Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Andrew Tate

Options
1235760

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 33,617 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    You made some bullsh*t reasoning that social media companies are akin to public utilities, but they're not. You break their rules, you get banned, and their rules are always, always, wide enough to give them enough leeway to ban someone. They don't want to ban people because the more people on their site, the more revenue they make, and they don't really give a f*ck what people are actually saying, but the fact is if someone is having an excessive negative effect they'll ban them.

    You stand in a pub calling another person a c*nt, you're going to get kicked out.

    Why should the online world be so different?



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,617 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Social media companies are not akin to public squares because they are privately owned entities who can be held liable for content posted on their platform, negative attention or publicity can affect their business & reputation, and by using their site you are subject to their terms and conditions. A subscription isn't required to be subject to the terms and conditions.

    It's free to the public because the public is the products, as their business models relate to advertisement and data collection.



  • Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Like other grifters, appeals to the sh1t for brains brigade and they lap it up



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,617 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    That's your opinion, but not something based in fact. The fact is, they are private companies who can remove people from their platforms. The reason they can do that, is because they're private companies.

    If you want further evidence of same, remember; Twitter and Facebook banned Trump, while Trump was still President. Trump tried to sue Twitter, and lost.

    He lost because Twitter is a private company, not a public utility, de facto or otherwise.



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,617 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    "The reason they can do it, is that the legislation they operate under favours their interests rather than interests of the public."

    ...because they're a private company.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,617 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Just because you continue to call it a public utility doesn't make it so. It's also not a public utility business model, because its business model is to sell advertising and user information. That's where they make their money. Their job is not to provide a public service.

    You may have missed an edit I made to a previous post, so I'll summarise it. Trump, as President, was banned from Twitter and Facebook. He tried to sue Twitter and lost. This happened because they're not public utilities or deemed to be. They are private companies.

    Here's the last thing I'll say on this; I'm posting facts. These companies are private companies and are not public utilities, and therefore have the right to ban users from their platform. You're posting opinion. You consider these companies to be de facto public utilities, something which has not been found to be legally or logically true. You're entitled to your opinion. But you're also just wrong.



  • Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    Completely agree.

    You can see from the comments here how little people know of him, and yet are so certain of what he is. "I know enough to know that ___" is not the same as being informed.

    I think people disregard him too easily. I think he is far more intelligent and resourceful than he is given credit for. I think what draws young people (mainly boys) to Andrew Tate is his unapologetic plain-speaking, similar to Trump capturing a portion of the public's imagination. He has become a citizen/resident in multiple countries so that he has options. Some will say that is proof that he is doing something illegal. I disagree, I think some people are far more sensitive to soft tyranny than others, and will do what they can to live freely.

    Personally I think he's a freak of nature, in that he has an iron mindset, possibly a genius IQ, and is physically in the top .001% of men. You have to give the guy some respect for becoming the most googled man, basically figuring out how to ride the algorithm. He's also a self-made multimillionaire. I actually don't think he's a bad guy. I saw a guy say on his life chat that he had recently broken his back and he told the guy to send him an email, that he would reach out and try help the guy. Maybe people think he's full of it, but I've seen enough to think that he has some empathy, though probably a lot less than most people.

    I think at least part of him genuinely wants to help the average man. His comments are hyperbolic and inflammatory, but if you watch his long form videos, he explains how he has come to those conclusions. I think his persona is designed to provoke people, but he can handle himself in a debate. He was recently accused of being a toxic male. He countered with "You've just outsourced your toxic masculinity. As soon as you don't feel safe, you'll pick up your phone and call the police, you'll call 'toxic males' to come save you". I think there's a grain of truth in that.

    I think what he's doing now is some kind of long term plan for global recognition, maybe trying to create / grow an alternative media for masculine men. People think he's done because he's cancelled. He might just be gathering steam.



  • Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    To be fair, he didn't fail in the marketplace of ideas. He was actually so successful that the market banned him. If being a **** person was the criteria for banning, Twitter would implode.

    Manipulating the algorithm is the equivalent of card counting. Its not illegal, but the house will rap your knuckles if they catch you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    One good thing about these threads is that you're able to find out who the creeps are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    Out of curiosity, why do you think so many young men are listening to what someone like Andrew Tate has to say?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Starfire20


    the free market had it's say and it didn't like what tater tot was selling.

    twitter, and any other private business, can ban who they like.

    those businesses arent in the business of left and right. they care about what will make them the most money and tater tot was costing them by letting him stay. thats it.

    hes a vile POS anyway so nothing of value was lost.



  • Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    How can someone who gets millions of views on a social media platform be costing them money? Surely he would only be making them money.

    So when you say the 'free market', you mean the social media companies (approaching monopolies), rather than the average media consumers themselves? That's a surprising perspective.

    The free market is a result of the collective will. As such, I don't agree that this constitutes the free market in action. If so, why would social media allow the Taliban (actual misogynists) to hold accounts while Andrew Tate cannot? Is Andrew Tate more threatening than the Taliban?



  • Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    To be fair, there's more than one form of masculinity. In my opinion, Andrew Tate is an extreme form of a hypercompetitive kind. I'm not saying that's a bad thing individually, but I'd hate to live in a world with only people like that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,108 ✭✭✭CGI_Livia_Soprano
    Holding tyrants to the fire


    Personally I think he's a freak of nature, in that he has an iron mindset, possibly a genius IQ, and is physically in the top .001% of men

    Except he has a jawline like a pint of Guinness.



  • Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    Maybe attack his words or actions rather than his appearance.

