Andrew Tate - The Real World

[grumbledoak]

Er.

"A warrant has now been issued by Westminster Magistrates Court, relating to allegations of sexual aggression made in 2012-2015 which were previously dismissed by the Crown Prosecution Service."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13186201/...

Is that it? Resurrecting ten year old allegations, previously dismissed? Throwing more mud in the hope some sticks? smh

[Paul Dishman]

ironv8 said:

Just been on about him on Talk Radio. It seems school teachers are very worried that too many boys find him a refreshing alternative to what they’re being drip fed.
Quel surprise!! Young lads are brimming with testosterone and the vast majority female teachers think they can change thousands of years of evolution.
Boys look up to strong males.

I don't know about your last sentence, I don't recall looking up to anyone outside the family particularly at that age.

But it doesn't take much to work out the best way to wind-up female teachers

[Hoofy]

ZedLeg said:

If you see your kids get into this kind of patter talk to them.

I don't have kids so maybe I'm wrong but wondering if they're raving about Tate by the time you notice it, it's perhaps too late?

How would you get them to move away from this kind of rot?

[Chimune]

grumbledoak said:

Er.

"A warrant has now been issued by Westminster Magistrates Court, relating to allegations of sexual aggression made in 2012-2015 which were previously dismissed by the Crown Prosecution Service."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13186201/...

Is that it? Resurrecting ten year old allegations, previously dismissed? Throwing more mud in the hope some sticks? smh

Excellent news !

[QJumper]

paulguitar said:

It's been a long time since I've been at school, but I am pretty sure that even at that age I would have been able to quickly establish that this fellow is not strong at all, but is a total wkpuffin.

Dont know how old you are, but I feel the same. The difference though is that when I was at school I had a father, and was mostly taught by male teachers, and so had an abundance of healthy male role models to learn from. Today though there are far more kids without a dad, who are mostly taught by female teachers and, if they ever get into serious enough trouble, will most likley be dealt with by female social workers.

For a certain proportion of kids, often at the less privileged end of society, there's a lack of accessible male role models, which allows room for bad influences to fill that void. That applies as much to girls as it does to boys. The issue here is not that young boys are too stupid to spot such unhealthy and predatory behaviour, but that they don't have a sufficient framework from which they can make comparisons, or pursue healthy alternatives.

I get what you're saying but, if a young girl, without such a healthy background, was influenced by someone iike Tate, would you feel that she should have known better, because you did, or would you feel that she'd been groomed and exploited because of her vulnerabilities? Personally I'd veer towards the latter, but would extend that view to boys as well.

I don't believe it's possible to rid the world of the likes of Tate, especially given the nature of technology, and no amount of hand wringing will change that. What we can do though is do more to try and understand the problem, and then work to create an environment for children in which there's less room for unhealthy options to exist, and healthier alternatves for them to aspire to and pursue.

[eldar]

Tate like people have always existed, exerting their influence and control over the easily influenced and gullible. Works for a while, then a different figurehead emerges, and it's all change.

Tate will be forgotten in a couple of years, once he's disappeared into various countries prison systems.

[AceRockatansky]

Chimune said:

grumbledoak said:

Er.

"A warrant has now been issued by Westminster Magistrates Court, relating to allegations of sexual aggression made in 2012-2015 which were previously dismissed by the Crown Prosecution Service."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13186201/...

Is that it? Resurrecting ten year old allegations, previously dismissed? Throwing more mud in the hope some sticks? smh

Excellent news !

Unless they actually convict him, all they're doing is publicising him.

[dobbo_]

Haha Louis old chap, want to revise your comment about made up defenders?

[captain_cynic]

Hoofy said:

ZedLeg said:

If you see your kids get into this kind of patter talk to them.

I don't have kids so maybe I'm wrong but wondering if they're raving about Tate by the time you notice it, it's perhaps too late?

How would you get them to move away from this kind of rot?

Honestly, if you've raised a kid to 15 and they can't recognise someone like Tate as the utter fraud they are you're a failure as a parent.

The best way is to have a relationship with your child where they can feel comfortable talking about things that are bothering them. Typically not the domain of the "my way or the highway, I pay the bills so do as I say" parent.

I'd wager that, that kind of parent produces the kind of person who thinks the likes of Tate "have a point".

As for society, how do we try to steer people away from other extremist demagogues?

