Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spoken like a true ignoramus who has no idea how the media operates. I'm sure you were triggered by Diddy or BLM reporting, likely due to the fact that you made no effort to truly understand the issues and context.

I cannot believe people are actually defending one of the worst men on our planet. I dont think you read the article or followed this guy over the course of the two decades he's been notorious for crimes.

Oh , I can.

+1

Millions of Americans worship a white nationalist rapist. Of course they’d defend these POSs.

The Tates are Black. How do you explain that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spoken like a true ignoramus who has no idea how the media operates. I'm sure you were triggered by Diddy or BLM reporting, likely due to the fact that you made no effort to truly understand the issues and context.

I cannot believe people are actually defending one of the worst men on our planet. I dont think you read the article or followed this guy over the course of the two decades he's been notorious for crimes.

Oh , I can.

+1

Millions of Americans worship a white nationalist rapist. Of course they’d defend these POSs.

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

Anonymous wrote:Pandering to leftists is big business.

Reminds me of Fox News viewers thinking they can't go to DC because there's a 90% chance of being car jacked.

There's a sucker born every minute.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spoken like a true ignoramus who has no idea how the media operates. I'm sure you were triggered by Diddy or BLM reporting, likely due to the fact that you made no effort to truly understand the issues and context.

I cannot believe people are actually defending one of the worst men on our planet. I dont think you read the article or followed this guy over the course of the two decades he's been notorious for crimes.

Oh , I can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spoken like a true ignoramus who has no idea how the media operates. I'm sure you were triggered by Diddy or BLM reporting, likely due to the fact that you made no effort to truly understand the issues and context.

I cannot believe people are actually defending one of the worst men on our planet. I dont think you read the article or followed this guy over the course of the two decades he's been notorious for crimes.

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spoken like a true ignoramus who has no idea how the media operates. I'm sure you were triggered by Diddy or BLM reporting, likely due to the fact that you made no effort to truly understand the issues and context.

I cannot believe people are actually defending one of the worst men on our planet. I dont think you read the article or followed this guy over the course of the two decades he's been notorious for crimes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spoken like a true ignoramus who has no idea how the media operates. I'm sure you were triggered by Diddy or BLM reporting, likely due to the fact that you made no effort to truly understand the issues and context.

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?