurt without necessarily being even the slightest sympathetic, let alone arguing that we need to make amends.

I understand why some people vote for Trump, why some people try to spread the word of God, and why some people want to kill their children in the name of honour. But if you tell me that the solution is "we should sympathise with them and seek to meet them halfway" my response to that nonsense is going to be unfit to reproduce in print.

The freedom of association must necessarily include the freedom not to associate with anyone with whom people do not wish to be associated. The natural and inevitable consequence of this is that nobody has the right to have other people associated with them, and therefore those with less than entirely desirable personalities might find themselves a bit lonely. So what? That's the price of living in a free society. And if some people are made upset by that, well, too bad for them.

[Iskanistan]

Might it be that both woke and incel have radicalised, and both need to take it back a notch or three?

Yes.

They should touch some grass and stop being extremly online.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Because apparently "being more convincing than him" is an option some of his critics see as beyond their reach, I guess.

Plenty of people believe stupid shit in spite of more convincing arguments. People, especially kids, are impressionable, and advocates for womens' rights aren't to blame for their indoctrination into misogyny.

So by what standard do you measure the value of an idea, if not by how well it withstands a free and open debate?

Also, I notice my previous response to an argument along similar lines to yours got conveniently ignored.

[Armeattla]

Plenty of people believe stupid shit in spite of more convincing arguments. People, especially kids, are impressionable, and advocates for womens' rights aren't to blame for their indoctrination into misogyny.

So by what standard do you measure the value of an idea, if not by how well it withstands a free and open debate?

Also, I notice my previous response to an argument along similar lines to yours got conveniently ignored.

I might remind you that the nazis got in power by merit of "Free and open debate"...
"Free and open debate" constitutes frankly to nothing. People can get easily swayed merely by repeating simple mantra over and over and over again.
"Women are below men", "Jews are below Aryans", "You should beat your wife", "You should beat up your local jew", "Women are property", "Jews are animals" and so on, and so forth. None of them are correct mind you, yet they found themselves great followings throughout history.

Also mind you that discrediting or dismantling a faulty, wrong, or bad argument usually takes much more effort than making one.
"All trans people are rapists" is much easier to posit than operating a counter-argument. Queer communities as a whole had to deal with such utterly brain-dead gish-gallop by reactionary scum all the time.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I might remind you that the nazis got in power by merit of "Free and open debate"...

The Nazis got into power by, among other things, banning Communists from the Reichstag, running a paramilitary organisation, and beating up Social-Democratic politicians.

Great Depression Weimar Republic was hardly some kind of liberal bastion of unrestricted intellectual discourse.

[Armeattla]

I might remind you that the nazis got in power by merit of "Free and open debate"...

The Nazis got into power by, among other things, banning Communists from the Reichstag, running a paramilitary organisation, and beating up Social-Democratic politicians.

Great Depression Weimar Republic was hardly some kind of liberal bastion of unrestricted intellectual discourse.

"Banning" is a very tame way of putting it. Murdering, kidnapping and imprisoning communists would be more accurate.
But the nazis didn't just appear out of nowhere in 1932. They were already present in 1924 and both conservatives, liberals and social-democrats mostly resorted to arguing against them, rather than blowing them to pieces right then and there.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

The Nazis got into power by, among other things, banning Communists from the Reichstag, running a paramilitary organisation, and beating up Social-Democratic politicians.

Great Depression Weimar Republic was hardly some kind of liberal bastion of unrestricted intellectual discourse.

"Banning" is a very tame way of putting it. Murdering, kidnapping and imprisoning communists would be more accurate.
But the nazis didn't just appear out of nowhere in 1932. They were already present in 1924 and both conservatives, liberals and social-democrats mostly resorted to arguing against them, rather than blowing them to pieces right then and there.

And if it weren't for the Treaty of Versailles, all of that could have been avoided.

So coming back full circle to the subject at hand, isn't the kind of BS from Tate's critics I referred to in my previous post the gender-issues counterpart to the Treaty of Versailles?

[Armeattla]

"Banning" is a very tame way of putting it. Murdering, kidnapping and imprisoning communists would be more accurate.
But the nazis didn't just appear out of nowhere in 1932. They were already present in 1924 and both conservatives, liberals and social-democrats mostly resorted to arguing against them, rather than blowing them to pieces right then and there.

And if it weren't for the Treaty of Versailles, all of that could have been avoided.

So coming back full circle to the subject at hand, isn't the kind of BS from Tate's critics I referred to in my previous post the gender-issues counterpart to the Treaty of Versailles?

Frankly, saying Versaille is the reason why the Nazis got into power is idiotic...
The Great Depression was much more influential than that, Versaille was just used as a cheap scapegoat for nationalists. It was in no way as harsh as people make it out to be - especially in comparison to other treaties following WWI.

[Mtwara]

I had no idea who Andrew Tate was until I saw the Meatcanyon video.

I'm not surprised that incels are a big deal right now, and I think they need sympathy and probbaly some kind of mental help and maybe even in some cases a deradicalisation programme.

When I was an awkward introverted teenager the internet was a good escape, over time, at least for impressionable children, it's turned into a nasty social pressure cooker and I think it makes it easy for people to feel excluded or as if they are failures, and to then access radical content - radical religion, deranged pornography, etc etc.

[Ayytaly]

I had no idea who Andrew Tate was until I saw the Meatcanyon video.

I'm not surprised that incels are a big deal right now, and I think they need sympathy and probbaly some kind of mental help and maybe even in some cases a deradicalisation programme.

When I was an awkward introverted teenager the internet was a good escape, over time, at least for impressionable children, it's turned into a nasty social pressure cooker and I think it makes it easy for people to feel excluded or as if they are failures, and to then access radical content - radical religion, deranged pornography, etc etc.

Why is mental help only applicable to incels but not to those who treated them like shit?

[Stellar Colonies]

I had no idea who Andrew Tate was until I saw the Meatcanyon video.

I'm not surprised that incels are a big deal right now, and I think they need sympathy and probbaly some kind of mental help and maybe even in some cases a deradicalisation programme.

When I was an awkward introverted teenager the internet was a good escape, over time, at least for impressionable children, it's turned into a nasty social pressure cooker and I think it makes it easy for people to feel excluded or as if they are failures, and to then access radical content - radical religion, deranged pornography, etc etc.

Why is mental help only applicable to incels but not to those who treated them like shit?

Defusing the root causes while treating the symptoms presumably would go hand-in-hand.