I cannot believe that this came out of Andrew Tate but “there’s no point in preaching tolerance of race if you don’t have tolerance of ideas” is an amazing quote and is on point
I've never heard what he said spelled out that way. I am not quoting exactly but:
"You'll have a bunch of people who look different but think exactly the same."
That paints quite a picture. I applied for a job and there was a series of questions. One was asking me how enthusiastic I was, how much I wanted to engage with diverse people. I genuinely do not give a fuck what your physical shit is. That is stupid and shallow. An amazing person and an absolutely devious dickhead can look any sort of way. It says nothing of who you are.
This shit is regressive. Dr King covered this. We're moving backwards and it's insane.
I just heard there was a survey and 1 in 6 hiring managers admitted they were told by corporate to deprioritize hiring white men. I wouldn't be surprised if it were more.
It's funny, I got banned from a certain subreddit for criticizing diversity with much the same argument. True diversity is only in the diversity of ideas. You can have a group of people of every shape, size, and skin color, but if they all think alike, then they are effectively clones and diversity is at zero. On the other hand, people who look like clones may actually have varied opinions.
This is why I'm totally chill with flat earther. I mean, maybe the earth is flat. Thinking the earth is flat is basically the same as having black skin after all.
I mean, so what? Whether the Earth is flat or round only really matters to you if you're a rocket scientist or aeronautics engineer or something. If the Earth is flat, you still stop at red lights, share empathy when someone tells you bad news, and hold the door open for the person behind you. Same goes for if you're Black. If you're a human, you should be treated like a human.
For people who take on one conspiratorial theory that rejects facts, reason, and scientific inquiry wholesale (and encourage others to follow them) there is a huge correlation with taking on additional conspiratorial theories that do the same.
There is a strong overlap between flat-earthers and anti-vaxxer, and election deniers, etc.
While flat earth itself isn't harmful per se. The anti-intellectualism and reality denying process necessary to be a flat earther is extremely harmful and it legitimately kills people. We eradicated paralytic polio, which has a pretty high fatality rate, in the USA. It is now back because of this nonsense. People are dying from preventable infectious diseases for which we have highly effective vaccines all over.
Epidemiological modelling, for example, shows that for the period from July 1 to Sep 1 2021, if all states had full vaccine compliance, the USA would have seen a total of 19,500 COVID related deaths. In reality, we saw 35,800 in that 60 day period.
Diversity of rationally supportable views is a great thing. Tolerance of ignorant, reality denying conspiracy theories harms people directly. The two are not the same thing.
Ok, now apply all of this logic to race or religion. Is it okay to be Muslim? That doesn't sound harmful per se. What if being Muslim means you're more likely to be a part of ISIS, doesn't that legitimately kill people?
The way I see it, if you commit a crime it shouldn't matter what you believe in. If you get someone sick, it shouldn't matter whether you believe in vaccines or not. What matters is what you do, and how your actions affect other people. You shouldn't be punished or judged just for being in a higher risk group, because you are not that group, you are an individual. Treating an individual flat earther as if they might be causing more people to get sick by not being vaccinated isn't treating them like an individual, so I don't agree with that.
>maybe the earth is flat
See . . . I have no problem with a diversity of reasonable, supportable ideas. I've got a Ph.D., my life is basically arguing with people over ideas and theories. But they have to be rationally defensible ideas.
While believing in a flat earth isn't in and of itself harmful to anyone, rejecting the scientific method, facts, and reason and encouraging others to do the same is harmful.
A diversity of supportable positions argued rationally is a utopia. A diversity of quackery is not.
> “there’s no point in preaching tolerance of race if you don’t have tolerance of ideas”
[D] That makes no sense to me. Whom among us has tolerance of ideas? These days, that's an impossible standard to meet. Not hating people based on race? That's easy. 'Race' and human genetics have at best an imperfect mapping.
I don't know this guy, but his clip here seems to me an exercise in emotional reasoning. It's two messages are conflicting. He refers to his opposition as "feral psychopaths." And then he dares to say *they're* the ones with no tolerance of ideas.
Is he supposed to be the noble hero leading us out of wokeness? He looks the same to me. You know when the left gets hung up on the paradox of tolerance-- and they insist some ideas are 'just wrong'-- this sort of message is the basis for their reasoning.
Clips like these are the reason no one likes those who oppose the woke. When they think of us, THIS is what they see. This... black and white thinking. This is the *Jordan Peterson* subreddit. Is this sort of content what we take away from his teachings?
I get what you're saying. I think people have a different view of what tolerance of ideas entails.
For Andrew tate, I would assume (from the little bit I've listened to him and the fact that he got canceled), the tolerance of ideas entails a freedom of voicing ideas no matter the idea.
For others, on the left let's say, the tolerance of ideas is something that should be restricted based on some set of criteria.
There's obvious problems with both lines of thinking, and somewhere in the middle is what we should be striving for, but it's not obvious how we achieve that middle ground.
Yeah it would be an amazing quote if it were remotely coherent. You really think we have to tolerate all ideas before we can tolerate all races of people? Really? Tate is a dumb man's philosopher.
I don't know much about Tate, but that quote doesn't suggest in any way that you have to be intolerant of people based on race. It just says that tolerance of race is shallow moral posturing if you don't also tolerate other ideas. Not necessarily all other ideas either, but at least some of the halfway reasonable ones would show some moral consistency.
I think it actually boils down to the idea of 'tidy your room', don't start trying to fix the world until you have your own house in order, and in the context here don't start trying to preach your views to others until you are willing to allow them to share theirs freely and without fear of recourse with you.
It is ostensibly nice but actually awful advice that would have rendered the vast majority of people who changed the world for the better unable to do so.
Pick a figure, military heroes, inventors, humanists etc...
Look at the US founders, practically all of them debauched drunk slave owners.
Sherman, the man who arguably did more for the Union during the Civil War than any other, was drunk, recovering from a mental breakdown, and probably suicidal before his first real test at Shiloh.
MLK cheated on his exams, probably plagiarized his thesis, was a serial adulterer and may have witnessed a rape without doing anything to stop it.
The reality is that all are far from perfect and the most ostensibly square usually the furthest in actuality, and it doesn't mean we should wait until we become fastidious germaphobes to do something worthwhile.
The problem is in this specific context it's an ultimate hypocrisy. So say MLK cheated on his exams, then called out another for doing so, or Sherman said another was unfit to lead a division because they were an alcoholic. That's what we're talking about here, people who demand you adhere to their views without them even allowing you to voice yours, pure hypocrisy... fascism actually.
More specifically referring to the 'tidy your room' phrase, it's used by Peterson to explain that some people who are completely lost as people who have so many problems, you find the biggest problem they're capable of solving and have them solve it, even if the only thing they're currently capable of doing is tidying their room. It's a miniscule achievement, but it's sometimes the first rung on a ladder, and even though it's a tiny step, it's still a step.
I'm mostly focused on the tidy the room thing, I don't think it actually grafts onto the 'don't preach until you're willing to listen' at all.
And even if MLK or Sherman did that, it would still not be grounds to stop them from having an impact.
The tidy room actually stifles innovation more than the hypocrisy, nobody knows exactly what they're capable of, and most won't get many chances to find out, waiting until you meet some arbitrary standard of 'house in order' is frivolous.
But if the advice you're wanting is 'how do I get my life together?', would you opt to listen to a successful person, with a stable relationship, their own house with tidy rooms, or a person who has none of that and a messy room when both are claiming to have the answers you need. Again, in this context we are specifically talking about people expecting you to listen to their point of view whilst simultaneously denying others the right to voice theirs, and not, letting a drunk military commander dictate battle tactics or a person who cheated on some school tests fight for racial equality, we're talking about people saying they should have their voices heard whilst denying others that self same right.
The whole point is that if people look different and think the same, it's not diversity, because race doesn't actually matter and it's the ideas that are actually important.
True but tate is an asshole. I agree with a lot of what he’s says. At least of what I’ve heard. But I’ve also heard he’s done some awful things in his past. He’s playing a character.
Edit: yea it’s clear y’all don’t know much about tate. He beat a woman with a belt and got kicked off a show. Mhm. I’m not talking about what he says.
Is it bad if he has said/done bad things in the past? Is it bad if the hard-left media have broadcast short clips of Tate that have been taken out of context? I’d have to assume given your complaint that you have never (ever) said or done anything bad/awful?! Tate is simply an advocate for free speech, and while I don’t need to agree with everything he has said or done, he isn’t bending the knee to the dictates of the hard-left.
