Andrew Tate

Esse85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119830114#Comment_119830114

No idea, the UFC is far more lucrative but it still takes enormous skill, talent and dedication to be a world champion martial artist.

anewme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119829984#Comment_119829984

Are you being serious?

He is like a bad actor out of fair city.

CGI_Livia_Soprano

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119835898#Comment_119835898

Then Musk will fly off to Mars and bring back spices from the space colonies, right? 🤣

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119838913#Comment_119838913

They are completely serious

anewme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119839191#Comment_119839191

That is so funny. Charisma? He has the charisma of a slimy slug....

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119839794#Comment_119839794

Yeah because you're a real intellectual heavyweight that is much smarter than the rest of us. LOL

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119840104#Comment_119840104

Clearly not smart enough to recognise sarcasm.

cj maxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058260155/andrew-tate

I’ve never heard of him, who what is he?

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119840370#Comment_119840370

Again? For that to be true there has to be a previous occurrence. Try harder.

CGI_Livia_Soprano

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119840382#Comment_119840382

He’s a sex trafficker/grifter from the UK, hiding out in Romania.

Apart from pimping women out (literally), his whole deal is appealing to vulnerable, rudderless young men by making provocative misogynistic remarks about women. