New Yorker article about Andrew Tate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this will be another case of "trafficking" like Vince McMahon?

Regardless, anyone who is at least GenX age should know that toxic masculinity was 10x worse back in the day.

I’m not familiar, did Vince McMahon rape, suffocate, and traffic 13-15 year olds to foreign countries?

No, he was basically a sugar daddy and made the mistake of putting his sugar baby on the payroll. But if you read some of the "news" articles, he was accused of all sorts of things, to include trafficking.

Who knows if this article is even accurate?

DP. Did you read it? The reporting is supported by “thousands of private messages, internal documents, sealed prosecutorial files, and court records—as well as scores of interviews with the Tates, their associates, and more than a dozen alleged victims.”

And accuracy is sort of the New Yorker’s thing. Their fact checkers are legendary.

[Anonymous]

I went to one of his house parties in Bucharest years ago. Creepy dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this will be another case of "trafficking" like Vince McMahon?

Regardless, anyone who is at least GenX age should know that toxic masculinity was 10x worse back in the day.

I’m not familiar, did Vince McMahon rape, suffocate, and traffic 13-15 year olds to foreign countries?

No, he was basically a sugar daddy and made the mistake of putting his sugar baby on the payroll. But if you read some of the "news" articles, he was accused of all sorts of things, to include trafficking.

Who knows if this article is even accurate?

I hate to break it to you, but a 15 year old can’t be a “sugar baby,” that’s a trafficked minor.

Actually I love breaking it to you, it’s pretty easy to figure out when a minor is being trafficked by a predator and this is one of those times. Sorry buddy, you don’t get to have sex with children, as much as you want it to be ok.

[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.

also isn't Andrew Tate Muslim?? what does his worldview have to do with MAGA?? he's like a hairless ISIS troll- truly. they also tried to resurrect slavery, harems & he believes in that too

Agree completely. Muslim beliefs are insanely misogynistic and controlling. They also support slavery, and still practice it in some majority Muslim countries.

[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.

also isn't Andrew Tate Muslim?? what does his worldview have to do with MAGA?? he's like a hairless ISIS troll- truly. they also tried to resurrect slavery, harems & he believes in that too

Agree completely. Muslim beliefs are insanely misogynistic and controlling. They also support slavery, and still practice it in some majority Muslim countries.

So just like the white nationalists in charge of the US at the moment.

No wonder Trump helped free him.

[Anonymous]

Wasn't he living overseas? Didn't Trump allow him in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this will be another case of "trafficking" like Vince McMahon?

Regardless, anyone who is at least GenX age should know that toxic masculinity was 10x worse back in the day.

I’m not familiar, did Vince McMahon rape, suffocate, and traffic 13-15 year olds to foreign countries?

No, he was basically a sugar daddy and made the mistake of putting his sugar baby on the payroll. But if you read some of the "news" articles, he was accused of all sorts of things, to include trafficking.

Who knows if this article is even accurate?

DP. Did you read it? The reporting is supported by “thousands of private messages, internal documents, sealed prosecutorial files, and court records—as well as scores of interviews with the Tates, their associates, and more than a dozen alleged victims.”

And accuracy is sort of the New Yorker’s thing. Their fact checkers are legendary.

Is this the same New Yorker that is extremely pretentious and well known for its liberal bias?

Maybe work on critical thinking skills and don't blindly accept things at face value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this will be another case of "trafficking" like Vince McMahon?

Regardless, anyone who is at least GenX age should know that toxic masculinity was 10x worse back in the day.

I’m not familiar, did Vince McMahon rape, suffocate, and traffic 13-15 year olds to foreign countries?

No, he was basically a sugar daddy and made the mistake of putting his sugar baby on the payroll. But if you read some of the "news" articles, he was accused of all sorts of things, to include trafficking.

Who knows if this article is even accurate?

DP. Did you read it? The reporting is supported by “thousands of private messages, internal documents, sealed prosecutorial files, and court records—as well as scores of interviews with the Tates, their associates, and more than a dozen alleged victims.”

And accuracy is sort of the New Yorker’s thing. Their fact checkers are legendary.

Is this the same New Yorker that is extremely pretentious and well known for its liberal bias?

Maybe work on critical thinking skills and don't blindly accept things at face value.

Ok, I’ll put you down for “didn’t read it.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this will be another case of "trafficking" like Vince McMahon?

Regardless, anyone who is at least GenX age should know that toxic masculinity was 10x worse back in the day.

I’m not familiar, did Vince McMahon rape, suffocate, and traffic 13-15 year olds to foreign countries?

No, he was basically a sugar daddy and made the mistake of putting his sugar baby on the payroll. But if you read some of the "news" articles, he was accused of all sorts of things, to include trafficking.

Who knows if this article is even accurate?

DP. Did you read it? The reporting is supported by “thousands of private messages, internal documents, sealed prosecutorial files, and court records—as well as scores of interviews with the Tates, their associates, and more than a dozen alleged victims.”

And accuracy is sort of the New Yorker’s thing. Their fact checkers are legendary.

Is this the same New Yorker that is extremely pretentious and well known for its liberal bias?

Maybe work on critical thinking skills and don't blindly accept things at face value.

Lol. This isnt the first article on Andrew Tate. You sound stupid. He came to the US because he was in trouble overseas. He's not a new character. He's been an abusive person with articles and indictments on him for years.

[Anonymous]

Misandrists love these articles lol

[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.

OP, how old are you? What exactly do you mean?

The only people I know who would say that missogny has gotten worse are people that live their lives via the internet. They have a never ending list of grievances and the internet becomes their new reality. Yes, these guys are total trash, but that doesn't mean that misogny is any worse than it used to be. There has been a cultural shift over the years in terms of what is acceptable male behaviour. Women used to be very much objectified and guys just seemed to get away with all sorts of crappy behavior, not just misogny. Maybe you have a nostalgic view of the past?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There has been a cultural shift over the years in terms of what is acceptable male behaviour. Women used to be very much objectified and guys just seemed to get away with all sorts of crappy behavior, not just misogny.

Please elaborate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There has been a cultural shift over the years in terms of what is acceptable male behaviour. Women used to be very much objectified and guys just seemed to get away with all sorts of crappy behavior, not just misogny.

Please elaborate.

I'll take a shot at this one...

Most cops back in the day were jerks and would berate teenagers. Act up and you will probably get dropped lol.

Coaches bullying players was rampant in some sports.

Punching a random kid in the face while walking down the hallway in high school was not infrequent.

If you were the star player on the football team in high school, you could basically get away with murder.

It also wouldn't be too difficult to come up with a list of shitty behavior by women, but that would be off topic, and might trigger the justice warrior(s) posting here.

[Anonymous]

You are quite naive to think that people aren't still getting away with these types of things left and right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are quite naive to think that people aren't still getting away with these types of things left and right.

People get away with all sorts of horrible behavior. You are naive if you think that the media = real life.