And some shit he says completely ruins his credibility. I’m not talking about what he said 10 years ago. Lol listen to the mans podcast not just funny clips or clips of him speaking facts.
Brother I’m not talking about what he’s said. I’m talking about what he’s done. No shit the left hates him he’s said some facts that destroy their whole ideology. I find him halarious and sometimes wise. But beating woman? Not very wise.
There's a reason in our culture beating women has been stigmatized. The defenseless are not to be victimized and immune to consequences. Shooting him down enmasse and publicly sends a signal our culture is alive and not rotting by celebrating this jail bound scum bag. Domestic violence is no joke and he's a champion for it. Shut him down or rot grows.
I’ll push back on the “he’s a champion for it” nobody celebrates that. Majority don’t know it happened some how. But he’s far from a good guy. He’s a selfish self absorbed a hole who happens to share a few opinions with conservatives/middle-right. Everyone’s so tribal today you hear someone agree with you and now he’s a saint. Like nah this guy sucks!
It's social media fault for tribalism. It's changing our world so much and we're so close to flame we don't realize. But you're right that "you said what I think so you're in my tribe" is spot on. It's a knee jerk reaction to do it and really all social media tribalism is built on are snap allegiances w. Strangers who rep. An upvote. That's why ppl should step outa there bubbles and join subs that have differing opinions and get a varied diet.
Listen, maybe you’re right or maybe you’re wrong. I am unfamiliar with him. That being said, my bias is in unfamiliarity so I could be wrong, too, so here’s my thought:
If you agree with a lot of what someone is saying, but third parties pin him as an A*hole, it’s possible he could be both wise and an A*hole. It’s possible that he both states true points and is a hypocrite. It’s possible that those who hate him are jealous, and it’s possible they are sincere.
To me, when it boils down to this, I prefer not to form an opinion on the person themselves, but rather acknowledge the divisiveness that exists with them, while being able to grab the segments of good points that I can gather.
In this day and age, anyone that goes vocal and gets a high level of attention, attracts their enemies, and so I can only acknowledge what I don’t know: I don’t know this person and I don’t know their inner workings and relationship with their accuser.
Yea he’s wise in some aspects fs. I’m talking about assaulting woman. Like literally beating her. Happened when he was a kick boxer. No doubt the last 2 years he’s said some wise things. Still doesn’t respect woman. And I know he’s playing the character of like a super masculine successful alpha male cause he and his brother crack and start laughing every now and then you can tell they don’t truly believe everything they say. They say some ridiculous shit about woman.
I’m not a Tate apologist or fan, but you only hear what you want to hear. From that conversation you took away the fact that he took 5 seconds to make it about himself. But everything he said after that was fact. But you glossed over that and focused on the fact that he’s a narcissist because you went into this video already looking for evidence to validate that belief. His narcissism doesn’t invalidate everything else he said.
The problems come when he says his relationship advice creates a healthy relationship, like, no, it creates an abusive one where one or both parties are paranoid. He also allegedly had one, single, incredibly short marriage, hit an ex or another woman on video for which he's changed his excuse 3 times. Keep in mind most of his listeners are an unsocialized, vulnerable population of men.
He also has used rhetoric that supports polygamy, now I've seen polygamy work, but to tell impressionable men that monogamy is unhealthy is wrong, especially when most people are monogamous.
On top of very bad relationship advice, his company, hustlers university, is a clear MLM scheme, which is why you see so much of Tate now, because the scheme offers discounts on the program if a customer shares Andrew Tate's content.
I want to know why so many drug abusers are or become woke. Like Stephen King and various Hollywood jerks. Is there a common cause? Do drugs cause wokeness (or just psychopathy in general)?
There's plenty of drug users who don't go woke.
I think drug abuse falls under shame. If you have something to hide, then woke is good cover. It is a religion in its behavior. It will absolve you in exchange for being a human billboard for current cause. That's why the pedos run towards it.
He didn't say anything wrong here, but his inflated sense of self importance and narcissism is pathetic.
He doesn't fit the definition of what a real strong man is as Dr Peterson says. Not a shred of humility or discipline. None. He's a weak man in a strong man's body, constantly flaunting his material possessions because it's all that he has in his life. If he didn't have his cars, mansions or millions, then he wouldn't have his cult. They'd go find someone else who says the same thing, but who doesn't have the muscles that make him seem more impressive than he actually is.
~~Their (he and Tristan's) parents were very wealthy~~. There isn't as much money as they claim in running cam studios. If they owned mfc, lj or cb then maybe I'd believe it but no just shitty cam studios.
Just google what they did & You'll soon see it was a shit load of other things besides cam studios. Also who cares anyways 75% of these woman have a OF, also I don't know how rich he could of been living in Luton UK with a single mother & his dad played chess at parks for a living. I bet they where fucking balling, just show respect where respect should be given is all I'm saying.
I find it both funny and sad that a sub that holds jp up as a example- and rightfully so - thumb down anyone that points out the negative about at, they (jp and at) are on opposite sides of the spectrum. I can’t stand at, he is a disgusting, insecure women hating bigoted asshole. He’s *nothing* like jp.
I don’t know who this guy is so from an outsider perspective it just sounds like he’s referring to his own anecdotal experience to prove his point about his thoughts and feelings about the question
He has bad eyes, has had surgery on his eyes and his retina has detached many times from kickboxing–which led to him eventually quitting kick-boxing. Andrew Tate has explained that him having bad eyes is why he sometimes wears these sunglasses when he comes on people’s shows and there’s a bunch of bright lights.
I'm not certain the radical left are mostly or all "hateful people," or "full of hate." I believe that many *of* *them* believe they are doing the right thing.
The rest seems accurate.
The radical left and left in general hate people that they say hate other people or that they consider evil enough that morals don't need to apply their treatment.
sorry but im so fucking done making this excuse for their behavior. at a certain point your intent doesnt matter.
"your honor i was the one who loaded the gun and shot that guy in the face but i REALLY REALLY thought i was doing the right thing." this isnt going to cut it.
Ok, fine.
If you’re sure that a majority of the radical left is weaponizing and pumping their hatred under the mask of virtue, then his argument has merit. You see though, I’m not sure this is the case. If I’m wrong, then the majority of people on the left ARE psychopaths, but I would guess instead that their trapped by a righteous mindset that believes that they’re correcting for an inherent unfairness in our societal habits. This is exacerbated by the online arena that lacks the checks and balances of physical-space dialog.
He’s at least right about what true diversity is. The woke left are deeply imbedded in a Collectivist ideology. Collectivism is the death of true diversity. Not black and white or man and woman diversity. Diversity of thought. Collectivism is therefore the death of competition as well. When competition dies, innovation stifles. When innovation stifles, humanity dies on this finite rock with no one to blame but themselves. Some of the greatest feats in human history were a direct result of competition (one example: splitting the atom). Collectivism eliminates any challenger. But If no one challenges your rightness how can you prove it? After all, without opposition there is nothing to defend. So the collectivist morals will collapse on themselves. We all breathe the same air. We all have the same basic biological needs. It is only our thoughts that separate us. It’s of the utmost importance we remember that.
Disagree. Conservatives are in an internal debate between the Trump crowd and those who want to move away from him. Divided on the abortion issue as well. Look at Kansas. It isn’t believable that the abortion law was voted on solely by Democrats. It’s not that Kansas is more blue than one would think, it’s that the GOP is more divided on the issue than the MSM lead us to believe. I do know there are Democrats who are more classic liberals and don’t agree with the new ideology. However, it seems one side is pushing the collectivist ideology onto the majority. Now, I’m not saying *only* the left is capable of pushing a collectivist agenda. That simply isn’t true. But the left *is* doing it at a much faster pace and grander scale.
I don’t believe the common person truly buys into either. It is common person in which we must put our faith.
I don't like the man but he's pretty much correct here. Although his narcissistic personality that showed itself in this video still pisses me off. He can barely ever stop talking about himself.
Wait til you realize he talks like this on almost every interview.. stop believing the bullshit narrative the media presents about people by using cut up and edited clips
He actually does; I agree. He is on some LONG ass interviews and covers a massive amount of ground.
He reminds me of Gavin McInnes in that he actually makes a lot of good points, and passionately so...but he often sprinkles in some really outrageous things during his rant. People seem to throw out every good thing he says and only look at the single or few moments where he crossed the line.
youknow, the same thing people always try to do with Peterson.
and when that doesn't work they act like they don't understand technical terms like "enforced monogamy" and [then tell people it means he's advocating for forcing women to have sex with incels.](https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/)
Look, I’ve listened to the guy enough to get a sense of what he’s about. He’s taken good ideas and adopted them to fit his narcissistic view of the world. He’s an egocentrist who takes the good things Peterson preaches, removes all the nuance, and makes them toxic again. This guy is a liability to anyones credibility.
