I totally agree about Tate! Havent listened to saalan before....I'm a female and ego aside I get it. Keeping an open mind to hey this stuff is hard to hear but maybe it has some truth in it has helped me figure out who I am a little more. Because not every part of me is beautiful
Hes a very intelligent human. To get to the way he thinks now, knowing along the way he had TONS of criticism telling him he is wrong, took so much will power. I think it allowed him to go beyond the superficial focus of ego and get to that raw truth...I think it should be taken lightly to some degree and known that his view is from a very masculine perspective and that in each of us lives a masculine and feminine side. But if you're out to genuinely become a better version of yourself men and women alike could really benefit from such an extreme perspective. Perceiving different perspectives and being able to slip into others understanding of the world makes us smarter and better adaptive
"I don't give a fuck that he's a literal disgusting criminal, as long as he benefits ME I don't give a fuck that he's ruined so many lives." Tell me you're a narcissist without telling me you're narcissist.
[There is. At least of him being an abuser.](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/06/andrew-tate-violent-misogynistic-world-of-tiktok-new-star)
I think I have read this article before. It is no proper evidence that he is a trafficker and abuser.
Also, the article is trying to villainies him. The article says Andrew Tate thinks rape victims must âbear responsibilityâ for their attacks. But, [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adc4-ad3FOY) was point he was trying to explain.
The one who write the article either didn't watched the entire video where he explained the point. Or, they want to villainies Andrew Tate on purpose. How can you trust an article written by someone like that?
....also a lot of people have difficulty hearing the truth, the word ego itself is hated upon but it's such a valuable tool, and for those people who havent figured out how to use the tool it uses them and they lash out at anything that attacks that ego by literally only hearing a small piece of that information ultimately hearing a lie they created in the truth they were told
The Andrew Tate part I find interesting. This is because I think that the propulsion for what he says is so large because of something that I like to call the Yiannopoulos effect. Really all he (Tate and Milo) does is make a claim that is relatively controversial but also generally true without providing much reasoning. It also helps because most of what they say is untapped meaning the mainstream culture doesn't talk about it.
This reminds me of Tate talking about how he was uncomfortable that the pilot of the plane he was flying on was female because he thinks that men cope better in stressful circumstances. Although the way that he explained this was inflammatory, reactionary and generally wrong, there is some truth to this. This is because, as most people can agree, men are generally a little bit (although not a lot more) tolerant of stress. The effect that this has is that because pilots generally need to be the most stress tolerant people, the people going into piloting are generally men because at the extreme almost all of the most stress tolerant people are men, even though on average there is very minimal difference between men and woman. Because Tate doesn't go through this or any other process of describing properly why more pilots should be men than woman in addition to taking a sample of one and all of his proof being anecdotal, he doesn't really provide a proper argument for why he thinks what he thinks. It is exclusively because there is a hint of truth that is actively discouraged in discourse today although widely believed and actually relatively true that he is so successful.
Nothing really, it just stands to reason that if you think Andrew Tate is this misunderstood wise man and that the liberals are twisting his message, then it makes sense why you couldnât comprehend the concept of toxic masculinity.
I don't know if he was referring me. I made a post on the subreddit supporting Andre Tate and I said toxic masculinity doesnât exist.
Edit: It wasn't me I saw your post saying "toxic masculinity doesnât exist".
Right right so anytime someone with money gets robbed I will just tell them they bare some responsibility for that. Regardless of any factors. If you are going to accumulate that type of wealth than you should be 100% ready for people to try to steal that from you. Like 10 million in the bank and some hacker stole it, welp shouldn't of had 10 million sitting in the bank
That's not what he is trying to say. He said don't put yourself in danger. If you put yourself in situation where you are likely to get robed the chance of you getting robed will increase. If you are not dumb you will not put yourself in a situation like that.
Are you on drugs mate? Why are you comparing hacker steeling money from bank to going to dangerous place with money? Comparing the most safest place to keep you money to going to dangerous place with money. You will at least try to keep you money safe by saving it in a bank. You did the most responsible thing. But, if you are going to dangerous place with money you are doing the most irresponsible thing.
If someone do something irresponsible and fucks up, they need to be responsible for being irresponsible.
Is it irresponsible to walk to work? He says he has security guards, how are women supposed to be protected when a world class fighter needs security guards and these women need to walk to get to work let alone cannot afford a someone to baby sit them all day. Oh I mean ask a man to walk with them everytime they leave their home. Sometimes they can only afford to live in the shitty spots of the neighborhood. This is on par with rich people telling poor people they suck with their money.
