I feel there might be a little more to it than that though: judging by how Tate's scam 'University' and general videos are pitched, a lot of it seems to be about making money, so presumably his viewers do not have enough money and perceive themselves as screwed over by the system, economically, which they very well might be in this time of increasing living costs, etc (even if relatively they might be doing better than women or people of colour, for instance).
And if his viewers feel that they're unfairly poor / broke, plus that they can't get laid (or that women won't sleep with them because woke reasons), you have a basic recipe for perceived victimhood right there.
Rofl. Tate has literally admitted / boasted in several interviews to running a sex-webcam scam ring in Romania to scam money out sad lonely men, saying he immigrated to Romania and set up his business there primarily because there is less strict law enforcement there than in the UK, while still protecting him from getting mugged and his watch stolen on the street. Sounds like he knew exactly what he was getting into and the risks he was taking.
(Oh god, I just realised it's obvious I've somehow been watching far too much stuff about this guy. Is this how you become a red-pilled Tatebro? Help me. Please. Anyone. Or at least stop posting more Tate-related videos in this thread that I can't not watch, like a slow-motion car crash :)
That he is a skeezy self-admitted scammer / sex-webcam operator who has allegedly human-trafficked is not news (the investigation has reportedly been running for a while now) and for some unfathomable reason is part of his persona.
Greta's smackdown and his response on the other hand were genuine entertainment.
Right after the thread of the murders and atrocities committed by fascist regimes and those committed by 'state servants' on Naxalites and supposed 'sympathisers'.
We don't plan to be publishing any new Andrew Tate threads, and even posting this one was probably a mistake seeing as he's basically an attention-whoring troll (but the thread was probably allowed because of curiosity of this boomer mod who had barely heard of this clown)...
Well said ....Fame does not equal brilliance/excellence.....the y(yr Q)....Fame is (mostly)founded on emotional appeasement, but not rationality.case in point- actors,not really heroes but see the fan frenzy
Priceless: Piers' expression when Tate keeps saying he doesn't care about Taliban banning women from getting an education.
Also priceless: Piers trying to both agree and disagree with Tate that feminists are bad.
Also lol: Piers explains how the police arrested someone but eventually didn't prosecute someone who made a death threat against Morgan's family on Instagram. Tate: "If that same man called a transgender person the wrong pronouns, he would be in trouble... That would never happen in a place like the United Arab Emirates, a place I'm now residing." Lolz.
Finally, why is Tate so scared of crime all the time? He walks around Harrods with 6 bodyguards, and he's still scared someone will steal his watch? Isn't he some kick-boxing champion?
Wow, this guy has mundane opinions on everything. Seen him refer to it in some other video, but do you have a video where he ever explains honestly what he thinks his secret to 'virality' / influencer success is?
Thanks for sharing, what a messed up / fascinating family - wasn't really aware of them before watching some videos now...
So in short, as a potted summary, are Andrew Tate and his brother are professional scam-artists, who prey on lonely men (both with their previous webcam business - https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brothers-make-millions-using-webcam-26508739 - and with their current Hustler's University), yet their audience consists to a large extent of lonely, underpaid men, who want to be rich and get laid?
He definitely has a captivating everyday manner when he speaks about business / his matrix in very simple language, though there are thousands of other influencers who speak about business better and with more useful tips. So the bedrock of his popularity seems to be that he says the trollish things he says to provoke outrage and that he does genuinely hate women / think that men are superior to women (except thepoor, lonely men he scams out of their money, by making them believe that they will become 'alpha' / asshole males like him if they buy their course, and avoid getting scammed by people like him in future)?
He speaks for masculinity, and the idea that men have a certain role to play in society as breadwinners, he gets a lot of flak for saying this but majority of world still have not received women empowerment yet so it resonates with large population. And also what color is your bugatti ?
have only watched 4-5 clips that randomly showed up on insta - but really liked what he had to say.
To say his arguments are illogical is not true. There is logic in the videos I saw. But it is not necessary to engage with logic and empirical evidence all the time. He is on a mission, and he is spreading a message. He will naturally appeal more to emotion than evidence.
How about we not? And the respected mod actually publish useful posts like internship and publication skills rather than further his/her/ their/ etc. politics
I am all up for a discussion, but you didn’t exactly clarify the exact stance(s) of his which you disagree upon. Your critique , to me atleast, does not seem to be based on the substance of his arguments but on massive generalisations and your personal grievances towards his personality traits. Are there any specific instances in the Morgan interview that seemed to not be of ‘substance’ to you?