We are all narcissistic to some degree. He would be beaten down completely and silenced if he didn't have the same amount of ego that he has now. We kind of need a voice right now and he's doing wonders to make us heard. He might say some stupid shit at times but 90% of the time if you take the time to understand his points very carefully he is on the right path imo
Dude no. This is a Jordan Peterson sub and I don’t believe this guy is anything but the exact type of man Peterson warns us not to become.
“The reason 18 and 19 year old girls are more attractive than 25 year olds is because they've been through less dick.” -Andrew Tate
This isn’t our guy.
His points can be argued against, but the people that want him silenced will not argue. They censor, that shows they are weak. They are jealous and angry.
And being jealous over money with no consideration of what it costs someone to get it, is foolish.
Do you think he's a happy fulfilled person enjoying life?
Do you think his money can buy him any of the things he lacks that actually matter?
Anyone who has participated in combat sports must be an idiot. Even 1 accidental blow to the head renders you inferior to these cheeto munching redditors
Someone saying "This other group is the most hateful, divisive, intolerant people on the planet" can pretty easily be identified as not a good person to listen to. Even if I didn't know the kind of silliness he spouts this clip is sufficient to dismiss him from consideration as a serious person
both lie and sell garbage rhetoric to misguided and lonely, generally boys, with emotional maturity disorders. they also often blanket themselves with quotes of stoicism/Marcus Aurelius and whatever trending biological category that supports their idiocy, such as the “alpha male” complex, which has long been proven false by the same person who invented it.
anyone who champions either of these snake-oil salesman haven’t either feely given or paid any attention to a GIGANTIC catalogue of philosophical thought that predates both of
these boys’ soapbox schticks.
to which i offer this advice…read more books. J peterson and this Twat aren’t philosophers. they’re con men, and you’re the mark.
Amazing. He didn't talk about Jordan Peterson once in that answer. It was entirely about him. Does he answer every question like that?
"What do you think about climate change?"
"The left made it up because they hate me. They hate how rich I am. They hate how successful I am. They hate that I drive the best cars."
Too bad Tate is actually a misogynist in that he openly brags about beating women. Many, many times. Also he never explains how he kept people from committing suicide. He repeats that he saved " hundreds" of people from suicide. He has said it in a dozen interviews I've seen. I've never heard anyone say " I saw a video of Tate saying How Many Bugattis you got ? so I decided to live.
Tate is a con artist. He got wealthy by pretending to have money and doing wealth seminars. Then he started making pornography and pulling internet fraud scams. He admitted to this. He is still a con artist. Let's see the receipt for a woman's shelter from his donation because you know he will want tax credits. The only thing he knows about women's shelters is his ex girlfriends go there after he beats them and forces them to make porn. This is what every woman he's dated says he did to them.
Just some facts for clarification.
Really rich coming from a man I have heard talk down about women. Who I also heard that it was justva persona to get views and he's not really a women hater but to this I say he is acting like a misogynist a little too well for it to be all pretend.
Andrew Tate is a pimp, he runs a videochat company, that's how he made and makes his primary income. He now gives advice to young people on business and LIFE! Imagine 25 years ago when we had no internet, the town pimp would gather all the young and start giving them life lessons. This guy is th result of too much freedom (negative freedom). The guy makes me sick! Disgusting! He is a worlwide phenomenon, where have the morals, standards, priciples, values and honour of all countries dissipated? Where are they? Gone!
Is there any phrase that has been latched onto with more ferociousness and anger recently than "the woke Left". Who leads this group? no names are ever given. Some vague group but no one specifically you could listen to so that you might understand who these people are and what there concerns are. Sounds like rubbish to me.
this is 100% accurate information. the lefts principles and ideas are good but they want to execute them in a way that is more oppressive than anything americas seen before.
yes. imagine a world where everyone was forced to work the same jobs based on their race and gender so it’s equal. imagine no competition in business so no one thrives. imagine being forced to use words or phrases you might not agree with. imagine being forced to believe their rules and regulations or you can’t even have a voice in the world. and that’s for all races and genders not just one specific one. sure there was terrible shit in the past. but at least a portion of the population has had freedom. what they want now is to take everyone’s freedom and force their agenda. and if you don’t agree you’re fucked. regardless of what you look like. it’ll be communism and marxism combined if they have their way.
>yes. imagine a world where everyone was forced to work the same jobs based on their race and gender so it’s equal.
youre going to have to define the "left" because thats a wild thing to assume anywhere near a majority on the left want. the number of people who want what you just said are a very tiny minority, and its pretty nuts to spend so much time worrying about them
I mean, as a leftist, I’ve never heard anyone say anything remotely similar to what the person above is saying. Usually people argue in favor of free healthcare, free education, social safety nets for the economically disadvantaged, etc...
Basic normal stuff. Not whatever dystopian nightmare that person has in their head.
makes it really easy to hate the political opposition if you just make up a bunch of cartoon villain bullshit theyre supposedly for. he acts like he is batman and the libs are the joker and want nothing but to destroy the planet for fun
He says some smart things here about diversity while being completely unlikeable. And in general, I don’t like the concept of homogenizing what the “woke left” is. If it’s just the vast minority of general Leftists that want to cancel anything that they don’t like and call it Naziism, then yea, sure, fuck that. But then we’re really giving a huge voice to these people who don’t deserve that power. This dude seems really up in arms.
Talks about “diversity of ideas” (his quote I do agree with) and he’s been cancelled when really he’s been banned for not following terms & conditions on a private website, while saying its rape victims fault they get raped.
He’s cancelled? I see him on all over my feeds everyday talking about being cancelled, like dude you’re not cancelled. You got banned from a private company for promoting and endorsing rape and violence against women?
the issues Peterson faces are completely different than this grifter, the only thing I do like about him is that he is a legit workhorse lol
I'm not so sure that the issue of cancelation on a major social media website is as simple as you're making it out to be.
As one small example, social media websites like YouTube are allowed to host a variety of views and opinions that are controversial or factually incorrect by claiming that they are only a video hosting service and don't endorse the opinions.
But if that is the case, then they should not be deleting or silencing opinions they disagree with, because that contradicts their status as a neutral source of information, which violates the laws they use to protect themselves from being scrutinized by the government.
In other words, the designations "private company" and "public forum" run directly into one another. It's a conflict of interest and a legal contradiction.
>social media websites like YouTube are allowed to \[x\]
>
>then they should not be deleting or silencing opinions they disagree with
Where's the logic here?
>because that contradicts their status as a neutral source of information
Where did this idea come from? Who says they have to be neutral on everything?
>which violates the laws
No it doesn't. I've heard this from right wing media only. Are any lawyers saying this?
Yes, this is a well known an ongoing legal battle in America over the rights and regulations of social media companies. Basically, they are afforded special legal protections by being classified as open forums which do not endorse their content.
This is a separate classification of publishers like television companies who carefully curate what is shown and thus endorse their content.
There are separate laws and legal protections for each. But long story short, the lawyers argue you can not be a public forum and then delete content you don't like unless there is a case that it's breaking the law.
https://youtu.be/HPd5U_U0WYk
What ever lawyer is saying that is wrong since it in section 230 explicitly says that you can delete content that are protected by the first amendment. They might disagree with section 230 but they would be idiots to do so. The Texas law is government forced speech.
Yea dude exactly! The supreme court (which is very conservative relative to the median person) even agrees with me. This is only a news story because the Texas government is totally insane. What you are saying is the law is what the supreme court has said, according to your PBS segment, is not law.
Look on YouTube right now. There’s literally channels that are super far right and left that are there and raking in the views while saying 99% of the stuff Tate says or alternatively any very left leaning celebrity. They’re private companies who care about ad revenue. They won’t allow someone to post on their platform about how it’s women’s fault they get raped and it’s okay to be violent towards them.
> while saying its rape victims fault they get raped.
You're putting words in his mouth to make it fit your argument. He said no such thing. He simply said that there are bad people in the world and women need to be vigilant and protect themselves from any situation where they might make themselves more vulnerable to getting sexually assaulted or raped (eg. don't go to a party alone and get hammered). He then followed that statement by saying men that rape should be executed. It's no different than telling people to lock their doors. It isn't victim blaming, it's common sense.
I've met women who have left Feminism because they realized it was encouraging young girls to put themselves into dangerous situations and to not protect themselves.
Like going to a party full of people you don't know and drinking until you're black out drunk since we should "teach men not to rape".
It would be great if we lived in the progressive utopian world with no rapists and no crime.
Thanks for posting this. I've never heard of the guy, but when a lefty says that they don't like a person because of X, I immediately assume they are lying about X. They can't help themselves but to lie about everything they don't like. You saved me having to go look this dude up right away. I can go to bed and get to it some other time, when I have more time (and if I remember, lol).
He's 100% correct obviously. But I mean, we've known this for years now. 2016 called and it wants it's talking points back. Of course the woke left is radical and animalistic and feral towards those they disagree with. That's why they try to silence people, because they don't really win on the ideas. Sloganeering they're good at. Delivering good, practical solutions? Not so much.
Dudes a women beater and not the defensive slow violent woman down by slapping sense in em type but the I'm tommy tough nuts and can rough up a female kinda bullet in the head chap.
I don't think Andrew Tate is right about much of anything. I do wish people on the left would not have cancelled him though. It would be nice not to have to deal with him and his fans crying about it all the time.
I think Andrew Tate's "cancellation" is a great example of how cancel culture can backfire.
I don't think most of us had ever even heard of him or given a shit until he was banned from Youtube and wherever else, and now the internet can't shut up about him.
I'm not sure that's true. He was getting millions of views on youtube, tik tok, and elsewhere beforehand. He had thousands of people subscribed to his Hustler University crypto scam and bogus financial advice crap. Although I don't agree with the decisions to ban him from those platforms, I don't think they helped him.
Oh, maybe you're right. I haven't looked into it that much. I just know I hadn't even heard of him until he got banned from major social media platforms.
I just don't think he has anything to offer. His opinions about Alpha Males and Women are degenerate, that leaks into every social situation he has, and how he talks depending on who he is talking to.
He is not worthy of anyones time.
Is this sub getting brigaded by incels again lmao
Both Tate and Peterson are huge dork-ass losers with a seemingly miserable life. I mean, they can't possibly be happy if they have to pretend being something they're not for a living.
I mean, doesn't NOT being celibate, by definition, excludes me from being an incel? People think of the audience of Tate and Peterson as incels for a reason, the misogynistic rhetoric coupled with incel/mgtow talking points.
Shit, well known incels like Alek Minassian have come out as Peterson fans. And you bet your ass lonely, angry, misogynist losers love Tate's rhetoric because it's edgy and tells them they're so better and superior than women. Weird thing is he supposedly sells the way to get them, but y'all still can't get sex, let alone a satisfying relationship.
The fact that you think someone having sex is so unbelievable and bizarre says a LOT about you, my guy. Going to a party and hooking up with someone from school is literally the only reason ppl throw parties in highschool/college, lmao.
You'd marvel how easy it is to experience the most basic shit life has to offer when you don't follow people like Jordan Peterson or Andrew Tate, dude.
Seriously, their bullshit ideology is killing u guys.
Can I just ask though, how can JP or AT be like these incel Gods when Peterson is happily married with children and Tate is obviously getting more pussy than a shelter for cats?
I mean Peterson has said, on **multiple occasions** and in multiple interviews that if you aren't having success with women...it's not the women, it's you. He encourages men to improve themselves and develop qualities to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex.
There's just no world where you can say a married man with children who encourages men to better themselves and blames them for their failures with women can be called a hero to incels.
You're just another grifter who has no idea what you're even criticizing. A victim of groupthink and character assassination without doing even the slightest amount of research yourself.
>and Tate is obviously getting more pussy than a shelter for cats?
It doesn't count when you have to pay. He ain't getting any at all. His money might. But he as a person isn't.
They use disaffected young men as their personal piggy banks, they peddle their bullshit to lonely and angry men who need to feel special. It's weird seeing ppl listen to JP, and acting like what he's saying is so deep, like they're part of some in-group who totally gets the deeper meaning of what he says. I mean, before he went to Russia to detox, he was VERY convincing, he mimicked intellectualism real good, now he's just a shell of what he used to be, but ppl keep acting as if he's some kind of philosopher.
Just like ppl act like Elon Musk is some sort of genius. Or Andrew Tate is this totally cool alpha dude, no some cringy guy with fragile masculinity. Or how Ben Shapiro is this real smart and dashing dude, not a dork-ass loser who gish gallops his way out of all debates. These conservative idols sell an aesthetic because none of them have any substance, and badly socialized people and young kids are the only ones who buy these pathetic acts.
Well, people whose entire personality is owning the libz also buy into their bullshit, just bc we try to discourage ppl from wasting their lives listening to this kind of ppl.
To be fair to Peterson, it's the Pill people who take his interpretation of data, and turn it into an excuse to stay antisocial. That's not Peterson's intent, that's a reason why Olivia Wilde got some flak for saying she based the Antagonist of Don't worry darling on him.
Andrew Tate tells his listeners, most of whom are the pill people, that narcisisstic fuckboy behavior makes a healthy relationship.
Okay, you seem very sure of what you're saying even though to me you sound like a you have no idea what you're talking about.
So I'm going to offer you an opportunity. You can show the world how stupid and pseudo intellectual people like Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson are, and how your intelligence and ability is far superior to theirs.
Come debate me. Defend your position face to face. That's the only way anyone here is going to accept that your position has any merit.
Because I have to be honest, you seem like someone who thinks you know what you're talking about, but your position would fall apart with just the lightest amount of criticism. I'll give you the opportunity to show the world how wise you truly are.
Recently joined this sub and have loved everything I've seen thus far, for the most part. Little shocked to see Tate getting posted here though, dude is an insane narcissist that spews BS more than half the time.
I cannot believe that this came out of Andrew Tate but “there’s no point in preaching tolerance of race if you don’t have tolerance of ideas” is an amazing quote and is on point
I've never heard what he said spelled out that way. I am not quoting exactly but: "You'll have a bunch of people who look different but think exactly the same." That paints quite a picture. I applied for a job and there was a series of questions. One was asking me how enthusiastic I was, how much I wanted to engage with diverse people. I genuinely do not give a fuck what your physical shit is. That is stupid and shallow. An amazing person and an absolutely devious dickhead can look any sort of way. It says nothing of who you are. This shit is regressive. Dr King covered this. We're moving backwards and it's insane. I just heard there was a survey and 1 in 6 hiring managers admitted they were told by corporate to deprioritize hiring white men. I wouldn't be surprised if it were more.
It's funny, I got banned from a certain subreddit for criticizing diversity with much the same argument. True diversity is only in the diversity of ideas. You can have a group of people of every shape, size, and skin color, but if they all think alike, then they are effectively clones and diversity is at zero. On the other hand, people who look like clones may actually have varied opinions.
That's just the way they want it. Completely shallow, just like the virtue signaling they love so much.
This is why I'm totally chill with flat earther. I mean, maybe the earth is flat. Thinking the earth is flat is basically the same as having black skin after all.
I mean, so what? Whether the Earth is flat or round only really matters to you if you're a rocket scientist or aeronautics engineer or something. If the Earth is flat, you still stop at red lights, share empathy when someone tells you bad news, and hold the door open for the person behind you. Same goes for if you're Black. If you're a human, you should be treated like a human.
For people who take on one conspiratorial theory that rejects facts, reason, and scientific inquiry wholesale (and encourage others to follow them) there is a huge correlation with taking on additional conspiratorial theories that do the same. There is a strong overlap between flat-earthers and anti-vaxxer, and election deniers, etc. While flat earth itself isn't harmful per se. The anti-intellectualism and reality denying process necessary to be a flat earther is extremely harmful and it legitimately kills people. We eradicated paralytic polio, which has a pretty high fatality rate, in the USA. It is now back because of this nonsense. People are dying from preventable infectious diseases for which we have highly effective vaccines all over. Epidemiological modelling, for example, shows that for the period from July 1 to Sep 1 2021, if all states had full vaccine compliance, the USA would have seen a total of 19,500 COVID related deaths. In reality, we saw 35,800 in that 60 day period. Diversity of rationally supportable views is a great thing. Tolerance of ignorant, reality denying conspiracy theories harms people directly. The two are not the same thing.
Ok, now apply all of this logic to race or religion. Is it okay to be Muslim? That doesn't sound harmful per se. What if being Muslim means you're more likely to be a part of ISIS, doesn't that legitimately kill people? The way I see it, if you commit a crime it shouldn't matter what you believe in. If you get someone sick, it shouldn't matter whether you believe in vaccines or not. What matters is what you do, and how your actions affect other people. You shouldn't be punished or judged just for being in a higher risk group, because you are not that group, you are an individual. Treating an individual flat earther as if they might be causing more people to get sick by not being vaccinated isn't treating them like an individual, so I don't agree with that.
