New Yorker article about Andrew Tate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker is clickbait for left wing people, focusing on the extremes while ignoring the extremes on the other end. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. The disconnection between publications like the New Yorker and NYT and the real world is astonishing. I'm out and about every day, see the kids and teens and college kids in my neighborhood all the time, and things are more fine than not.

The thing is, this misogyny is not “extreme”. It is everywhere. It is not visible all of the time, but it is absolutely always there. That “fine” group of young kids in your neighborhood probably also contains a future rapist and his friends that don’t call him out, it may have a guy who refuses to hire or promote women because he doesn’t like to listen to them talk at work, or probably a guy who treats his wife like a servant… but you’ll never hear them say anything as overt as Tate because that’s not acceptable in their circles, but they still hate women.
Misogyny is the greatest plague on humanity.

Misogny is definitely a problem, but the coverage of the Tate brothers exists because of the extreme nature of their actions and messages.

I don't think the Tate brothers represent the average white male.

[Anonymous]

Social media platforms and news outlets need to be held accountable and be forced to ban people like Tate.

Look, I know there's freedom of the press and all. But there are limits on that - the press cannot commit crimes while gathering news, publish false statements, incite lawless action, violate copyright law, etc.

If a news channel started saying hey, serial killers are great and more people should become serial killers, and interviewing serial killers, it would be shut down for criminal solicitation. Same thing here.

At the very least, social media platforms need to be more heavily regulated. Ragebait like Tate gets promoted because it keeps people on the platforms longer. There needs to be heavier regulations. Which absolutely can be done; I have a friend who does OF and her face has been banned from multiple platforms, so she can't even start new accounts. If we can ban women for being too sexual, we can ban men for being hateful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker is clickbait for left wing people, focusing on the extremes while ignoring the extremes on the other end. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. The disconnection between publications like the New Yorker and NYT and the real world is astonishing. I'm out and about every day, see the kids and teens and college kids in my neighborhood all the time, and things are more fine than not.

The thing is, this misogyny is not “extreme”. It is everywhere. It is not visible all of the time, but it is absolutely always there. That “fine” group of young kids in your neighborhood probably also contains a future rapist and his friends that don’t call him out, it may have a guy who refuses to hire or promote women because he doesn’t like to listen to them talk at work, or probably a guy who treats his wife like a servant… but you’ll never hear them say anything as overt as Tate because that’s not acceptable in their circles, but they still hate women.
Misogyny is the greatest plague on humanity.

Misogny is definitely a problem, but the coverage of the Tate brothers exists because of the extreme nature of their actions and messages.

I don't think the Tate brothers represent the average white male.

The Tate brothers are Black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker is clickbait for left wing people, focusing on the extremes while ignoring the extremes on the other end. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. The disconnection between publications like the New Yorker and NYT and the real world is astonishing. I'm out and about every day, see the kids and teens and college kids in my neighborhood all the time, and things are more fine than not.

The thing is, this misogyny is not “extreme”. It is everywhere. It is not visible all of the time, but it is absolutely always there. That “fine” group of young kids in your neighborhood probably also contains a future rapist and his friends that don’t call him out, it may have a guy who refuses to hire or promote women because he doesn’t like to listen to them talk at work, or probably a guy who treats his wife like a servant… but you’ll never hear them say anything as overt as Tate because that’s not acceptable in their circles, but they still hate women.
Misogyny is the greatest plague on humanity.

Misogny is definitely a problem, but the coverage of the Tate brothers exists because of the extreme nature of their actions and messages.

I don't think the Tate brothers represent the average white male.

The Tate brothers are Black.

They're biracial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker is clickbait for left wing people, focusing on the extremes while ignoring the extremes on the other end. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. The disconnection between publications like the New Yorker and NYT and the real world is astonishing. I'm out and about every day, see the kids and teens and college kids in my neighborhood all the time, and things are more fine than not.

The thing is, this misogyny is not “extreme”. It is everywhere. It is not visible all of the time, but it is absolutely always there. That “fine” group of young kids in your neighborhood probably also contains a future rapist and his friends that don’t call him out, it may have a guy who refuses to hire or promote women because he doesn’t like to listen to them talk at work, or probably a guy who treats his wife like a servant… but you’ll never hear them say anything as overt as Tate because that’s not acceptable in their circles, but they still hate women.
Misogyny is the greatest plague on humanity.

Misogny is definitely a problem, but the coverage of the Tate brothers exists because of the extreme nature of their actions and messages.

I don't think the Tate brothers represent the average white male.

Yet they are being propped up and amplified by the males who hold the power in America right now. The article says Tate, via Barron, helped Trump win in 2024. So their messaging is (or was) reaching plenty of average males.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker is clickbait for left wing people, focusing on the extremes while ignoring the extremes on the other end. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. The disconnection between publications like the New Yorker and NYT and the real world is astonishing. I'm out and about every day, see the kids and teens and college kids in my neighborhood all the time, and things are more fine than not.

What strange whataboutism is this?

It’s all they have.

Some of your sons, or some of their friends, are down the rabbit hole with this content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker is clickbait for left wing people, focusing on the extremes while ignoring the extremes on the other end. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. The disconnection between publications like the New Yorker and NYT and the real world is astonishing. I'm out and about every day, see the kids and teens and college kids in my neighborhood all the time, and things are more fine than not.

