I don’t know what this has to do with what I said. Tucker Carlson is a powerful person who knows who Tate is.
Yet another powerful person who knows who Tate is.
Yet another powerful person who knows who Tate is.
Apparently you don’t think such people are powerful, including others who throw people in prison. That’s fine.
Can you give an example of who you think is a “genuinely powerful person”?
Earlier in this thread it was said people with less than a billion dollars cannot be actually wealthy, especially if they brag. Now people who throw people in prison or those worth millions and have international media platforms reaching millions of people around the world aren’t powerful.
These types of semantics are an annoyance, but very telling about those who speak them.
Earlier in this thread, folks said a teacher was an authority figure (which literally means someone with power), and now we’re saying that folks worth less than a billion aren’t powerful, or that social media personas aren’t powerful… didn’t Alex Jones just eat a BILLION dollar lawsuit because of some shit he said?
Is he really? He’s a talking head who says whatever his bosses tell him and, he would gladly do the same for CNN if he needed a job.
Oh yeah, he’s up there with Putin.
A self professed moron who apologized when they went after him for using the n word.
I don’t know how you define powerful but those people you mention do not influence your life. Their existence is inconsequential. They talk about events; they are not behind them. You know who is powerful? Those who can legally take your money and spend it as they see fit. Those who can kill the citizens of other nations without consulting congress and without fear of being charged with war crimes.
Not anymore. The leftist progressive neomarxists who are creating school policy want students and teachers to be equals. This is being explicitly stated.
Tate discussed on Dr. Phil (would it be fitting to consider him influential versus powerful?).
Full episode below: The Demise of Guys
Imagine we’ve slid so far downhill that so many men don’t get life skills and pointers for dealing with women from their fathers or uncles or any older male family members and need to go to Andrew Tate.
I ask for no sympathy but what’s interesting is that when I discussed this “demise” on here several years ago a tiny amount (certainly not many) of posters considered me and some authors I’ve read as destructive for just discussing it. Fast forward and the issue is so flagrant that that it’s now discussed on mainstream TV and by mainstream talking heads like Chris Williamson, Jordan Peterson, Tucker Carlson, Scott Galloway, and so on.
What’s interesting is that this situation was created by men, primarily boomer men, and other men who get a buzz out of browbeating and sabotaging other men.
In teacher education programs. Teachers are to be facilitators, not educators, and certainly not authority figures. It’s all about empowering students.
If you compare his ratings to someone like Walter Cronkite, it might be a sign that he has more influence than you or me, but it’s still not much. I mean, someone posts something on Twitter and the news takes that one tweet and tries to make it seem like it’s some barometer for how the nation thinks. I think social media exaggerates just how popular some of these people are. Especially when you add in algorithms and bots.
Of course. But I think for a pop culture figure, which is what Tate is, or anyone else for that matter, to get “attacked” by the powerful it has to do less with their supposed influence and more with them negatively impacting the powerful’s pocketbooks. I don’t think Tate was an economic threat to the Matrix, or whatever the dorks call it.
@Andrewgen_Receptors I’m halfway through the full Dr. Phil episode. Rollo Tomassi (author of Rational Male, which I read years ago) touched upon serious issues we’ve discussed. You might like it.
“I was at a stage of my life where everything felt a bit boring and a bit dull and this idea of an adventure just seemed attractive,”
"Sophie had worked in the adult entertainment industry before, so she was open to the suggestion. But she says she felt coerced and worried that if she refused, she might lose him. "
Basically the trend of women wanting their cake and eating too. She was bored and wanted a different life which she got and then because she was scared of losing that she is now a victim?
Normally I’d be inclined to agree… however we have mountains of evidence suggesting that Andrew Tate is narcissistic, manipative… a bully.
Many won’t speak out during the height of abuse out of fear for their life or losing their partner.
“Over time, Sophie says Tate’s behaviour towards her worsened. She claims he became increasingly controlling, imposing cash fines if she went out without his permission, and that he became violent.”
Andrew Tate seems like the type of person who would do something like this… I suppose we will see what the criminal justice system of Romania has to say.
Correct. No woman deserves abuse. However what is remarkable is that.
after rolling around in the dirt, thrill-seeking women speak as if they have no control of or responsibility for their own actions. “He’s terrible, he’s narcissistic, he abused me… but I kept going back… I thought I would lose him.”
I’d be glad to “lose” such a person.
Though I haven’t seen the new Netflix piece of work about Pamela Anderson, I am likely going to watch it out of curiosity. And I think it’s going to “check all the boxes” of such cases.
1.A thrill-seeking woman at a young age realizes her beauty and what can be gained by being a sex object.
2. She gets involved in industries with powerful, callous, abusive and opportunistic men who treat her as little more than such an object.
3. She gets involved with “fun” men.
4. All sorts of bad things happen, including abuse, but she stays in such situations.
5. Looks fade, the fun ends, the game is up. 6. Although she certainly doesn’t deserve abuse, she acts as if she didn’t willingly get herself into and want such dumb and dangerous situations.
7. She emerges with a television series, a movie, or YouTube channel and interviews in which she explains the turmoil she’s been through.
8. The stupid story pulls at people’s heartstrings and she is praised as a “powerful woman” who’s “been through a lot”.
So there’s a double whammy on return: 1. Satisfaction from thrilling and dangerous situations and then instead of shame or criticism.
2. Praise is given in the end for actually nothing redeeming at all.
It’s amazing!
I’ll see if the show checks these boxes if I watch it.
I understand that but there are people out there who are vulnerable. They are emotionally and psychologically weak. It’s not their fault. It takes a special kind of douchebag to take advantage of them.
Woman comes in, broken hurt and scared. Sharks and abusers of many types see them and smell blood in the water. They really don’t care who gets hurt as long as they get their piece.
Now, hurt woman looking for safety and recovery gets slut shamed and ridiculed instead of helped. Her chance at recovery is shot and she goes back to her miserable life of being abused and self medication.
Then they usualy die. Either od or by other means.
I was going to say the same thing. I would also be glad to get away from someone like this, but if it was as simple as that, there’d probably be a lot less people stuck in abusive relationships.