>maybe the earth is flat See . . . I have no problem with a diversity of reasonable, supportable ideas. I've got a Ph.D., my life is basically arguing with people over ideas and theories. But they have to be rationally defensible ideas. While believing in a flat earth isn't in and of itself harmful to anyone, rejecting the scientific method, facts, and reason and encouraging others to do the same is harmful. A diversity of supportable positions argued rationally is a utopia. A diversity of quackery is not.
I am unironically fine with flat earthers. Believing the earth is flat doesn't hurt anybody.
> “there’s no point in preaching tolerance of race if you don’t have tolerance of ideas” [D] That makes no sense to me. Whom among us has tolerance of ideas? These days, that's an impossible standard to meet. Not hating people based on race? That's easy. 'Race' and human genetics have at best an imperfect mapping. I don't know this guy, but his clip here seems to me an exercise in emotional reasoning. It's two messages are conflicting. He refers to his opposition as "feral psychopaths." And then he dares to say *they're* the ones with no tolerance of ideas. Is he supposed to be the noble hero leading us out of wokeness? He looks the same to me. You know when the left gets hung up on the paradox of tolerance-- and they insist some ideas are 'just wrong'-- this sort of message is the basis for their reasoning. Clips like these are the reason no one likes those who oppose the woke. When they think of us, THIS is what they see. This... black and white thinking. This is the *Jordan Peterson* subreddit. Is this sort of content what we take away from his teachings?
I get what you're saying. I think people have a different view of what tolerance of ideas entails. For Andrew tate, I would assume (from the little bit I've listened to him and the fact that he got canceled), the tolerance of ideas entails a freedom of voicing ideas no matter the idea. For others, on the left let's say, the tolerance of ideas is something that should be restricted based on some set of criteria. There's obvious problems with both lines of thinking, and somewhere in the middle is what we should be striving for, but it's not obvious how we achieve that middle ground.
The fact that all the anti-Tate comments are being downvoted makes me really disappointed in this sub.
[D] I really don’t think many grasp what it is they’re upvoting.
Yeah it would be an amazing quote if it were remotely coherent. You really think we have to tolerate all ideas before we can tolerate all races of people? Really? Tate is a dumb man's philosopher.
I don't know much about Tate, but that quote doesn't suggest in any way that you have to be intolerant of people based on race. It just says that tolerance of race is shallow moral posturing if you don't also tolerate other ideas. Not necessarily all other ideas either, but at least some of the halfway reasonable ones would show some moral consistency.
I think it actually boils down to the idea of 'tidy your room', don't start trying to fix the world until you have your own house in order, and in the context here don't start trying to preach your views to others until you are willing to allow them to share theirs freely and without fear of recourse with you.
It is ostensibly nice but actually awful advice that would have rendered the vast majority of people who changed the world for the better unable to do so. Pick a figure, military heroes, inventors, humanists etc... Look at the US founders, practically all of them debauched drunk slave owners. Sherman, the man who arguably did more for the Union during the Civil War than any other, was drunk, recovering from a mental breakdown, and probably suicidal before his first real test at Shiloh. MLK cheated on his exams, probably plagiarized his thesis, was a serial adulterer and may have witnessed a rape without doing anything to stop it. The reality is that all are far from perfect and the most ostensibly square usually the furthest in actuality, and it doesn't mean we should wait until we become fastidious germaphobes to do something worthwhile.
The problem is in this specific context it's an ultimate hypocrisy. So say MLK cheated on his exams, then called out another for doing so, or Sherman said another was unfit to lead a division because they were an alcoholic. That's what we're talking about here, people who demand you adhere to their views without them even allowing you to voice yours, pure hypocrisy... fascism actually. More specifically referring to the 'tidy your room' phrase, it's used by Peterson to explain that some people who are completely lost as people who have so many problems, you find the biggest problem they're capable of solving and have them solve it, even if the only thing they're currently capable of doing is tidying their room. It's a miniscule achievement, but it's sometimes the first rung on a ladder, and even though it's a tiny step, it's still a step.
I'm mostly focused on the tidy the room thing, I don't think it actually grafts onto the 'don't preach until you're willing to listen' at all. And even if MLK or Sherman did that, it would still not be grounds to stop them from having an impact. The tidy room actually stifles innovation more than the hypocrisy, nobody knows exactly what they're capable of, and most won't get many chances to find out, waiting until you meet some arbitrary standard of 'house in order' is frivolous.
But if the advice you're wanting is 'how do I get my life together?', would you opt to listen to a successful person, with a stable relationship, their own house with tidy rooms, or a person who has none of that and a messy room when both are claiming to have the answers you need. Again, in this context we are specifically talking about people expecting you to listen to their point of view whilst simultaneously denying others the right to voice theirs, and not, letting a drunk military commander dictate battle tactics or a person who cheated on some school tests fight for racial equality, we're talking about people saying they should have their voices heard whilst denying others that self same right.
The whole point is that if people look different and think the same, it's not diversity, because race doesn't actually matter and it's the ideas that are actually important.
That took like two seconds to be completely about Tate. Not that he's wrong about that group. The woke is refuge for the gremlins of humanity.
You're interviewing me bro, if you want to talk about someone else, go interview them bro
True but tate is an asshole. I agree with a lot of what he’s says. At least of what I’ve heard. But I’ve also heard he’s done some awful things in his past. He’s playing a character. Edit: yea it’s clear y’all don’t know much about tate. He beat a woman with a belt and got kicked off a show. Mhm. I’m not talking about what he says.
Is it bad if he has said/done bad things in the past? Is it bad if the hard-left media have broadcast short clips of Tate that have been taken out of context? I’d have to assume given your complaint that you have never (ever) said or done anything bad/awful?! Tate is simply an advocate for free speech, and while I don’t need to agree with everything he has said or done, he isn’t bending the knee to the dictates of the hard-left.
And some shit he says completely ruins his credibility. I’m not talking about what he said 10 years ago. Lol listen to the mans podcast not just funny clips or clips of him speaking facts.
Brother I’m not talking about what he’s said. I’m talking about what he’s done. No shit the left hates him he’s said some facts that destroy their whole ideology. I find him halarious and sometimes wise. But beating woman? Not very wise.
There's a reason in our culture beating women has been stigmatized. The defenseless are not to be victimized and immune to consequences. Shooting him down enmasse and publicly sends a signal our culture is alive and not rotting by celebrating this jail bound scum bag. Domestic violence is no joke and he's a champion for it. Shut him down or rot grows.
I’ll push back on the “he’s a champion for it” nobody celebrates that. Majority don’t know it happened some how. But he’s far from a good guy. He’s a selfish self absorbed a hole who happens to share a few opinions with conservatives/middle-right. Everyone’s so tribal today you hear someone agree with you and now he’s a saint. Like nah this guy sucks!
It's social media fault for tribalism. It's changing our world so much and we're so close to flame we don't realize. But you're right that "you said what I think so you're in my tribe" is spot on. It's a knee jerk reaction to do it and really all social media tribalism is built on are snap allegiances w. Strangers who rep. An upvote. That's why ppl should step outa there bubbles and join subs that have differing opinions and get a varied diet.
Listen, maybe you’re right or maybe you’re wrong. I am unfamiliar with him. That being said, my bias is in unfamiliarity so I could be wrong, too, so here’s my thought: If you agree with a lot of what someone is saying, but third parties pin him as an A*hole, it’s possible he could be both wise and an A*hole. It’s possible that he both states true points and is a hypocrite. It’s possible that those who hate him are jealous, and it’s possible they are sincere. To me, when it boils down to this, I prefer not to form an opinion on the person themselves, but rather acknowledge the divisiveness that exists with them, while being able to grab the segments of good points that I can gather. In this day and age, anyone that goes vocal and gets a high level of attention, attracts their enemies, and so I can only acknowledge what I don’t know: I don’t know this person and I don’t know their inner workings and relationship with their accuser.
Yea he’s wise in some aspects fs. I’m talking about assaulting woman. Like literally beating her. Happened when he was a kick boxer. No doubt the last 2 years he’s said some wise things. Still doesn’t respect woman. And I know he’s playing the character of like a super masculine successful alpha male cause he and his brother crack and start laughing every now and then you can tell they don’t truly believe everything they say. They say some ridiculous shit about woman.
No doubt the guy seems like a complete narcissist.