The thing is, this misogyny is not “extreme”. It is everywhere. It is not visible all of the time, but it is absolutely always there. That “fine” group of young kids in your neighborhood probably also contains a future rapist and his friends that don’t call him out, it may have a guy who refuses to hire or promote women because he doesn’t like to listen to them talk at work, or probably a guy who treats his wife like a servant… but you’ll never hear them say anything as overt as Tate because that’s not acceptable in their circles, but they still hate women.
Misogyny is the greatest plague on humanity.

Misogny is definitely a problem, but the coverage of the Tate brothers exists because of the extreme nature of their actions and messages.

I don't think the Tate brothers represent the average white male.

Many average white males admire the Tate brothers. The President’s son included.

[Anonymous]

The Tates haven't been relevant in years. This article is stuck in 2022.

[Anonymous]

Except for the sections about the 2024 election and aftermath?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker is clickbait for left wing people, focusing on the extremes while ignoring the extremes on the other end. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. The disconnection between publications like the New Yorker and NYT and the real world is astonishing. I'm out and about every day, see the kids and teens and college kids in my neighborhood all the time, and things are more fine than not.

The thing is, this misogyny is not “extreme”. It is everywhere. It is not visible all of the time, but it is absolutely always there. That “fine” group of young kids in your neighborhood probably also contains a future rapist and his friends that don’t call him out, it may have a guy who refuses to hire or promote women because he doesn’t like to listen to them talk at work, or probably a guy who treats his wife like a servant… but you’ll never hear them say anything as overt as Tate because that’s not acceptable in their circles, but they still hate women.
Misogyny is the greatest plague on humanity.

Misogny is definitely a problem, but the coverage of the Tate brothers exists because of the extreme nature of their actions and messages.

I don't think the Tate brothers represent the average white male.

Many average white males admire the Tate brothers. The President’s son included.

As many as that. Wow!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Tates haven't been relevant in years. This article is stuck in 2022.

I’ve been vaguely aware of them in the news, and just assumed they were your garden variety deplorables. Had no idea just how despicable they are until reading the article in its entirety (and it’s long). Read the article, people. If you can stomach it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker is clickbait for left wing people, focusing on the extremes while ignoring the extremes on the other end. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. The disconnection between publications like the New Yorker and NYT and the real world is astonishing. I'm out and about every day, see the kids and teens and college kids in my neighborhood all the time, and things are more fine than not.

The thing is, this misogyny is not “extreme”. It is everywhere. It is not visible all of the time, but it is absolutely always there. That “fine” group of young kids in your neighborhood probably also contains a future rapist and his friends that don’t call him out, it may have a guy who refuses to hire or promote women because he doesn’t like to listen to them talk at work, or probably a guy who treats his wife like a servant… but you’ll never hear them say anything as overt as Tate because that’s not acceptable in their circles, but they still hate women.
Misogyny is the greatest plague on humanity.

Misogny is definitely a problem, but the coverage of the Tate brothers exists because of the extreme nature of their actions and messages.

I don't think the Tate brothers represent the average white male.

The Tate brothers are Black.

They're biracial.

Yes. The Tate brothers are half-black. So it's not useful to look at their repulsiveness through a racial spectrum.

They just suck as men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Tates haven't been relevant in years. This article is stuck in 2022.

I’ve been vaguely aware of them in the news, and just assumed they were your garden variety deplorables. Had no idea just how despicable they are until reading the article in its entirety (and it’s long). Read the article, people. If you can stomach it.

Before I read this article I don’t think I’ve ever worried about a journalist getting date raped. Not true now!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker is clickbait for left wing people, focusing on the extremes while ignoring the extremes on the other end. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. The disconnection between publications like the New Yorker and NYT and the real world is astonishing. I'm out and about every day, see the kids and teens and college kids in my neighborhood all the time, and things are more fine than not.

WTF does this have to do with anything?

Because of what OP said, not such much the New Yorker (which is agony aunt clickbait for left wing neurosis): I found this to be so bleak and depressing. Reading it left me feeling hopeless about the possibility of decent and genuine relations between men and women. And frightened by the idea that men that I work with and know socially share any part of the worldview that Tate has sold and that has been embraced by powerful political figures in the US. What can be done to combat this toxic outlook, hold these men accountable for the harm they have perpetrated, and create something better for the young people who think that this guy’s messages are worth following (and paying for)??

My advice to OP: turn off media, go outside, meet real people, your neighbors and local communities and institutions. There will always be followers of Anthony Tate and Hakan Piker and suchlike. The vast majority aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker is clickbait for left wing people, focusing on the extremes while ignoring the extremes on the other end. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. The disconnection between publications like the New Yorker and NYT and the real world is astonishing. I'm out and about every day, see the kids and teens and college kids in my neighborhood all the time, and things are more fine than not.

WTF does this have to do with anything?

Because of what OP said, not such much the New Yorker (which is agony aunt clickbait for left wing neurosis): I found this to be so bleak and depressing. Reading it left me feeling hopeless about the possibility of decent and genuine relations between men and women. And frightened by the idea that men that I work with and know socially share any part of the worldview that Tate has sold and that has been embraced by powerful political figures in the US. What can be done to combat this toxic outlook, hold these men accountable for the harm they have perpetrated, and create something better for the young people who think that this guy’s messages are worth following (and paying for)??

My advice to OP: turn off media, go outside, meet real people, your neighbors and local communities and institutions. There will always be followers of Anthony Tate and Hakan Piker and suchlike. The vast majority aren't.

I don’t like Hasan Piker either but to equate him to someone who’s been accused of multiple sexual assaults in three countries is really something else.