The Problem with Andrew Tate (and Incel Radicalization)

[Des-Bal]

1. He has stated in his videos that "women are property" and that victims of sexual violence should take responsibility.

2. He is alleged to have held an American woman in Romania against her will.


Source

So we have the government of Romania telling us that he's under investigation for human trafficking and rape at the moment. It's, of course, possible that a government notorious for not pouring resources into such policing is being bullied into doing so by the internet. Or it's possible Tate is actually a scumbag and has done multiple illegal things that have garnered attention because he's psychologically incapable of shutting up about it.

1. Source? I've seen him say fucked up things about women while explicitly and repeatedly saying they are not property. His comments about victims were taken out of context.

2. So the answer is you don't know. You can't name a single person he's claimed to have harmed them or what evidence there is to substantiate those claims. The only thing you know is there's an investigation, nobody is being detained, and obviously if the romanians have investigated you then you did something. This was in April, by the way do you think the romanian crime lab is processing evidence to figure out the person chained up in his basement is a woman? By the way- you know who really cares about holding Americans against their will? Americans. Might be a conversation there.

I suppose that's fair, but what does it say about his character that he'd put himself in a position where you're alleged (with enough evidence for an investigation to be launched) to have raped and/or trafficked someone?

That's not exactly an everyday occurrence is it?

"Why would have they looked for evidence if there wasn't evidence?" This is genuinely fucking ridiculous.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

In free democracies we have this thing called the presumption of innocence, which means that we don't witch-hunt people out of their daily lives until and unless convincing evidence of their wrongdoing is found.

If such evidence does indeed exist then we'll know in relatively short order, but until then we shouldn't judge a person based on alleged crimes, hmm?

In free democracies we apply the principle of presumption of innocence to court proceedings. We require that the state prove a person guilty before the state can sanction them.

This presumption of innocence does not limit the judgement of ordinary citizens.

That's just a copout. You're still claiming to know better than a judge and jury.

[Kubra]

Which of course explains a lot, but doesn't explain any of your confidence at having been satisfied with the 'but they're not illegal' approach.
This is of course why I deadlift more than you.

"This guy is operating a criminal conspiracy" hits different than "I am mad about what he's doing. "
I have a wheelbarrow and a gun I don't need to deadlift.

Man, you *really* don't know much about MLM's if this is literally the first time you've heard them colloquially refered to as pyramid schemes. Like, what exactly do you *know* about MLM's, rather than what you haven't cared to learn?
Your positions thus far have been predicated on not knowing, not caring, or not knowing and not caring. I take shit seriously, man. I look that shit up and read it. That includes my deadlift, which is why it is greater than yours.

[Burgundu]

Cool

[Ifreann]

In free democracies we apply the principle of presumption of innocence to court proceedings. We require that the state prove a person guilty before the state can sanction them.

This presumption of innocence does not limit the judgement of ordinary citizens.

That's just a copout. You're still claiming to know better than a judge and jury.

I am claiming nothing of the sort. I am explaining that the principle of presumption of innocence is a legal principle, applied in court, not a general rule to which we must all always subscribe when judging any person.

[Fahran]

1. Source? I've seen him say fucked up things about women while explicitly and repeatedly saying they are not property. His comments about victims were taken out of context.

Source.

Listening to his videos made me feel stupider. So thank you for that.

2. So the answer is you don't know. You can't name a single person he's claimed to have harmed them or what evidence there is to substantiate those claims. The only thing you know is there's an investigation, nobody is being detained, and obviously if the romanians have investigated you then you did something. This was in April, by the way do you think the romanian crime lab is processing evidence to figure out the person chained up in his basement is a woman? By the way- you know who really cares about holding Americans against their will? Americans. Might be a conversation there.

I didn't know most of the details in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell either. That doesn't mean I would have been wrong to criticize them based on available information and nobody would have called me crazy or prejudiced for not wanting minors in close proximity to them. The guy went to a country notorious for sex trafficking to escape laws against sexual violence and is now under investigation for sex trafficking and holding women against their will. The investigation is allegedly ongoing. You've gotten sources on that. If you would like to withhold judgement, that's fine. I don't really feel any compulsion to give him the benefit of the doubt here given what he's said in the past. I don't think he should go to prison without evidence, but why in the name of all that is wholesome would I trust this person or defend him as being anything than a scumbag and potential criminal?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

That's just a copout. You're still claiming to know better than a judge and jury.

I am claiming nothing of the sort. I am explaining that the principle of presumption of innocence is a legal principle, applied in court, not a general rule to which we must all always subscribe when judging any person.

It's a distinction without a difference. Do you think "innocent until proven guilty" was a mistake? If so, why don't we push to reform it, and if not, wouldn't it be even better to strive to follow the courts' example on this matter, even outside of a court of law?