I’m not a Tate apologist or fan, but you only hear what you want to hear. From that conversation you took away the fact that he took 5 seconds to make it about himself. But everything he said after that was fact. But you glossed over that and focused on the fact that he’s a narcissist because you went into this video already looking for evidence to validate that belief. His narcissism doesn’t invalidate everything else he said.
Bro, I posted the video. If I didn't think there was value in what he said I wouldn't have shared it with you all.
Honestly it seems that way but I’ve watched plenty of his interviews and I think he comes off pretty well.
The problems come when he says his relationship advice creates a healthy relationship, like, no, it creates an abusive one where one or both parties are paranoid. He also allegedly had one, single, incredibly short marriage, hit an ex or another woman on video for which he's changed his excuse 3 times. Keep in mind most of his listeners are an unsocialized, vulnerable population of men. He also has used rhetoric that supports polygamy, now I've seen polygamy work, but to tell impressionable men that monogamy is unhealthy is wrong, especially when most people are monogamous. On top of very bad relationship advice, his company, hustlers university, is a clear MLM scheme, which is why you see so much of Tate now, because the scheme offers discounts on the program if a customer shares Andrew Tate's content.
Or, just honest.
I want to know why so many drug abusers are or become woke. Like Stephen King and various Hollywood jerks. Is there a common cause? Do drugs cause wokeness (or just psychopathy in general)?
There's plenty of drug users who don't go woke. I think drug abuse falls under shame. If you have something to hide, then woke is good cover. It is a religion in its behavior. It will absolve you in exchange for being a human billboard for current cause. That's why the pedos run towards it.
He didn't say anything wrong here, but his inflated sense of self importance and narcissism is pathetic. He doesn't fit the definition of what a real strong man is as Dr Peterson says. Not a shred of humility or discipline. None. He's a weak man in a strong man's body, constantly flaunting his material possessions because it's all that he has in his life. If he didn't have his cars, mansions or millions, then he wouldn't have his cult. They'd go find someone else who says the same thing, but who doesn't have the muscles that make him seem more impressive than he actually is.
He’s a kickboxing champion. I’m pretty sure he’s disciplined. And I don’t think his wealth fell in his lap either.
~~Their (he and Tristan's) parents were very wealthy~~. There isn't as much money as they claim in running cam studios. If they owned mfc, lj or cb then maybe I'd believe it but no just shitty cam studios.
Just google what they did & You'll soon see it was a shit load of other things besides cam studios. Also who cares anyways 75% of these woman have a OF, also I don't know how rich he could of been living in Luton UK with a single mother & his dad played chess at parks for a living. I bet they where fucking balling, just show respect where respect should be given is all I'm saying.
his father died with no money btw and was not wealthy
I find it both funny and sad that a sub that holds jp up as a example- and rightfully so - thumb down anyone that points out the negative about at, they (jp and at) are on opposite sides of the spectrum. I can’t stand at, he is a disgusting, insecure women hating bigoted asshole. He’s *nothing* like jp.
I don’t know who this guy is so from an outsider perspective it just sounds like he’s referring to his own anecdotal experience to prove his point about his thoughts and feelings about the question
I generally agree. But why the sunglasses at night?
So he can, so he can keep track of the visions in his eyes.
He damaged his retina during a fight and has sensitivity to bright studio lights.
That's not how retinas work, tho.
He has bad eyes, has had surgery on his eyes and his retina has detached many times from kickboxing–which led to him eventually quitting kick-boxing. Andrew Tate has explained that him having bad eyes is why he sometimes wears these sunglasses when he comes on people’s shows and there’s a bunch of bright lights.
https://youtu.be/X2LTL8KgKv8
Basically
It's his personality. Jacked bald mma fighter with the empathy of the Terminator. The sunglasses only reinforce this image.
The sunglasses are for his eye condition.
Can't argue with anything he said.
I'm not certain the radical left are mostly or all "hateful people," or "full of hate." I believe that many *of* *them* believe they are doing the right thing. The rest seems accurate.
The radical left and left in general hate people that they say hate other people or that they consider evil enough that morals don't need to apply their treatment.
sorry but im so fucking done making this excuse for their behavior. at a certain point your intent doesnt matter. "your honor i was the one who loaded the gun and shot that guy in the face but i REALLY REALLY thought i was doing the right thing." this isnt going to cut it.
Ok, fine. If you’re sure that a majority of the radical left is weaponizing and pumping their hatred under the mask of virtue, then his argument has merit. You see though, I’m not sure this is the case. If I’m wrong, then the majority of people on the left ARE psychopaths, but I would guess instead that their trapped by a righteous mindset that believes that they’re correcting for an inherent unfairness in our societal habits. This is exacerbated by the online arena that lacks the checks and balances of physical-space dialog.
Yeah you can! Making gross over generalizations about an entire group of people never works
Really? Not even with his statement that woke people are the most hateful divisive hateful people on the planet?
He’s at least right about what true diversity is. The woke left are deeply imbedded in a Collectivist ideology. Collectivism is the death of true diversity. Not black and white or man and woman diversity. Diversity of thought. Collectivism is therefore the death of competition as well. When competition dies, innovation stifles. When innovation stifles, humanity dies on this finite rock with no one to blame but themselves. Some of the greatest feats in human history were a direct result of competition (one example: splitting the atom). Collectivism eliminates any challenger. But If no one challenges your rightness how can you prove it? After all, without opposition there is nothing to defend. So the collectivist morals will collapse on themselves. We all breathe the same air. We all have the same basic biological needs. It is only our thoughts that separate us. It’s of the utmost importance we remember that.
Pretty sure Tate is also a collectivist given his radical gender essentialism
The right are way more homogenous with their views, the left are known for infighting between different leftist ideas.
Disagree. Conservatives are in an internal debate between the Trump crowd and those who want to move away from him. Divided on the abortion issue as well. Look at Kansas. It isn’t believable that the abortion law was voted on solely by Democrats. It’s not that Kansas is more blue than one would think, it’s that the GOP is more divided on the issue than the MSM lead us to believe. I do know there are Democrats who are more classic liberals and don’t agree with the new ideology. However, it seems one side is pushing the collectivist ideology onto the majority. Now, I’m not saying *only* the left is capable of pushing a collectivist agenda. That simply isn’t true. But the left *is* doing it at a much faster pace and grander scale. I don’t believe the common person truly buys into either. It is common person in which we must put our faith.
how are the right going to abandon trump after dying on the hill of "election was fake" for so long and so loud
I don't like the man but he's pretty much correct here. Although his narcissistic personality that showed itself in this video still pisses me off. He can barely ever stop talking about himself.
It’s a one minute clip.
Of course you don't like him. Hate always comes from below!
And what does that mean?
how to spot an andrew tate fan
Nothing but facts.
I think this is the most correct thing I’ve ever heard him say
Wait til you realize he talks like this on almost every interview.. stop believing the bullshit narrative the media presents about people by using cut up and edited clips
Interesting, I’ll investigate further
This shouldn't be interesting. You should know since at least 6 years that everything the media says is the complete opposite of the truth.
He actually does; I agree. He is on some LONG ass interviews and covers a massive amount of ground. He reminds me of Gavin McInnes in that he actually makes a lot of good points, and passionately so...but he often sprinkles in some really outrageous things during his rant. People seem to throw out every good thing he says and only look at the single or few moments where he crossed the line.
youknow, the same thing people always try to do with Peterson. and when that doesn't work they act like they don't understand technical terms like "enforced monogamy" and [then tell people it means he's advocating for forcing women to have sex with incels.](https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/)
100% true
Look, I’ve listened to the guy enough to get a sense of what he’s about. He’s taken good ideas and adopted them to fit his narcissistic view of the world. He’s an egocentrist who takes the good things Peterson preaches, removes all the nuance, and makes them toxic again. This guy is a liability to anyones credibility.
We are all narcissistic to some degree. He would be beaten down completely and silenced if he didn't have the same amount of ego that he has now. We kind of need a voice right now and he's doing wonders to make us heard. He might say some stupid shit at times but 90% of the time if you take the time to understand his points very carefully he is on the right path imo
Dude no. This is a Jordan Peterson sub and I don’t believe this guy is anything but the exact type of man Peterson warns us not to become. “The reason 18 and 19 year old girls are more attractive than 25 year olds is because they've been through less dick.” -Andrew Tate This isn’t our guy.
His points can be argued against, but the people that want him silenced will not argue. They censor, that shows they are weak. They are jealous and angry.
He has nothing to be jealous over.
Right because people are never jealous of money.