[QJumper]

Condi said:

There is an issue (I think) with how while equality, female rights etc are great and empowering for women it is very difficult for young men who's natural behaviour is to fight with each other, chase women, sleep with them, be "powerful" etc. All behaviours which biologically are very useful for the species survival and when out on the savannah would have helped the survival of your tribe over the next tribe, and while they're obviously no longer as needed in Milton Keynes in 2024, we are biologically still the same as those tribal warriors from 3000 years ago. It takes time to teach that out of young men who are full of hormones and learning how the world works.

And therein lies the problem. There are certain inherent instincts, for which it's futile trying to teach them out of people. In fact I'm not even certain that it's a good thing to even try. It's not a given that such traits like aggression, competitiveness, and the desire to be powerful, are inherently bad. They're only bad when they're used in bad ways.

Currently we seem to have a situation where the likes of Tate encourage people to use their abilities badly. The counter to that is that boys are being taught that they have some inherently bad traits, that need to be socialised out of them. That doesn't strike me as a particuarly healthy, or even successful way to deal with the problem. Far better would be to teach people to accept who they are, and use what they have in ways that are good for both themselves and those around them.

Nothing in life is perfect. If I look back on my youth, I can say that certainly society was more sexist. However, underneath that, men were also generally more protective towards women. A man may well have wolf whistled a woman, but that same man would likely have given someone like Tate a kicking for being a creep and an abuser. Now, I'm not saying that we should go back to more sexist times, as it's right that we work to elminate such things, only that we should be careful of not throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I watched an interview with a feminist recently (not the radical kind, and can't remember where), who said something similar. She said something along the lines of what was once considered gentlemanly, or chivalrous, is now considered patronising and sexist, but that she'd prefer that, and felt much safer for it than in today's society, where girls and boys are taught that they're the same, despite the obvious asymmetry in size, strength and emotions. Her view appeared to be that, whilst it taught people to respect and treat each other equally as people, it left no room for men to treat women as women, with all their differences, and vice versa. I don't know if she's right, but there seems to be some logic to what she was saying.

There are bad people, who will always do bad things, no matter what. However most people are good, or at least want to be. I think the latter are bombarded with a variety of messages, ranging from the toxic, to the good, with a variety of ill conceived ones in between. It's therefore easy to see how life can be very confusing for young people today, far more so than when I was a youth.

[grumbledoak]

eldar said:

Tate like people have always existed, exerting their influence and control over the easily influenced and gullible. Works for a while, then a different figurehead emerges, and it's all change.

Tate will be forgotten in a couple of years, once he's disappeared into various countries prison systems.

He might if they stopped giving him free publicity. Dragging ancient allegations back up just makes it looks like he has a point.

[WCZ]

Armitage.Shanks said:

For this pair there's no such thing as bad publicity. This will be a massive income generator to them from all their followers across various platforms I suspect

yep, them not actually getting charged with crimes just strenghtens them too imo

[Spare tyre]

It’s no surprise that a lot of the chumps from this forex scammers thread like Tate

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[g3org3y]

QJumper said:

Dont know how old you are, but I feel the same. The difference though is that when I was at school I had a father, and was mostly taught by male teachers, and so had an abundance of healthy male role models to learn from. Today though there are far more kids without a dad, who are mostly taught by female teachers and, if they ever get into serious enough trouble, will most likley be dealt with by female social workers.

For a certain proportion of kids, often at the less privileged end of society, there's a lack of accessible male role models, which allows room for bad influences to fill that void. That applies as much to girls as it does to boys. The issue here is not that young boys are too stupid to spot such unhealthy and predatory behaviour, but that they don't have a sufficient framework from which they can make comparisons, or pursue healthy alternatives.

I get what you're saying but, if a young girl, without such a healthy background, was influenced by someone iike Tate, would you feel that she should have known better, because you did, or would you feel that she'd been groomed and exploited because of her vulnerabilities? Personally I'd veer towards the latter, but would extend that view to boys as well.

I don't believe it's possible to rid the world of the likes of Tate, especially given the nature of technology, and no amount of hand wringing will change that. What we can do though is do more to try and understand the problem, and then work to create an environment for children in which there's less room for unhealthy options to exist, and healthier alternatves for them to aspire to and pursue.

QJumper said:

Condi said:

There is an issue (I think) with how while equality, female rights etc are great and empowering for women it is very difficult for young men who's natural behaviour is to fight with each other, chase women, sleep with them, be "powerful" etc. All behaviours which biologically are very useful for the species survival and when out on the savannah would have helped the survival of your tribe over the next tribe, and while they're obviously no longer as needed in Milton Keynes in 2024, we are biologically still the same as those tribal warriors from 3000 years ago. It takes time to teach that out of young men who are full of hormones and learning how the world works.