[Sordhau]

"He hasn't been convicted of anything yet!!!!"

Don't care; he's a misogynist. That alone should be reason enough to muzzle him.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

"He hasn't been convicted of anything yet!!!!"

Don't care; he's a misogynist. That alone should be reason enough to muzzle him.

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

[Armeattla]

"He hasn't been convicted of anything yet!!!!"

Don't care; he's a misogynist. That alone should be reason enough to muzzle him.

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

Some people cannot be reasoned with - and that usually also includes the people who fall down such rabbitholes.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

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

Some people cannot be reasoned with - and that usually also includes the people who fall down such rabbitholes.

What's the alternative? To say "we're right because we say so"? If so, who gets to say who gets to invoke that kind of empty platitude?

EDIT: As well, when you consider how many people fall down that "rabbit hole", is it not obvious that some of his critics deserve at least a share of the blame? Such as, I don't know, saying the solution for guys worried about being "dead-broke dads" in their teen years is to not have sex, then when they choose to do just that, smear them, as guys who were the subject in junior high of rumours of girls wanting them, as guys who couldn't have gotten laid anyway? Or assume basement dweller status of people who were gainfully employed thousands of kilometres from home? Some of his critics have done plenty of things to poke holes in their own credibility; why can't they accept their own share of the blame for this?

[Ifreann]

I am claiming nothing of the sort. I am explaining that the principle of presumption of innocence is a legal principle, applied in court, not a general rule to which we must all always subscribe when judging any person.

It's a distinction without a difference.

Explaining how presumption of innocence works is very obviously a distinct thing from claiming to know better than a judge and jury, especially when there is no actual judge and jury in question.

But if you are so insistent that ordinary discourse be conducted ought to follow the example of the courts then I expect to be provided with expert legal representation.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

It's a distinction without a difference.

Explaining how presumption of innocence works is very obviously a distinct thing from claiming to know better than a judge and jury, especially when there is no actual judge and jury in question.

But if you are so insistent that ordinary discourse be conducted ought to follow the example of the courts then I expect to be provided with expert legal representation.

Funny you should mention that. The right to a lawyer and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty are joined at the hip. We know what happens when people don't invoke their fifth amendment rights.

So yeah. I would say pushing back, against a bunch of nobodies presuming guilty someone who hasn't been proven guilty, in my capacity as a fellow nobody, is as close to the layman equivalent of the right to a lawyer as it gets.

[Ifreann]

Explaining how presumption of innocence works is very obviously a distinct thing from claiming to know better than a judge and jury, especially when there is no actual judge and jury in question.

But if you are so insistent that ordinary discourse be conducted ought to follow the example of the courts then I expect to be provided with expert legal representation.

Funny you should mention that...

Funny you keep posting instead of getting me a lawyer.

[Des-Bal]

Man, you *really* don't know much about MLM's if this is literally the first time you've heard them colloquially refered to as pyramid schemes. Like, what exactly do you *know* about MLM's, rather than what you haven't cared to learn?
Your positions thus far have been predicated on not knowing, not caring, or not knowing and not caring. I take shit seriously, man. I look that shit up and read it. That includes my deadlift, which is why it is greater than yours.

Sweetie, your colloquialisms just gauge how emotionally you're reacting and I know this is just crushing but your feelings are meaningless to me. Do you understand hearing Michigan slaughtered Hawaii becomes a different and more interesting subject if they did it with rifles? You're salty about MLMs, cool. You may as well bitch about him overwatering his lawn. The pitch is Andrew Tate is a societal ill but the evidence says he's a muscle dummy with some bad takes and a company structure you disapprove of.

[Des-Bal]

Funny you keep posting instead of getting me a lawyer.

You have no right to appointed counsel until jails on the table.

[Rauritania]

There is truth in the idea that men are at a disadvantage in dating compared to women, especially since the rise of online social media and apps. And yes, it may have been better in some ways before the start of the Sexual revolution in the 60s. Social media is also toxic for society in general, not just dating but for other areas. The occasional extremist violence and misogynist rhetoric aside, to be fair it could have been any kind of radicalization. Would people consider those frustrated by being in poverty and homeless potentially radicalized terrorists?

As for Andrew Tate, it sounds like an issue because if kids as young as 7-8 are being exposed to that stuff against their will, that is still a problem.

[Kubra]

Man, you *really* don't know much about MLM's if this is literally the first time you've heard them colloquially refered to as pyramid schemes. Like, what exactly do you *know* about MLM's, rather than what you haven't cared to learn?
Your positions thus far have been predicated on not knowing, not caring, or not knowing and not caring. I take shit seriously, man. I look that shit up and read it. That includes my deadlift, which is why it is greater than yours.