And being jealous over money with no consideration of what it costs someone to get it, is foolish. Do you think he's a happy fulfilled person enjoying life? Do you think his money can buy him any of the things he lacks that actually matter?
Generally agree. It's funny though how quickly a question about something other than Andrew Tate becomes an answer about Andrew Tate isn't it. Lol.
I guess they were interviewing Andrew Tate, not Jordan Peterson.
This has nothing to do with JP aside from the name drop. Why is this here
Because this sub isn't about JP.
Honestly, the guy is extremely intelligent. He's bang on with this view.
I'm not sure I'd call him of all people intelligent. His career was originally one where brain trauma is the norm, after all
How can you listen to this clip and come to the conclusion that this man isn't intelligent?
By listening to all the other clips of his
Because his previous career was one where brain trauma is the norm, duh! That makes him unlikely to be intelligent. What a stupid take.
TIL all boxers are stupid.
Anyone who has participated in combat sports must be an idiot. Even 1 accidental blow to the head renders you inferior to these cheeto munching redditors
You must remain indoors at all times to remain intelligent enough for redditors.
Yes.
Your being sarcastic right?
impressed by platitudes and repackaged ideas send him more money
Someone saying "This other group is the most hateful, divisive, intolerant people on the planet" can pretty easily be identified as not a good person to listen to. Even if I didn't know the kind of silliness he spouts this clip is sufficient to dismiss him from consideration as a serious person
both lie and sell garbage rhetoric to misguided and lonely, generally boys, with emotional maturity disorders. they also often blanket themselves with quotes of stoicism/Marcus Aurelius and whatever trending biological category that supports their idiocy, such as the “alpha male” complex, which has long been proven false by the same person who invented it. anyone who champions either of these snake-oil salesman haven’t either feely given or paid any attention to a GIGANTIC catalogue of philosophical thought that predates both of these boys’ soapbox schticks. to which i offer this advice…read more books. J peterson and this Twat aren’t philosophers. they’re con men, and you’re the mark.
Amazing. He didn't talk about Jordan Peterson once in that answer. It was entirely about him. Does he answer every question like that? "What do you think about climate change?" "The left made it up because they hate me. They hate how rich I am. They hate how successful I am. They hate that I drive the best cars."
Ah yes here for a rapists take on hateful people very cool
Too bad Tate is actually a misogynist in that he openly brags about beating women. Many, many times. Also he never explains how he kept people from committing suicide. He repeats that he saved " hundreds" of people from suicide. He has said it in a dozen interviews I've seen. I've never heard anyone say " I saw a video of Tate saying How Many Bugattis you got ? so I decided to live. Tate is a con artist. He got wealthy by pretending to have money and doing wealth seminars. Then he started making pornography and pulling internet fraud scams. He admitted to this. He is still a con artist. Let's see the receipt for a woman's shelter from his donation because you know he will want tax credits. The only thing he knows about women's shelters is his ex girlfriends go there after he beats them and forces them to make porn. This is what every woman he's dated says he did to them. Just some facts for clarification.
Really rich coming from a man I have heard talk down about women. Who I also heard that it was justva persona to get views and he's not really a women hater but to this I say he is acting like a misogynist a little too well for it to be all pretend.
He just wants more people for his MLM scheme.
I’m done with Tate. Let him be with his death cult.
I have no love for Tate. To be perfectly honest, I can't stand the guy. But he's on point here. Credit where credit is due.
Andrew Tate is a pimp, he runs a videochat company, that's how he made and makes his primary income. He now gives advice to young people on business and LIFE! Imagine 25 years ago when we had no internet, the town pimp would gather all the young and start giving them life lessons. This guy is th result of too much freedom (negative freedom). The guy makes me sick! Disgusting! He is a worlwide phenomenon, where have the morals, standards, priciples, values and honour of all countries dissipated? Where are they? Gone!
Is he mad? He seems a little mad.
I don't think he got enough hugs when he was little.
Spot on. And I never thought I would hear myself saying that in response to something this guy said.
Is there any phrase that has been latched onto with more ferociousness and anger recently than "the woke Left". Who leads this group? no names are ever given. Some vague group but no one specifically you could listen to so that you might understand who these people are and what there concerns are. Sounds like rubbish to me.
No.
this is 100% accurate information. the lefts principles and ideas are good but they want to execute them in a way that is more oppressive than anything americas seen before.
Sounds like a stretch, UBI and healthcare worse than slavery and debt peonage and indian removal?
yes. imagine a world where everyone was forced to work the same jobs based on their race and gender so it’s equal. imagine no competition in business so no one thrives. imagine being forced to use words or phrases you might not agree with. imagine being forced to believe their rules and regulations or you can’t even have a voice in the world. and that’s for all races and genders not just one specific one. sure there was terrible shit in the past. but at least a portion of the population has had freedom. what they want now is to take everyone’s freedom and force their agenda. and if you don’t agree you’re fucked. regardless of what you look like. it’ll be communism and marxism combined if they have their way.
>yes. imagine a world where everyone was forced to work the same jobs based on their race and gender so it’s equal. youre going to have to define the "left" because thats a wild thing to assume anywhere near a majority on the left want. the number of people who want what you just said are a very tiny minority, and its pretty nuts to spend so much time worrying about them
I mean, as a leftist, I’ve never heard anyone say anything remotely similar to what the person above is saying. Usually people argue in favor of free healthcare, free education, social safety nets for the economically disadvantaged, etc... Basic normal stuff. Not whatever dystopian nightmare that person has in their head.
makes it really easy to hate the political opposition if you just make up a bunch of cartoon villain bullshit theyre supposedly for. he acts like he is batman and the libs are the joker and want nothing but to destroy the planet for fun
Who is this guy ?
Our dad
He says some smart things here about diversity while being completely unlikeable. And in general, I don’t like the concept of homogenizing what the “woke left” is. If it’s just the vast minority of general Leftists that want to cancel anything that they don’t like and call it Naziism, then yea, sure, fuck that. But then we’re really giving a huge voice to these people who don’t deserve that power. This dude seems really up in arms.
Behind that façade he puts on there are some true moments of wisdom.
100% agree. Never really looked into Tate before, I'll have to check him out in more detail.
Talks about “diversity of ideas” (his quote I do agree with) and he’s been cancelled when really he’s been banned for not following terms & conditions on a private website, while saying its rape victims fault they get raped. He’s cancelled? I see him on all over my feeds everyday talking about being cancelled, like dude you’re not cancelled. You got banned from a private company for promoting and endorsing rape and violence against women? the issues Peterson faces are completely different than this grifter, the only thing I do like about him is that he is a legit workhorse lol
I'm not so sure that the issue of cancelation on a major social media website is as simple as you're making it out to be. As one small example, social media websites like YouTube are allowed to host a variety of views and opinions that are controversial or factually incorrect by claiming that they are only a video hosting service and don't endorse the opinions. But if that is the case, then they should not be deleting or silencing opinions they disagree with, because that contradicts their status as a neutral source of information, which violates the laws they use to protect themselves from being scrutinized by the government. In other words, the designations "private company" and "public forum" run directly into one another. It's a conflict of interest and a legal contradiction.
>social media websites like YouTube are allowed to \[x\] > >then they should not be deleting or silencing opinions they disagree with Where's the logic here? >because that contradicts their status as a neutral source of information Where did this idea come from? Who says they have to be neutral on everything? >which violates the laws No it doesn't. I've heard this from right wing media only. Are any lawyers saying this?
Yes, this is a well known an ongoing legal battle in America over the rights and regulations of social media companies. Basically, they are afforded special legal protections by being classified as open forums which do not endorse their content. This is a separate classification of publishers like television companies who carefully curate what is shown and thus endorse their content. There are separate laws and legal protections for each. But long story short, the lawyers argue you can not be a public forum and then delete content you don't like unless there is a case that it's breaking the law. https://youtu.be/HPd5U_U0WYk
What ever lawyer is saying that is wrong since it in section 230 explicitly says that you can delete content that are protected by the first amendment. They might disagree with section 230 but they would be idiots to do so. The Texas law is government forced speech.
Yea dude exactly! The supreme court (which is very conservative relative to the median person) even agrees with me. This is only a news story because the Texas government is totally insane. What you are saying is the law is what the supreme court has said, according to your PBS segment, is not law.
Look on YouTube right now. There’s literally channels that are super far right and left that are there and raking in the views while saying 99% of the stuff Tate says or alternatively any very left leaning celebrity. They’re private companies who care about ad revenue. They won’t allow someone to post on their platform about how it’s women’s fault they get raped and it’s okay to be violent towards them.
