The cancelling of Andrew Tate is uncalled for. He is not a misogynist.

Author: RationalMadman

Posts

Total: 79
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
That's not true at all. It simply means everyone he's spoken too had internally inconsistent not properly reasoned beliefs. Its more so Socrates exposes those he speaks too as having dogmatic arguments (foundationalism) as opposed to an infinite regress problem. All you really point out is the fact humans seem to not always consider things which are important to a philosophy we possess as opposed to a truth not existing at all (infinite regress). I see no sincere reason to believe infinite regress is necessarily true, as i am not omnipresent so i cant even tell if its true or not! It must be noted some of socrates's discussions do find conclusions (at least in his mind) such as phaedo.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,030
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You realize if a man doesn't pay for a date that is considered misogamy today. Same with having any standards for a prospective female mate.
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
What may that axiom be which im presuming? 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Ehyeh
 if it is manly but is not good then banning him is non-controversial. 
this was the only part of your entire post relevant to the topic and was loaded, axiomatic and tautological all at once.

It's also false?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Avery
I agree to basically everything you said. I just didn't want to go into the specifics of his worst outlandish quotes for my OP, given the stance that I was taking.
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
 if it is manly but is not good then banning him is non-controversial. 
this was the only part of your entire post relevant to the topic and was loaded, axiomatic and tautological all at once.

It's also false?

I never said that's the case myself, im saying it could be the case (especially if virtue holds strong grounds). Maybe i should of said should be non-controversial. Tate may not have hate against women but he definitely has open prejudice. He may not be misogynistic in terms of intentions but i would say he is in terms of results (if all men thought like him).
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Those who wish to ban him on the principled front, that his ideas are "harmful" can essentially be discarded without much effort on the grounds of free speech. However, I think the primary allegation against Andrew Tate is that he has abused women, and that there are videos surfacing in which he is both verbally and physically abusive too. I haven't looked into this because frankly, it was almost a decade ago and shouldn't be something to be cancelled about, but from what I understand, there is debate regarding whether the women in the videos were consenting to what they were undergoing, but admittedly, I'm quite skeptical of that. 
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
You realize if a man doesn't pay for a date that is considered misogamy today
I don't know. I just know I am one. 

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Bones
then why would he film it and why wouldn't they push on it?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
dude honestly after those vids i'm really confused by him way more than ever before. Why the fuck did this guy basically set himself up to look like an abuser?!!!

that is a dipshit move.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,541
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
Those who wish to ban him on the principled front, that his ideas are "harmful" can essentially be discarded without much effort on the grounds of free speech. However, I think the primary allegation against Andrew Tate is that he has abused women, and that there are videos surfacing in which he is both verbally and physically abusive too. I haven't looked into this because frankly, it was almost a decade ago and shouldn't be something to be cancelled about, but from what I understand, there is debate regarding whether the women in the videos were consenting to what they were undergoing, but admittedly, I'm quite skeptical of that. 
are there any millionaire rappers who write songs about mistreating women and or, you know, killing cops ?

have they all ALSO been banned from discord and patreon and youtube and facebook and instagram and gmail and twitter ?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,541
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Avery
It's another case of legacy media destroying someone outside of their locus of control.
well stated
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
Those who wish to ban him on the principled front, that his ideas are "harmful" can essentially be discarded without much effort on the grounds of free speech. However, I think the primary allegation against Andrew Tate is that he has abused women, and that there are videos surfacing in which he is both verbally and physically abusive too. I haven't looked into this because frankly, it was almost a decade ago and shouldn't be something to be cancelled about, but from what I understand, there is debate regarding whether the women in the videos were consenting to what they were undergoing, but admittedly, I'm quite skeptical of that. 
I'm sure you're already familiar but Tate being banned off social media platforms is not a violation of his free speech rights (these social media platforms are private entities). Facebook, Instagram, etc, would have to be nationalised for him to be "unbannable" off these platforms. I think its a rather tricky topic on if people should be unbannable on social media platforms. If you did as such (make people unbannable) you would be violating Instagram's (and other social media platforms) first amendment right to free speech. Which is unconstitutional. Nationalising all these companies also may not be the best course of action. Do you have any views on this subject matter? Its also true that companies are not tied down to the USA. Many social media platforms base their terms and services around EU speech regulations. So stopping companies from deciding what to do is also functionally impossible. Some will simply set up base in another nation which suites their preferences more.

