To head things off at the pass: Andrew Tate is a controversial figure. Some people love him, some people hate him, and that's fine. I'm not here to make a judgement either way, I just think this news is interesting.
It is rather annoying to see one of the "based" states being bitchy and virtue signaling. It's just mealy-mouthed and absolutely pathetic. This is some basic bitch bullshit.
I'd rather he just fuck off. I'm tired of hearing about Tate. The problem is the media has made talking about Tate such a headache that you always have to do this "well there's this narrative versus that narrative" shit before you can get ANY kind of discussion done.
Every time there's news about Tate I become more convinced that he's a feminist psyop that backfired. They were trying to use him to discredit the manophere but he blew up because they didn't have the credibility to manage the takedown. I think the reason it's so messy is because they still haven't regained control of the situation despite their desperate attempts to do so. I'd say the Florida indictments are just another attempt to bury this.
Every time there's news about Tate I become more convinced that he's a feminist psyop that backfired.
Do you mean his promotion? Pied piper style, like they did with Trump? Because if Tate was in on it, it would be fucking easy. Imagine the demoralization toward his fanbase if he did an about-face and started shilling for women or something.
I'm not necessarily saying he was in on it. Either way the feminists had the institutional power to shut him down before he ever became a thing, and the fact that they didn't suggests that they found him useful somehow. My theory is they were trying to discredit the manosphere and the red pill in particular, but that's a bit more speculative on my part.
It's interesting that you bring up Trump because the comparison crossed my mind as well. The main difference is that taking down Tate would have been trivial for them had they decided to do it immediately. Not so much with Trump, as their various attempts have shown.
Tate was a legitimate wealthy figure with a very small term following. That happened organically. He was already sniffing his own farts and talking like he is king shit then too.
Him becoming a household name is absolutely a psyop they were using to create a new boogeyman to scare people into pulling away the only people stupid enough to fall for him (12-24 year old boys with no prospects, the exact type of simp Tate built an empire exploiting with camgirls).
I don't think it really backfired, because he still is pretty irrelevant with only the smallest of non-ironic followers. They just keep talking about him because he makes good clickbait and that makes him seem way bigger than he is.
you always have to do this "well there's this narrative versus that narrative" shit before you can get ANY kind of discussion done.
Yup. Not a fan of that bullshit. I don't care even people were to get the impression I like Tate, but if you don't put the disclaimer a few people are probably getting triggered and downvoting, which buries the discussion.
"I'm not a Trump supporter, but..." all over again.
Well, in this case I'm not a Tate supporter, but yeah. And, thankfully, I was a pretty early Trump adopter, so I only had to disavow a few times, back in '15 when I honestly wasn't sure yet. As soon as I was for Trump, I said as much openly. Lost friends and even family relationships over it, too. Which is pathetic, from them, but there we are. And don't get me started on the women using women-tactics about how dang Bad Orange Man was. Gimme a break. Make an actual argument. Too much to ask for, I know.
I will say, to Tate's credit (who I wasn't very familiar with until this interview), he puts on a good show. Not sure if it's an act or not, but he plays a great "confident," and asserts his viewpoint with clarity. There's no wishy-washiness. I do appreciate that, and it's something we need more of.
I don't need one. I was seeing Tate's shit before he blew up and it was just people mocking him. Then all of sudden he just becomes this massive figure that's supposed to be on the right and part of the red pill. Then he converts to Islam and starts a wave of conversions with other "alpha" influencers. Just being muslim alone should disqualify him but he also had astounding retarded takes with a few common sense ones every now and then. He is Jordan Peterson of the red pill except Peterson started off reasonable and Tate has always been mostly retarded and every now and then reasonable
I'm not sure how 100% of the Very Online Right got convinced that he's 100% innocent.
I'll trust the Romanian Injustice system as far as I can throw it, but just based on what we do know, he is an unsavory character. Doesn't mean he should be prosecuted for stuff he didn't do (if that is the case) or that he should be targeted (if he is).