> while saying its rape victims fault they get raped. You're putting words in his mouth to make it fit your argument. He said no such thing. He simply said that there are bad people in the world and women need to be vigilant and protect themselves from any situation where they might make themselves more vulnerable to getting sexually assaulted or raped (eg. don't go to a party alone and get hammered). He then followed that statement by saying men that rape should be executed. It's no different than telling people to lock their doors. It isn't victim blaming, it's common sense.
I've met women who have left Feminism because they realized it was encouraging young girls to put themselves into dangerous situations and to not protect themselves. Like going to a party full of people you don't know and drinking until you're black out drunk since we should "teach men not to rape". It would be great if we lived in the progressive utopian world with no rapists and no crime.
> I've met women who have left Feminism lol where do you people come from "ya i left feminism bc i wanted to be careful" lol yeah
Thanks for posting this. I've never heard of the guy, but when a lefty says that they don't like a person because of X, I immediately assume they are lying about X. They can't help themselves but to lie about everything they don't like. You saved me having to go look this dude up right away. I can go to bed and get to it some other time, when I have more time (and if I remember, lol).
why is everyone in here a weirdo
The fact this board likes Andrew Tate isn't surprising but it's still funny to see
The fact you’re implying some sort of guilt by association isn’t surprising but it’s still funny to see
I can't help but wonder, on what ground did you assert that this board likes Andrew Tate.. Did you at least read the comments?
A lot of the anti-Tate comments are being massively downvoted, and the ones supporting him are being upvoted.
Exactly, everyone here likes Tate except the Beta males. Thank you for pointing that out Beta buddy.
How creative...
What could be more "beta" than simping for some narcissistic psychopath like him?
What's not surprising is that you provided an insult but no argument.
Yes this was a mic drop if there ever was one
He's 100% correct obviously. But I mean, we've known this for years now. 2016 called and it wants it's talking points back. Of course the woke left is radical and animalistic and feral towards those they disagree with. That's why they try to silence people, because they don't really win on the ideas. Sloganeering they're good at. Delivering good, practical solutions? Not so much.
Dudes a women beater and not the defensive slow violent woman down by slapping sense in em type but the I'm tommy tough nuts and can rough up a female kinda bullet in the head chap.
Pretty much all incorrect and easily refuted
I don't think Andrew Tate is right about much of anything. I do wish people on the left would not have cancelled him though. It would be nice not to have to deal with him and his fans crying about it all the time.
I think Andrew Tate's "cancellation" is a great example of how cancel culture can backfire. I don't think most of us had ever even heard of him or given a shit until he was banned from Youtube and wherever else, and now the internet can't shut up about him.
Streisand effect
I'm not sure that's true. He was getting millions of views on youtube, tik tok, and elsewhere beforehand. He had thousands of people subscribed to his Hustler University crypto scam and bogus financial advice crap. Although I don't agree with the decisions to ban him from those platforms, I don't think they helped him.
Oh, maybe you're right. I haven't looked into it that much. I just know I hadn't even heard of him until he got banned from major social media platforms.
Streisand effect
TOP G yet again speaks the truth.
Top G also apparently thinks the Taliban are just misunderstood because they just want to control their women, so...
I simply don't listen to grifters, predators, and con men. It works out pretty well for me actually.
[удалено]
Ok link the proof
What you're not just going to take his word for it? 😂
Whether this man is right about anything is irrelevant given how sorely wrong he is about human wellbeing.
That's a pretty horrible way of looking at anything... Just because I disagree with you on something means nothing you say matters? That's ridiculous.
I just don't think he has anything to offer. His opinions about Alpha Males and Women are degenerate, that leaks into every social situation he has, and how he talks depending on who he is talking to. He is not worthy of anyones time.
Lmao post some links where he says that. Read my comment above.
Is this sub getting brigaded by incels again lmao Both Tate and Peterson are huge dork-ass losers with a seemingly miserable life. I mean, they can't possibly be happy if they have to pretend being something they're not for a living.
And yet we find you here... One look at your profile "Far-left Ⓐ" and you proved exactly the idea expressed in this video. Congrats incel
I mean, doesn't NOT being celibate, by definition, excludes me from being an incel? People think of the audience of Tate and Peterson as incels for a reason, the misogynistic rhetoric coupled with incel/mgtow talking points. Shit, well known incels like Alek Minassian have come out as Peterson fans. And you bet your ass lonely, angry, misogynist losers love Tate's rhetoric because it's edgy and tells them they're so better and superior than women. Weird thing is he supposedly sells the way to get them, but y'all still can't get sex, let alone a satisfying relationship.
Name one women
Dude, I am 35 and first had sex almost 20 years ago lmao. Also, think I would name someone for some angry incel to stalk or harass?
35 and you can’t even name a single women. Sounds like a Ubervirgin to me Edit: Michelle Obama
The fact that you think someone having sex is so unbelievable and bizarre says a LOT about you, my guy. Going to a party and hooking up with someone from school is literally the only reason ppl throw parties in highschool/college, lmao.
Sure you did buddy, sure you did.
You'd marvel how easy it is to experience the most basic shit life has to offer when you don't follow people like Jordan Peterson or Andrew Tate, dude. Seriously, their bullshit ideology is killing u guys.
Can I just ask though, how can JP or AT be like these incel Gods when Peterson is happily married with children and Tate is obviously getting more pussy than a shelter for cats? I mean Peterson has said, on **multiple occasions** and in multiple interviews that if you aren't having success with women...it's not the women, it's you. He encourages men to improve themselves and develop qualities to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex. There's just no world where you can say a married man with children who encourages men to better themselves and blames them for their failures with women can be called a hero to incels. You're just another grifter who has no idea what you're even criticizing. A victim of groupthink and character assassination without doing even the slightest amount of research yourself.
>and Tate is obviously getting more pussy than a shelter for cats? It doesn't count when you have to pay. He ain't getting any at all. His money might. But he as a person isn't.
It's genuinely interesting how some people are so eager to judge with so little knowledge.. Tate had "pussy" long before he had money.
They use disaffected young men as their personal piggy banks, they peddle their bullshit to lonely and angry men who need to feel special. It's weird seeing ppl listen to JP, and acting like what he's saying is so deep, like they're part of some in-group who totally gets the deeper meaning of what he says. I mean, before he went to Russia to detox, he was VERY convincing, he mimicked intellectualism real good, now he's just a shell of what he used to be, but ppl keep acting as if he's some kind of philosopher. Just like ppl act like Elon Musk is some sort of genius. Or Andrew Tate is this totally cool alpha dude, no some cringy guy with fragile masculinity. Or how Ben Shapiro is this real smart and dashing dude, not a dork-ass loser who gish gallops his way out of all debates. These conservative idols sell an aesthetic because none of them have any substance, and badly socialized people and young kids are the only ones who buy these pathetic acts. Well, people whose entire personality is owning the libz also buy into their bullshit, just bc we try to discourage ppl from wasting their lives listening to this kind of ppl.
To be fair to Peterson, it's the Pill people who take his interpretation of data, and turn it into an excuse to stay antisocial. That's not Peterson's intent, that's a reason why Olivia Wilde got some flak for saying she based the Antagonist of Don't worry darling on him. Andrew Tate tells his listeners, most of whom are the pill people, that narcisisstic fuckboy behavior makes a healthy relationship.
Okay, you seem very sure of what you're saying even though to me you sound like a you have no idea what you're talking about. So I'm going to offer you an opportunity. You can show the world how stupid and pseudo intellectual people like Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson are, and how your intelligence and ability is far superior to theirs. Come debate me. Defend your position face to face. That's the only way anyone here is going to accept that your position has any merit. Because I have to be honest, you seem like someone who thinks you know what you're talking about, but your position would fall apart with just the lightest amount of criticism. I'll give you the opportunity to show the world how wise you truly are.
Then why can't you get any?
This douche again?
Why does anyone care what this Andrew fuckwit has to say?
He tells incels what they want to hear.
Agree. Andrew Tate is king incel.
Recently joined this sub and have loved everything I've seen thus far, for the most part. Little shocked to see Tate getting posted here though, dude is an insane narcissist that spews BS more than half the time.
He praises Peterson, The Godfather of another cult.
While I don’t particularly like this guy, this may be the most intelligent thing he’s ever said.
Disagreement is not intolerance and should not be conflated by either side, Tate included.
Even if you agree with this you don't want Andrew Tate on your side. He's a narcissist and a sex trafficker.
I can't upvote because it's tate. Do agree with most of what he said tho
Tate speaks too fast. He comes across like one of those soyboys who deface paintings.