I also think the arguments against hate speech being allowed can be quite strong as long as its much more narrow than simply being offensive or calling someone stupid, or saying you hate them, etc.  I personally learn more towards even hate speech being allowed. Too many conversations with communists made me realise  its rather important to be able to be blatantly offensive and intentionally rude(especially against the government).
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6

For instance, it would be insane to deny that men are aggressive and generally more overtly sadistic than women are.
It would also be insane to suggest that men make equally good childcarers to women, if we average things out
Pig.
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Ehyeh
I'm sure you're already familiar but Tate being banned off social media platforms is not a violation of his free speech rights (these social media platforms are private entities).
The platforms we are discussing have gone beyond "private entities" - they are essentially market places of free ideas, akin to a public space. They have such a monopoly that their "cancelling" of someone is in fact a violation of a major portion of their free speech. This is much like certain malls in California - though they are "private business", they are compelled by law to allow peaceful protest. I think this is reasonable - though the mall is technically a private entity, it operates in a way such that it is representative of a public place. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,541
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
I'm sure you're already familiar but Tate being banned off social media platforms is not a violation of his free speech rights (these social media platforms are private entities).
The platforms we are discussing have gone beyond "private entities" - they are essentially market places of free ideas, akin to a public space. They have such a monopoly that their "cancelling" of someone is in fact a violation of a major portion of their free speech. This is much like certain malls in California - though they are "private business", they are compelled by law to allow peaceful protest. I think this is reasonable - though the mall is technically a private entity, it operates in a way such that it is representative of a public place. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,541
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
So stopping companies from deciding what to do is also functionally impossible.
well, anti-discrimination laws tend to curb "the right to refuse service" of any establishment that is not technically a "private club"
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
The platforms we are discussing have gone beyond "private entities" - they are essentially market places of free ideas, akin to a public space. They have such a monopoly that their "cancelling" of someone is in fact a violation of a major portion of their free speech. This is much like certain malls in California - though they are "private business", they are compelled by law to allow peaceful protest. I think this is reasonable - though the mall is technically a private entity, it operates in a way such that it is representative of a public place. 
I'm unsure where you have got that information from! I cant seem to find any source saying you have permission to protest on private property if they don't want you to. Protesting outside a mall, protesting on walkways etc you're able to do. Where did you get this information from?
-
Whether these private entities act as a modern day public platform or not does not mean they're not private property and therefore are allowed to disallow things on their platform (unless you can show me you can protest on private land, without the owners permission).

Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Anti discrimination laws are dodgy. As it says you're not permitted to discriminate based on gender, religion, sex, political ideology etc. Yet what happens when people on your platform are discriminating against people on these things? once more, unless bones or you can show me you're legally allowed to protest on private property without the owners permission, none of these arguments are standing.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,541
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
As it says you're not permitted to discriminate based on gender, religion, sex, political ideology etc.
U.S. Supreme Court blocks Texas law limiting content moderation by social media companies

The 2021 law prohibits social media companies from banning users based on their viewpoints. It will not go into effect while a lawsuit makes its way through the courts. [**]
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Ehyeh
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Many things happen in America which are considered unconstitutional, to use an example: fluoride in American water is actually against the constitution, but it can sometimes happen anyways. This law you linked was actually shutdown by the supreme court.  One day fluoride will also have to be taken out of American tap water.
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
I see, I'm unsure how loose this is, there is only a mention of hand billing in the actual article. It also says that this form of protest is only acceptable if it doesn't "disrupt business" or physically interfere with shoppers, that sounds vague to me, especially the "disrupt business" requirement. 