To head things off at the pass: Andrew Tate is a controversial figure. Some people love him, some people hate him, and that's fine. I'm not here to make a judgement either way, I just think this news is interesting.
It is rather annoying to see one of the "based" states being bitchy and virtue signaling. It's just mealy-mouthed and absolutely pathetic. This is some basic bitch bullshit.
Here's Ron DeSantis's initial statement, and Tate's response. I think this was slightly pre-investigation. Ron was pathetic.
I'd rather he just fuck off. I'm tired of hearing about Tate. The problem is the media has made talking about Tate such a headache that you always have to do this "well there's this narrative versus that narrative" shit before you can get ANY kind of discussion done.
Every time there's news about Tate I become more convinced that he's a feminist psyop that backfired. They were trying to use him to discredit the manophere but he blew up because they didn't have the credibility to manage the takedown. I think the reason it's so messy is because they still haven't regained control of the situation despite their desperate attempts to do so. I'd say the Florida indictments are just another attempt to bury this.
Do you mean his promotion? Pied piper style, like they did with Trump? Because if Tate was in on it, it would be fucking easy. Imagine the demoralization toward his fanbase if he did an about-face and started shilling for women or something.
I'm not necessarily saying he was in on it. Either way the feminists had the institutional power to shut him down before he ever became a thing, and the fact that they didn't suggests that they found him useful somehow. My theory is they were trying to discredit the manosphere and the red pill in particular, but that's a bit more speculative on my part.
It's interesting that you bring up Trump because the comparison crossed my mind as well. The main difference is that taking down Tate would have been trivial for them had they decided to do it immediately. Not so much with Trump, as their various attempts have shown.
Tate was a legitimate wealthy figure with a very small term following. That happened organically. He was already sniffing his own farts and talking like he is king shit then too.
Him becoming a household name is absolutely a psyop they were using to create a new boogeyman to scare people into pulling away the only people stupid enough to fall for him (12-24 year old boys with no prospects, the exact type of simp Tate built an empire exploiting with camgirls).
I don't think it really backfired, because he still is pretty irrelevant with only the smallest of non-ironic followers. They just keep talking about him because he makes good clickbait and that makes him seem way bigger than he is.
Yup. Not a fan of that bullshit. I don't care even people were to get the impression I like Tate, but if you don't put the disclaimer a few people are probably getting triggered and downvoting, which buries the discussion.
"I'm not a Trump supporter, but..." all over again.
Well, in this case I'm not a Tate supporter, but yeah. And, thankfully, I was a pretty early Trump adopter, so I only had to disavow a few times, back in '15 when I honestly wasn't sure yet. As soon as I was for Trump, I said as much openly. Lost friends and even family relationships over it, too. Which is pathetic, from them, but there we are. And don't get me started on the women using women-tactics about how dang Bad Orange Man was. Gimme a break. Make an actual argument. Too much to ask for, I know.
I will say, to Tate's credit (who I wasn't very familiar with until this interview), he puts on a good show. Not sure if it's an act or not, but he plays a great "confident," and asserts his viewpoint with clarity. There's no wishy-washiness. I do appreciate that, and it's something we need more of.
Tate is an astroturfed Muslim fucktard
Just like I've criticized many different sides of many different arguments...there has to be a more compelling debate tactic you could use, mate.
I don't need one. I was seeing Tate's shit before he blew up and it was just people mocking him. Then all of sudden he just becomes this massive figure that's supposed to be on the right and part of the red pill. Then he converts to Islam and starts a wave of conversions with other "alpha" influencers. Just being muslim alone should disqualify him but he also had astounding retarded takes with a few common sense ones every now and then. He is Jordan Peterson of the red pill except Peterson started off reasonable and Tate has always been mostly retarded and every now and then reasonable
I'm not sure how 100% of the Very Online Right got convinced that he's 100% innocent.
I'll trust the Romanian Injustice system as far as I can throw it, but just based on what we do know, he is an unsavory character. Doesn't mean he should be prosecuted for stuff he didn't do (if that is the case) or that he should be targeted (if he is).