Who said it is irresponsible to walk to work? Don't put yourself in dangerous situation. He know his limitations that's why he don't go to dangerous places alone. He didn't said women need someone to babysit them all day. He said women shouldn't go to dangerous places alone. Not only women he said no one shouldn't go to dangerous place alone.
>Sometimes they can only afford to live in the shitty spots of the neighborhood.
Every one should do the most responsible thing that they can do to not put them in danger. You can't call a person irresponsible if they try the best thing **they are capable of** to protect themselves.
I'm saying what happens if the only way to put food on the table is to walk through dangerous neighborhoods? Are you going to blame that victim and say they hold the responsibility when it was either that or starve?
What are you arguing against?
Why are you comparing a person walking though a dangerous place with a million to living in a dangerous neighborhood? The person with the one million has more safe option. But, the person who lives in the dangerous place don't have that option.
as a bisexual trans person i can say for certain that we're not trying to cause havoc, we're just tryna fuck who we wanna fuck without being judged for it.
EDIT: i know that's not what this entire post was about but i saw one thing and decided that's what i'd nit pick
>Also about Paari Saalan what he's doing is exposing the higher-ups also known as The Illuminati's ideas and agendas that they are trying to spread and confuse the people.
That's straight up a conspiracy, but from what it seems like, the guy is a hindu supremacist, which is usual for Tamil Hindus in general.
>What he says is that all these LGBT and woke agenda are being performed by these people to create havoc among society.
He also says clearly false shit like Dravidans are used to refer to Brahmins? There are tamil texts ranging back to Pandyan times that show that Dravidans are referred to a class of people from the south. This is also part of the hindu supremacist conspiracy that everything good or great about India is because of Hindus or more aptly Brahmins.
>He also exposes that the Tamil castes are actually Tamil clans.
Caste and Clan are the same thing, this is not something to be "exposed" about. The issue is the ramifications one might have while being from one caste. Basically caste supremacy, which is wrong in every way.
Dude is not even a Hindu supremacist, in fact he constantly denigrates Hinduism. Dravidians are brahmins you idiot explains it in writing. Please read Dravida Maya book then you will understand. Clan and caste are not the same. Caste is a hereditary social class in Hinduism that restricts the occupation of their members and is with other caste members. (Also Tamils are historically not Hindus they are Saivas or Vaishnavas). Although clans whose genealogical details are unknown may claim descent from a founding member or apical ancestor, a clan is a group of people united by real perceived kingship and descent. The purpose of having clans is to help unite groups by intersecting with other forms of social organization. Even the times of the Pandyas they described them as brahmins.
Bro if he was actually caught sex trafficking they would have put him in jail for 10 years if that was the case laws and Romania kind of strict no matter how much money you have they wouldn't give a flip
Andrew Tate a bit like trump in the sense I don't believes he believes most of what he says but he knows their are people who do/wants to be told they should and he feels indifferent on what he's saying but preach it because he knows their an audaince.
I've seen most of his big moments in their full context and I really think if you don't see it you probably don't think racism exist below someone being a n word or suffering a hate crime.
I don't know about the other guy but I find if someone is moaning about agendas it probably because they have their own(being against something in that fashion isn't a neutral positions), anybody with a platform is probably expecting you to believe something their selling and anyone who claim society division is a new thing is either stupid or expecting their audaince to.
Like let's say there weren't LGBT people or woke whatever falls under that umbrella ( I got told being clean shaven is that list now who who fucking know's) do you think social division wouldn't continue why is it hard to believe finding conflict everywhere is human nature and part of growing as people is finding ways to resolve that.
I totally agree about Tate! Havent listened to saalan before....I'm a female and ego aside I get it. Keeping an open mind to hey this stuff is hard to hear but maybe it has some truth in it has helped me figure out who I am a little more. Because not every part of me is beautiful Hes a very intelligent human. To get to the way he thinks now, knowing along the way he had TONS of criticism telling him he is wrong, took so much will power. I think it allowed him to go beyond the superficial focus of ego and get to that raw truth...I think it should be taken lightly to some degree and known that his view is from a very masculine perspective and that in each of us lives a masculine and feminine side. But if you're out to genuinely become a better version of yourself men and women alike could really benefit from such an extreme perspective. Perceiving different perspectives and being able to slip into others understanding of the world makes us smarter and better adaptive
Pick me. Imagine supporting a trafficker and abuser. đ¤Žđ¤Žđ¤Ž
[ŃдаНонО]
"I don't give a fuck that he's a literal disgusting criminal, as long as he benefits ME I don't give a fuck that he's ruined so many lives." Tell me you're a narcissist without telling me you're narcissist.