And therein lies the problem. There are certain inherent instincts, for which it's futile trying to teach them out of people. In fact I'm not even certain that it's a good thing to even try. It's not a given that such traits like aggression, competitiveness, and the desire to be powerful, are inherently bad. They're only bad when they're used in bad ways.

Currently we seem to have a situation where the likes of Tate encourage people to use their abilities badly. The counter to that is that boys are being taught that they have some inherently bad traits, that need to be socialised out of them. That doesn't strike me as a particuarly healthy, or even successful way to deal with the problem. Far better would be to teach people to accept who they are, and use what they have in ways that are good for both themselves and those around them.

Nothing in life is perfect. If I look back on my youth, I can say that certainly society was more sexist. However, underneath that, men were also generally more protective towards women. A man may well have wolf whistled a woman, but that same man would likely have given someone like Tate a kicking for being a creep and an abuser. Now, I'm not saying that we should go back to more sexist times, as it's right that we work to elminate such things, only that we should be careful of not throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I watched an interview with a feminist recently (not the radical kind, and can't remember where), who said something similar. She said something along the lines of what was once considered gentlemanly, or chivalrous, is now considered patronising and sexist, but that she'd prefer that, and felt much safer for it than in today's society, where girls and boys are taught that they're the same, despite the obvious asymmetry in size, strength and emotions. Her view appeared to be that, whilst it taught people to respect and treat each other equally as people, it left no room for men to treat women as women, with all their differences, and vice versa. I don't know if she's right, but there seems to be some logic to what she was saying.

There are bad people, who will always do bad things, no matter what. However most people are good, or at least want to be. I think the latter are bombarded with a variety of messages, ranging from the toxic, to the good, with a variety of ill conceived ones in between. It's therefore easy to see how life can be very confusing for young people today, far more so than when I was a youth.

Good posts.

When boys/men have been told from a young age they are 'bad' or 'toxic' by all and sundry in society, they are going to gravitate to an influence (however malignant) who actually doesn't do this. This is especially likely in a vacuum of no alternative good male role models.

Those who are actually interested in the struggles of boys/men should check out the work of Warren Farrell and Richard Reeves.

Edited by g3org3y on Wednesday 13th March 18:15

[Thankyou4calling]

I follow Andrew Tate on FB.

To my mind he makes a lot of interesting points.

I think a lot of people dislike him without actually listening to what he has to say.

He's extreme - you have to be to get noticed now - but there's some stuff there that resonates with me for sure.

[eldar]

grumbledoak said:

eldar said:

Tate like people have always existed, exerting their influence and control over the easily influenced and gullible. Works for a while, then a different figurehead emerges, and it's all change.

Tate will be forgotten in a couple of years, once he's disappeared into various countries prison systems.

He might if they stopped giving him free publicity. Dragging ancient allegations back up just makes it looks like he has a point.

Just ignore allegations, you think? All of them?

If you dig enough you might find some morons who thought Gary Glitter was hard done by.

[bitchstewie]

Thankyou4calling said:

I follow Andrew Tate on FB.

To my mind he makes a lot of interesting points.

I think a lot of people dislike him without actually listening to what he has to say.

He's extreme - you have to be to get noticed now - but there's some stuff there that resonates with me for sure.

I think I'd find it hard to get past the slightly rapey comments to be honest.

[p1stonhead]

bhstewie said:

Thankyou4calling said:

I follow Andrew Tate on FB.

To my mind he makes a lot of interesting points.

I think a lot of people dislike him without actually listening to what he has to say.

He's extreme - you have to be to get noticed now - but there's some stuff there that resonates with me for sure.

I think I'd find it hard to get past the slightly rapey comments to be honest.

Obviously his rapey stuff means no one should ever listen to a word he ever says.

But his alpha male nonsense is the most odd thing to me. Being painfully insecure about everything and comparing yourself to other guys all the time and acting like you’re better somehow. Like the ultimate show of compensating for something huge.

This is a real alpha male;
https://youtu.be/fo6T5BwxFh0?si=Ioe5jYkB4JwyYkiv

[grumbledoak]

eldar said:

Just ignore allegations, you think? All of them?

If you dig enough you might find some morons who thought Gary Glitter was hard done by.

All of them, no. But those which were "previously dismissed by the Crown Prosecution Service"? Probably yes.

Throwing mud around in the hope that some sticks sadly is the level I expect of our government, but it shouldn't be.

[moorx]

p1stonhead said:

Like the ultimate show of compensating for something huge.

Or something tiny...