The ruling in Fashion Valley arguably affects only boycott campaigns and peaceful handbilling in public forums such as shopping centres. Moreover, the Fashion Valley holding also arguably leaves in place lower-court holdings in California that have held that stand-alone business entities, such as grocery stores, do not have to permit on their premises the boycott activities that have been found to be valid in a large shopping mall, or public forums such as the Fashion Valley Mall.

However, even "public forum" private property owners, it would appear, can still prohibit certain activities that physically interfere with the conduct of business on their private property, including disruptive fundraising activities. Further, such property owners can adopt regulations that reasonably control the time(s) of such activities, the place where the activities take place, and the manner in which such activities are carried out. A reasonable deposit or bond could perhaps also be required of the outside group. Such regulations should not regulate the "content" or "viewpoint" of the speech or writing (e.g., handbill) absent a "compelling interest" that is narrowly drawn to meet that end
 it feels exceptionally open to interpretation, and seems it may only really apply to leaflets! On top of that, if the article itself is correct that this may only apply to boycotting. Even this then only applies to shopping malls but not singular private entities (like a Walmart), it seems to only apply to a conglomerate of private entities (such as a shopping mall) as pointed out by the article itself. How much does that apply to hate speech on twitter.com and their terms of service? Is someone really boycotting when someone says Jews are evil and control the world? There is still too much ambiguity for me to be certain of anything.

Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
Interesting nonetheless, thank you for bringing it to my attention. It definitely gives me more to contemplate on the subject.
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,700
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
I think Andrew Tate is very correct about issues such as improving yourself and understanding how to improve yourself, and that is the stuff in which Andrew Tate is 100% correct. I also think that traditional conservatism values of man and woman are not mysoginistic by any means. Granted, I do not agree with this to the extent in how traditional conservatism couples work, I think it should be, but not for the extent in which Andrew Tate goes.

My problem with Andrew Tate is some of the comments he says about women not being better at their jobs, he was quoted in saying "if there's a male and female pilot, I am picking the male pilot." Why don't you just pick the better pilot?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,541
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Vader
bronskibeat
bronskibeat's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 54
0
1
4
bronskibeat's avatar
bronskibeat
0
1
4
-->
@RationalMadman
I am not sure what the fuck has happened to people today to say it is 'misogyny' to know what being a masculine man and feminine woman is and saying 'I like to live my life this way, I will preach it and help others.'
I don't think people take issue with him being masculine and enjoying a particular dynamic in his personal romantic relationships. He preaches that every man should think exactly like he does and degrades the ones who don't.  If he was just saying "hey, this is my experience, this is what works for me and gives me self-esteem and sense of greater purpose in life" then fine, but he takes it to extremes. Promoting the idea that "real men shouldn't cry", "people who say they can have fun without alcohol are liars",  saying that he "never apologizes" because he "never makes mistakes." That is some weirdo narcissistic stuff.


Personally, he sounds like a teenage a boy projecting an a very superficial image of what it means to be a "real man." Being independent, in control of your emotions, having the ability to be a good resource for those around you, etc. those are good qualities for any human to have. Not just men. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Vader
That is a strawman that KSI is a fool to have brought up.

Andrew Tate said if you knew nothing else about a pilot than their biological sex, would you prefer a male or a female pilot if god offered you the choice?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bronskibeat
Tate has never been against the idea of high value women following his advice. The difference is that if you are a woman, you can focus primarily on being attractive, healthy, emotionally intelligent and loyal and you already spiral in value. In constrast, men who have focused on that have only become medium value at best, you can deny it or face reality, a man has to focus on more variables to be high value. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bronskibeat
He preaches that every man should think exactly like he does and degrades the ones who don't.  If he was just saying "hey, this is my experience, this is what works for me and gives me self-esteem and sense of greater purpose in life" then fine, but he takes it to extremes. Promoting the idea that "real men shouldn't cry", "people who say they can have fun without alcohol are liars",  saying that he "never apologizes" because he "never makes mistakes." That is some weirdo narcissistic stuff.
So cancel it rather than debate it because your side are a bunch of cowards. Sure.