Sweetie, your colloquialisms just gauge how emotionally you're reacting and I know this is just crushing but your feelings are meaningless to me. Do you understand hearing Michigan slaughtered Hawaii becomes a different and more interesting subject if they did it with rifles? You're salty about MLMs, cool. You may as well bitch about him overwatering his lawn. The pitch is Andrew Tate is a societal ill but the evidence says he's a muscle dummy with some bad takes and a company structure you disapprove of.

Well, how would you know? By your own admission, you don't care about MLM's, and seem to be unable to distinguish them from pyramind schemes in the first place. Well, except knowing that the former isn't illegal, or at least isn't always illegal at every time in their lifespan or in every country. At least, I'm reasonably certain you know at least that much. And it's a semi-useless distinction, since we wouldn't say the of ponzi schemes in Albania being legal would mean that, were we albanians, it would be legitimate for your to respond to a fella not liking ponzi schemes as simply "a company structure you disapprove of".
Look, if it'll help, just straight up tell me that you want me to prove that running an MLM is generally detrimental to its participants in ways that could be construed as being a "societal ill". I'd be more than happy to do so, if that's something I have to do.

[Des-Bal]

Well, how would you know? By your own admission, you don't care about MLM's, and seem to be unable to distinguish them from pyramind schemes in the first place. Well, except knowing that the former isn't illegal, or at least isn't always illegal at every time in their lifespan or in every country. At least, I'm reasonably certain you know at least that much. And it's a semi-useless distinction, since we wouldn't say the of ponzi schemes in Albania being legal would mean that, were we albanians, it would be legitimate for your to respond to a fella not liking ponzi schemes as simply "a company structure you disapprove of".
Look, if it'll help, just straight up tell me that you want me to prove that running an MLM is generally detrimental to its participants in ways that could be construed as being a "societal ill". I'd be more than happy to do so, if that's something I have to do.

I specifically described the difference between a general MLM and a pyramid schemes like three times, I stopped after you openly said you didn't care about the distinction. You're throwing a tantrum about a thing I explicitly am not concerned with as long as it's legal and I'm running out of ways to tell you I don't give a fuck. Go ahead and rant about how terrible it is to overwater your lawn, you're complaining about something unimportant.

[Kubra]

Well, how would you know? By your own admission, you don't care about MLM's, and seem to be unable to distinguish them from pyramind schemes in the first place. Well, except knowing that the former isn't illegal, or at least isn't always illegal at every time in their lifespan or in every country. At least, I'm reasonably certain you know at least that much. And it's a semi-useless distinction, since we wouldn't say the of ponzi schemes in Albania being legal would mean that, were we albanians, it would be legitimate for your to respond to a fella not liking ponzi schemes as simply "a company structure you disapprove of".
Look, if it'll help, just straight up tell me that you want me to prove that running an MLM is generally detrimental to its participants in ways that could be construed as being a "societal ill". I'd be more than happy to do so, if that's something I have to do.

I specifically described the difference between a general MLM and a pyramid schemes like three times, I stopped after you openly said you didn't care about the distinction. You're throwing a tantrum about a thing I explicitly am not concerned with as long as it's legal and I'm running out of ways to tell you I don't give a fuck. Go ahead and rant about how terrible it is to overwater your lawn, you're complaining about something unimportant.

Did you? Well, I must have missed it! Let's just go back into the post history....

MLMs are not synonoymous with pyramid schemes

Oh, huh, that's all you said. Further trawling, and that is the thing you restated "three times". You're great with definitions, can you define "substance" in context?
Look through your post history, it seems you made a post on MLM's within the same timeframe, but in a thread in which I have never posted in or visited. Did you actually mean that? Were you already expecting me to trawl through your posts in the first place just to figure out what you think an MLM is? Well I've got that now I guess, do you just want to proceed with the post in question as reference?
Oh, did I? My, I had no idea! Speaking totally personally, just how I tend to interpret it, I tend to think when a person incessantly asks someone multiple times and increasingly aggressively what is the distinction between something they are in fact very interests in being told what the distinction is. You know, I dunno if others do, that's just me, and that's what I was trying to let on. I'm sorry, I don't where I went wrong there.
Buddy, you know, when I brought up the matter of ponzi schemes in albania I sort of expected you to respond in some sort of fashion. Let's try again: if we were in Albania during the golden age of ponzi schemes, would your line of reasoning here be legitimate?

[Des-Bal]

Oh, huh, that's all you said. Further trawling, and that is the thing you restated "three times". You're great with definitions, can you define "substance" in context?
Look through your post history, it seems you made a post on MLM's within the same timeframe, but in a thread in which I have never posted in or visited. Did you actually mean that? Were you already expecting me to trawl through your posts in the first place just to figure out what you think an MLM is? Well I've got that now I guess, do you just want to proceed with the post in question as reference?
Oh, did I? My, I had no idea! Speaking totally personally, just how I tend to interpret it, I tend to think when a person incessantly asks someone multiple times and increasingly aggressively what is the distinction between something they are in fact very interests in being told what the distinction is. You know, I dunno if others do, that's just me, and that's what I was trying to let on. I'm sorry, I don't where I went wrong there.
Buddy, you know, when I brought up the matter of ponzi schemes in albania I sort of expected you to respond in some sort of fashion. Let's try again: if we were in Albania during the golden age of ponzi schemes, would your line of reasoning here be legitimate?

