New Yorker article about Andrew Tate

[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 identify as white. And they have that choice since they are biracial.

[Anonymous]

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

Ask the victims of their crimes if they are still relevant…

[Anonymous]

Are the Tate brothers the brothers from Florida?

[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.

DP. I’m not nearly concerned about how many followers he might have as that he keeps getting away with heinous crimes, in part because our government is helping him. I’m sick of powerful men repeatedly doing horrible things to women—including minors—and facing zero consequences. Truly, what is wrong with you if you attempt to defend these monsters?

[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.

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.

DP. I’m not nearly concerned about how many followers he might have as that he keeps getting away with heinous crimes, in part because our government is helping him. I’m sick of powerful men repeatedly doing horrible things to women—including minors—and facing zero consequences. Truly, what is wrong with you if you attempt to defend these monsters?

I am OP. Introducing Hakan (sic) Piker’s name into this discussion is a total non sequiter and an indication that your response is not in good faith.

The article gives many examples of the reach and influence of Tate. Of course, not all men (or boys). But there is no question that in the personal and political realms, there has been a sharp increase in misogyny and more open acceptance of hateful and violent rhetoric about women. I don’t think that “touch grass” or its equivalent is the correct response to that.

[Anonymous]

Sorrry, this is OP and what I was replying to was this:

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]

This guy ➕ his brother (externally) have the good looks of celebrities but inside they are just pure garbage.

[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.

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.

DP. I’m not nearly concerned about how many followers he might have as that he keeps getting away with heinous crimes, in part because our government is helping him. I’m sick of powerful men repeatedly doing horrible things to women—including minors—and facing zero consequences. Truly, what is wrong with you if you attempt to defend these monsters?

I am OP. Introducing Hakan (sic) Piker’s name into this discussion is a total non sequiter and an indication that your response is not in good faith.

The article gives many examples of the reach and influence of Tate. Of course, not all men (or boys). But there is no question that in the personal and political realms, there has been a sharp increase in misogyny and more open acceptance of hateful and violent rhetoric about women. I don’t think that “touch grass” or its equivalent is the correct response to that.

You're confusing cause and effect. I don't think the Tate brothers are a cause, but rather one of the results from the general increase in misogyny.

[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.

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.

DP. I’m not nearly concerned about how many followers he might have as that he keeps getting away with heinous crimes, in part because our government is helping him. I’m sick of powerful men repeatedly doing horrible things to women—including minors—and facing zero consequences. Truly, what is wrong with you if you attempt to defend these monsters?

I am OP. Introducing Hakan (sic) Piker’s name into this discussion is a total non sequiter and an indication that your response is not in good faith.

The article gives many examples of the reach and influence of Tate. Of course, not all men (or boys). But there is no question that in the personal and political realms, there has been a sharp increase in misogyny and more open acceptance of hateful and violent rhetoric about women. I don’t think that “touch grass” or its equivalent is the correct response to that.

You're confusing cause and effect. I don't think the Tate brothers are a cause, but rather one of the results from the general increase in misogyny.

DP. You think a general increase in misogyny just comes about organically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP. I’m not nearly concerned about how many followers he might have as that he keeps getting away with heinous crimes, in part because our government is helping him. I’m sick of powerful men repeatedly doing horrible things to women—including minors—and facing zero consequences. Truly, what is wrong with you if you attempt to defend these monsters?

I am OP. Introducing Hakan (sic) Piker’s name into this discussion is a total non sequiter and an indication that your response is not in good faith.

The article gives many examples of the reach and influence of Tate. Of course, not all men (or boys). But there is no question that in the personal and political realms, there has been a sharp increase in misogyny and more open acceptance of hateful and violent rhetoric about women. I don’t think that “touch grass” or its equivalent is the correct response to that.

You're confusing cause and effect. I don't think the Tate brothers are a cause, but rather one of the results from the general increase in misogyny.

DP. You think a general increase in misogyny just comes about organically?

The Tate brothers aren't the root casue for the increase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP. I’m not nearly concerned about how many followers he might have as that he keeps getting away with heinous crimes, in part because our government is helping him. I’m sick of powerful men repeatedly doing horrible things to women—including minors—and facing zero consequences. Truly, what is wrong with you if you attempt to defend these monsters?

I am OP. Introducing Hakan (sic) Piker’s name into this discussion is a total non sequiter and an indication that your response is not in good faith.

The article gives many examples of the reach and influence of Tate. Of course, not all men (or boys). But there is no question that in the personal and political realms, there has been a sharp increase in misogyny and more open acceptance of hateful and violent rhetoric about women. I don’t think that “touch grass” or its equivalent is the correct response to that.

You're confusing cause and effect. I don't think the Tate brothers are a cause, but rather one of the results from the general increase in misogyny.

DP. You think a general increase in misogyny just comes about organically?

The Tate brothers aren't the root casue for the increase.

What do you think is the cause? (Or causes.)

[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.

Hasan Piker plays video games and believes Palestinians are humans and yet the hard right pp above would have you believe this is equivalent to Andrew Tate’s Epstein-esque trafficking empire.

Don’t fall for it.

[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.

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.

Hasan Piker plays video games and believes Palestinians are humans and yet the hard right pp above would have you believe this is equivalent to Andrew Tate’s Epstein-esque trafficking empire.

Don’t fall for it.

He's a limousine liberal. That's the best kind.

[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.

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.

Hasan Piker plays video games and believes Palestinians are humans and yet the hard right pp above would have you believe this is equivalent to Andrew Tate’s Epstein-esque trafficking empire.

Don’t fall for it.

+1,000,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP. I’m not nearly concerned about how many followers he might have as that he keeps getting away with heinous crimes, in part because our government is helping him. I’m sick of powerful men repeatedly doing horrible things to women—including minors—and facing zero consequences. Truly, what is wrong with you if you attempt to defend these monsters?

I am OP. Introducing Hakan (sic) Piker’s name into this discussion is a total non sequiter and an indication that your response is not in good faith.

The article gives many examples of the reach and influence of Tate. Of course, not all men (or boys). But there is no question that in the personal and political realms, there has been a sharp increase in misogyny and more open acceptance of hateful and violent rhetoric about women. I don’t think that “touch grass” or its equivalent is the correct response to that.

You're confusing cause and effect. I don't think the Tate brothers are a cause, but rather one of the results from the general increase in misogyny.

DP. You think a general increase in misogyny just comes about organically?

The Tate brothers aren't the root casue for the increase.

What do you think is the cause? (Or causes.)

Dilution of women as a protected class. Certain parties want you to believe there is no difference between men and women. I assure that there are physical and systemic structural differences that make biological women vulnerable.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56399862