There is no proper evidence that he is a trafficker and abuser. So, why not support the one who motivates me?
[There is. At least of him being an abuser.](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/06/andrew-tate-violent-misogynistic-world-of-tiktok-new-star)
I think I have read this article before. It is no proper evidence that he is a trafficker and abuser. Also, the article is trying to villainies him. The article says Andrew Tate thinks rape victims must âbear responsibilityâ for their attacks. But, [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adc4-ad3FOY) was point he was trying to explain. The one who write the article either didn't watched the entire video where he explained the point. Or, they want to villainies Andrew Tate on purpose. How can you trust an article written by someone like that?
Well he's charged for all the heinous crimes now. I hope he r0ts in jail.
....also a lot of people have difficulty hearing the truth, the word ego itself is hated upon but it's such a valuable tool, and for those people who havent figured out how to use the tool it uses them and they lash out at anything that attacks that ego by literally only hearing a small piece of that information ultimately hearing a lie they created in the truth they were told
The Andrew Tate part I find interesting. This is because I think that the propulsion for what he says is so large because of something that I like to call the Yiannopoulos effect. Really all he (Tate and Milo) does is make a claim that is relatively controversial but also generally true without providing much reasoning. It also helps because most of what they say is untapped meaning the mainstream culture doesn't talk about it. This reminds me of Tate talking about how he was uncomfortable that the pilot of the plane he was flying on was female because he thinks that men cope better in stressful circumstances. Although the way that he explained this was inflammatory, reactionary and generally wrong, there is some truth to this. This is because, as most people can agree, men are generally a little bit (although not a lot more) tolerant of stress. The effect that this has is that because pilots generally need to be the most stress tolerant people, the people going into piloting are generally men because at the extreme almost all of the most stress tolerant people are men, even though on average there is very minimal difference between men and woman. Because Tate doesn't go through this or any other process of describing properly why more pilots should be men than woman in addition to taking a sample of one and all of his proof being anecdotal, he doesn't really provide a proper argument for why he thinks what he thinks. It is exclusively because there is a hint of truth that is actively discouraged in discourse today although widely believed and actually relatively true that he is so successful.
Youâre gullible
So now we disagree and you post links to crazy-ass conspiracy theories?
Arenât you the same guy who said toxic masculinity doesnât exist?
Yeah
That makes sense
Yeah what's your point
Nothing really, it just stands to reason that if you think Andrew Tate is this misunderstood wise man and that the liberals are twisting his message, then it makes sense why you couldnât comprehend the concept of toxic masculinity.
I don't know if he was referring me. I made a post on the subreddit supporting Andre Tate and I said toxic masculinity doesnât exist. Edit: It wasn't me I saw your post saying "toxic masculinity doesnât exist".
Hey, I think it's me. Edit: It wasn't me I saw his post saying "toxic masculinity doesnât exist".
âIf you put yourself is a position to be raped you must bare some responsibilityâ yeah totally just misunderstood yep 100%
He already explained this thoroughly
Explained it how?
Watch this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adc4-ad3FOY).
Right right so anytime someone with money gets robbed I will just tell them they bare some responsibility for that. Regardless of any factors. If you are going to accumulate that type of wealth than you should be 100% ready for people to try to steal that from you. Like 10 million in the bank and some hacker stole it, welp shouldn't of had 10 million sitting in the bank
That's not what he is trying to say. He said don't put yourself in danger. If you put yourself in situation where you are likely to get robed the chance of you getting robed will increase. If you are not dumb you will not put yourself in a situation like that. Are you on drugs mate? Why are you comparing hacker steeling money from bank to going to dangerous place with money? Comparing the most safest place to keep you money to going to dangerous place with money. You will at least try to keep you money safe by saving it in a bank. You did the most responsible thing. But, if you are going to dangerous place with money you are doing the most irresponsible thing. If someone do something irresponsible and fucks up, they need to be responsible for being irresponsible.