You're getting warm, keep looking.

Go ahead and rant about how terrible it is to overwater your lawn, you're complaining about something unimportant.

[Kubra]

Oh, huh, that's all you said. Further trawling, and that is the thing you restated "three times". You're great with definitions, can you define "substance" in context?
Look through your post history, it seems you made a post on MLM's within the same timeframe, but in a thread in which I have never posted in or visited. Did you actually mean that? Were you already expecting me to trawl through your posts in the first place just to figure out what you think an MLM is? Well I've got that now I guess, do you just want to proceed with the post in question as reference?
Oh, did I? My, I had no idea! Speaking totally personally, just how I tend to interpret it, I tend to think when a person incessantly asks someone multiple times and increasingly aggressively what is the distinction between something they are in fact very interests in being told what the distinction is. You know, I dunno if others do, that's just me, and that's what I was trying to let on. I'm sorry, I don't where I went wrong there.
Buddy, you know, when I brought up the matter of ponzi schemes in albania I sort of expected you to respond in some sort of fashion. Let's try again: if we were in Albania during the golden age of ponzi schemes, would your line of reasoning here be legitimate?

You're getting warm, keep looking.

Go ahead and rant about how terrible it is to overwater your lawn, you're complaining about something unimportant.

I'm trying to find it, I really am, but I can only find variations of the same statement, curiously made three times. Perhaps you could be the one to show me these three posts that are not that, and show me how very very bad at trawling through posts I am?
And speaking of incessant questioning, could you explain to me how what I am complaining about is something unimportant? If I haven't already let on, I'm very interested.

[Zingar]

I do not know much about Andrew Tate. Listening to him is a chore so it is going slow. But I do know some history of the earliest MLN (or Network Marketing) companies, They are based on how insurance companies operate. Instead of wagering that you aren't as smart as their actuaries and paying their agents accordingly, they wager that you will buy their soap (or other products) and rewarded their independent contractors accordingly. To criminalize MLM/Network Marketing such as Amway and Shakley (sp?) would be to criminalize nearly every insurance company operating in market economies.

[Des-Bal]

I'm trying to find it, I really am, but I can only find variations of the same statement, curiously made three times. Perhaps you could be the one to show me these three posts that are not that, and show me how very very bad at trawling through posts I am?
And speaking of incessant questioning, could you explain to me how what I am complaining about is something unimportant? If I haven't already let on, I'm very interested.

No, we had a back and forth over it for a couple days if you lost it you lost it.

You're salty about MLMs, cool. You may as well bitch about him overwatering his lawn. The pitch is Andrew Tate is a societal ill but the evidence says he's a muscle dummy with some bad takes and a company structure you disapprove of.

You think MLMs are the great Satan. Okay. I don't, and even if you could make a case that they are I don't fucking care. Complain about Herbalife nothing about operating an mlm elevates the bad tiktok man to being worthy of notice.

[Kubra]

I'm trying to find it, I really am, but I can only find variations of the same statement, curiously made three times. Perhaps you could be the one to show me these three posts that are not that, and show me how very very bad at trawling through posts I am?
And speaking of incessant questioning, could you explain to me how what I am complaining about is something unimportant? If I haven't already let on, I'm very interested.

No, we had a back and forth over it for a couple days if you lost it you lost it.

You're salty about MLMs, cool. You may as well bitch about him overwatering his lawn. The pitch is Andrew Tate is a societal ill but the evidence says he's a muscle dummy with some bad takes and a company structure you disapprove of.

You think MLMs are the great Satan. Okay. I don't, and even if you could make a case that they are I don't fucking care. Complain about Herbalife nothing about operating an mlm elevates the bad tiktok man to being worthy of notice.

All I can say is I can see your posts, man. It's pretty clear to me that you think the statement made, curiously three times, is something that one can consider "substantial", and and this point you're just unwilling to admit it. This is, of course, why I deadlift more than you. As to keep with the general theme so far, I don't care that you don't care.
"and even if you make a case that they are I don't fucking care"
lol and this is the guy who seemingly threw a hissy fit about *me* not caring about something, despite, as have I think stated quite clearly, being very interested in the something. it was you who never cared all along! What a twist!
I tell ya what, wanna know how you could have countered me? You could have said Hustlers University isn't an MLM at all. Where am I gonna go from there, fella?