    Or is it fine to judge people (men?) by physical traits they can't change?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,108 ✭✭✭CGI_Livia_Soprano
    Holding tyrants to the fire


    It’s fine to judge him for it, yes, if you’re saying that “physically he’s in the top .001% of men” and when you consider that he is a self-proclaimed pimp and human trafficker.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    He's not above doing it himself. I never do it btw - I also don't see what value there is in commenting on people's looks.

    But I think someone who tweets "are you ashamed that my cars cost more than what you've raised for your child" to the father of a sick child... is psychopathic.

    He also admits he runs a scam that exploits men. Other stuff we can't know for sure - but this is what the man himself said. And he also admitted that he moved to Romania partly because of its more lax stance on sexual assault.

    So I don't see how he's someone to be admired. Insecure boys are drawn to him because they're dying to get laid and are pissed off with girls who don't fancy him. Being popular doesn't mean being a positive influence.

    Rogan and Peterson, I have no problem in recognising value in some of what they say, but Tate... while I know plenty pretend he's great just to stick it to the libs (while knowing full well why people have an issue with him) I genuinely don't understand how anyone outside of incel types would genuinely see merit in what he has been doing. If they have daughters, would they not worry about how young lads would treat them if indoctrinated by Tate?



  • Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    I said he's in the top .001% of people because he's a 4 time kickboxing champion. How many people ever get to that level of athleticism and skill, particularly in such a dangerous sport?

    I think its lame to insult someone over physical traits they can't change, and if Andrew Tate did the same I'd say the same thing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual




  • Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    Show me where he said he moved to Romania because of "its more lax stance on sexual assault". That's quite difficult to believe, even from a self-preservation perspective.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    "While he was gaining influence in far-right circles, Tate was also accused of violence against multiple women. In an episode of “The Pomp Podcast” released this month, he openly discussed hitting a woman and breaking her jaw during a bar fight. He said he “ended up in court” after he was charged with causing “bodily harm,” but “got away with it in the end.” He said he was found innocent. In a now-deleted YouTube video, Tate said that he’s “not a ... rapist,” but “probably 40% of the reason” he relocated to Romania is because police are less likely to investigate sexual assault cases. In another video, The Guardian reported, Tate said he was investigated and held in custody for two days for allegedly abusing a woman in the U.K. He denied allegations of abuse."

    You can google this stuff.



  • Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    So... he was found innocent of bodily harm against a woman. Do you think he shouldn't have been? I believe he said he was fighting 2 or 3 men in a club, and she was trying to hit him, and got in the way. God knows if thats exactly what happened, but I do trust the UK legal system.

    And... he was also never charged with sex trafficking. I believe police showed up to his house to investigate based off a tip. That could easily have been some troll on the internet making an anonymous call to the police station. Happens to Tim Pool all the time.

    Some very selective quotation in that paragraph. Why didn't the author have "because police are less likely to investigate sexual assault cases" in quotation marks? Could it be because he never said that? Very suspect, in my opinion. Hypothetically, even if that was the reason he left Britain, do you think he'd be stupid enough to say that... in an interview? Goes against Occam's Razor.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭Grayson



    So. Do you know how quotation marks work? they're for quotes. He said he'd like to be able to get away with it.

    He also said about the womans who's jaw he broke that he "got away with it"

    And yes, he hasn't been charged with sex trafficking..... yet. Police have expanded the original investigation and they're still investigating.

    The guy also admitted to running internet scams. He's complete and utter scum.



  • Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual



    Exactly my point. Maybe re-read what I said:

    Why didn't the author have "because police are less likely to investigate sexual assault cases" in quotation marks? Could it be because he never said that?

    I think it's a bare-faced lie to say that "He said he'd like to be able to get away with it". Show me where he said that and I'll wire you 100 EUR today.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,108 ✭✭✭CGI_Livia_Soprano
    Holding tyrants to the fire


    One advantage Tate has is that you can’t break his jaw, like he broke a woman’s jaw, because he doesn’t have one.

    I can’t criticise a sex trafficker’s appearance? Boo hoo, snowflake. ❄️



  • Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    Ah, you're a troll, or what people used to call a 'coward'.

    He could literally sue you for slander for calling him a sex trafficker.

    I would have hoped after the Johnny Depp trial that people would pause before jumping to conclusions.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,108 ✭✭✭CGI_Livia_Soprano
    Holding tyrants to the fire


    He’ll sue me for slander, will he? So much for freedom of speech. 🤣



  • Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭Undividual


    That gave me a good laugh. There's nothing quite like confident ignorance...

    Maybe look up what Freedom of Speech is before embarrassing yourself again.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,615 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    “I do know how to administer CPR. However, I will not administer CPR unless you’re a hot female… If you’re some fat dude and you just had a heart attack and I don’t really know you, you’re gonna die… No, not even if you’re a friend… If you’re my friend, you just can’t be a p*ssy. ‘Well, I had a heart attack’, get the f*ck up. F*cks wrong with you. Go hospital later. Have a drink, cigarette, cup of coffee, back in the game. F*cking having heart attacks near me, you little p*ssy.”

    Imagine how utterly thick you'd have to be to want to listen to this guy and swallow his bullshit.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,108 ✭✭✭CGI_Livia_Soprano
    Holding tyrants to the fire


    You’d have to have special needs.



    A special need for a father figure, that is.

    That’s what I always say to the lost wastrels who look up to grifters like him, Musk, Bezos, Rogan, and Peterson: be your own Daddy. Be the hero to your own story, don’t worship conmen who wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.



Advertisement