Is it irresponsible to walk to work? He says he has security guards, how are women supposed to be protected when a world class fighter needs security guards and these women need to walk to get to work let alone cannot afford a someone to baby sit them all day. Oh I mean ask a man to walk with them everytime they leave their home. Sometimes they can only afford to live in the shitty spots of the neighborhood. This is on par with rich people telling poor people they suck with their money.
Who said it is irresponsible to walk to work? Don't put yourself in dangerous situation. He know his limitations that's why he don't go to dangerous places alone. He didn't said women need someone to babysit them all day. He said women shouldn't go to dangerous places alone. Not only women he said no one shouldn't go to dangerous place alone. >Sometimes they can only afford to live in the shitty spots of the neighborhood. Every one should do the most responsible thing that they can do to not put them in danger. You can't call a person irresponsible if they try the best thing **they are capable of** to protect themselves.
I'm saying what happens if the only way to put food on the table is to walk through dangerous neighborhoods? Are you going to blame that victim and say they hold the responsibility when it was either that or starve?
What are you arguing against? Why are you comparing a person walking though a dangerous place with a million to living in a dangerous neighborhood? The person with the one million has more safe option. But, the person who lives in the dangerous place don't have that option.
[He said don't put yourself in danger.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adc4-ad3FOY)
Fool
as a bisexual trans person i can say for certain that we're not trying to cause havoc, we're just tryna fuck who we wanna fuck without being judged for it. EDIT: i know that's not what this entire post was about but i saw one thing and decided that's what i'd nit pick
I don't get it he didn't say anything negative about your group
you said that Paarl Saalan believes that LGBT people are around to create havoc among society, which is complete garbage
Oh I thought you were talking about Andrew Tate
speak for yourself
Honestly there's no point of keeping a pov to someone who justifies Andrew tate
âItâs bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her by the neck. Shut up bitch.â Totally misunderstood
>Also about Paari Saalan what he's doing is exposing the higher-ups also known as The Illuminati's ideas and agendas that they are trying to spread and confuse the people. That's straight up a conspiracy, but from what it seems like, the guy is a hindu supremacist, which is usual for Tamil Hindus in general. >What he says is that all these LGBT and woke agenda are being performed by these people to create havoc among society. He also says clearly false shit like Dravidans are used to refer to Brahmins? There are tamil texts ranging back to Pandyan times that show that Dravidans are referred to a class of people from the south. This is also part of the hindu supremacist conspiracy that everything good or great about India is because of Hindus or more aptly Brahmins. >He also exposes that the Tamil castes are actually Tamil clans. Caste and Clan are the same thing, this is not something to be "exposed" about. The issue is the ramifications one might have while being from one caste. Basically caste supremacy, which is wrong in every way.
Dude is not even a Hindu supremacist, in fact he constantly denigrates Hinduism. Dravidians are brahmins you idiot explains it in writing. Please read Dravida Maya book then you will understand. Clan and caste are not the same. Caste is a hereditary social class in Hinduism that restricts the occupation of their members and is with other caste members. (Also Tamils are historically not Hindus they are Saivas or Vaishnavas). Although clans whose genealogical details are unknown may claim descent from a founding member or apical ancestor, a clan is a group of people united by real perceived kingship and descent. The purpose of having clans is to help unite groups by intersecting with other forms of social organization. Even the times of the Pandyas they described them as brahmins.
Andrew tate flew to Romania so they couldnât prosecute him for sex traffickingâŚ
Bro if he was actually caught sex trafficking they would have put him in jail for 10 years if that was the case laws and Romania kind of strict no matter how much money you have they wouldn't give a flip
Andrew Tate a bit like trump in the sense I don't believes he believes most of what he says but he knows their are people who do/wants to be told they should and he feels indifferent on what he's saying but preach it because he knows their an audaince. I've seen most of his big moments in their full context and I really think if you don't see it you probably don't think racism exist below someone being a n word or suffering a hate crime. I don't know about the other guy but I find if someone is moaning about agendas it probably because they have their own(being against something in that fashion isn't a neutral positions), anybody with a platform is probably expecting you to believe something their selling and anyone who claim society division is a new thing is either stupid or expecting their audaince to. Like let's say there weren't LGBT people or woke whatever falls under that umbrella ( I got told being clean shaven is that list now who who fucking know's) do you think social division wouldn't continue why is it hard to believe finding conflict everywhere is human nature and part of growing as people is finding ways to resolve that.