One explanation is that fame on the internet (or in the real world) does not correlate to being able to string a logical argument together. Sure enough, Kim Kardashian didn't become a billionaire for her logic, nor did Trump become President for his ability to string a coherent thought together?
That said, also interested why people like him (if anyone here does).
Why is Andrew Tate relevant in the universe of public discourse? Is he adding any substance to it?
I tried giving his views a patient listen and found him to:
a. be foolishly pompous for no reason -
He supports his views (many of which are downright problematic), claiming to possess a nuanced point of view, and yet, 15 minutes into most discussions, one finds him changing goalposts and not owning up to his blunders.
b. take discussions on a tangent with anecdotal experiences; which is fine so long as one doesn't use them to contest views based on empirical evidence, logic, and science (and that too in the way he goes about it)!
Frankly, I'm all ears for diverse/ contrarian views. Take Jordan Peterson, for example. You can disagree with him, but you can't fault him for setting up his argument with straws.
I feel there might be a little more to it than that though: judging by how Tate's scam 'University' and general videos are pitched, a lot of it seems to be about making money, so presumably his viewers do not have enough money and perceive themselves as screwed over by the system, economically, which they very well might be in this time of increasing living costs, etc (even if relatively they might be doing better than women or people of colour, for instance).
And if his viewers feel that they're unfairly poor / broke, plus that they can't get laid (or that women won't sleep with them because woke reasons), you have a basic recipe for perceived victimhood right there.
Worship him all you want and be a hypocrite.
https://youtu.be/Bc8z0nENjcU
(Oh god, I just realised it's obvious I've somehow been watching far too much stuff about this guy. Is this how you become a red-pilled Tatebro? Help me. Please. Anyone. Or at least stop posting more Tate-related videos in this thread that I can't not watch, like a slow-motion car crash :)
https://youtu.be/uooF5JX-dh0
Greta's smackdown and his response on the other hand were genuine entertainment.
Priceless: Piers' expression when Tate keeps saying he doesn't care about Taliban banning women from getting an education.
Also priceless: Piers trying to both agree and disagree with Tate that feminists are bad.
Also lol: Piers explains how the police arrested someone but eventually didn't prosecute someone who made a death threat against Morgan's family on Instagram. Tate: "If that same man called a transgender person the wrong pronouns, he would be in trouble... That would never happen in a place like the United Arab Emirates, a place I'm now residing." Lolz.
Finally, why is Tate so scared of crime all the time? He walks around Harrods with 6 bodyguards, and he's still scared someone will steal his watch? Isn't he some kick-boxing champion?
https://youtu.be/2QcZSVu3CCY
So in short, as a potted summary, are Andrew Tate and his brother are professional scam-artists, who prey on lonely men (both with their previous webcam business - https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brothers-make-millions-using-webcam-26508739 - and with their current Hustler's University), yet their audience consists to a large extent of lonely, underpaid men, who want to be rich and get laid?
He definitely has a captivating everyday manner when he speaks about business / his matrix in very simple language, though there are thousands of other influencers who speak about business better and with more useful tips. So the bedrock of his popularity seems to be that he says the trollish things he says to provoke outrage and that he does genuinely hate women / think that men are superior to women (except thepoor, lonely men he scams out of their money, by making them believe that they will become 'alpha' / asshole males like him if they buy their course, and avoid getting scammed by people like him in future)?
How does this even work?!
https://youtu.be/XOnrQc4YAFU
Sincerely
Top Q
To say his arguments are illogical is not true. There is logic in the videos I saw. But it is not necessary to engage with logic and empirical evidence all the time. He is on a mission, and he is spreading a message. He will naturally appeal more to emotion than evidence.
That said, also interested why people like him (if anyone here does).
I tried giving his views a patient listen and found him to:
a. be foolishly pompous for no reason -
He supports his views (many of which are downright problematic), claiming to possess a nuanced point of view, and yet, 15 minutes into most discussions, one finds him changing goalposts and not owning up to his blunders.
b. take discussions on a tangent with anecdotal experiences; which is fine so long as one doesn't use them to contest views based on empirical evidence, logic, and science (and that too in the way he goes about it)!
Frankly, I'm all ears for diverse/ contrarian views. Take Jordan Peterson, for example. You can disagree with him, but you can't fault him for setting up his argument with straws.
Context-
https://youtu.be/VGWGcESPltM
Thoughts!?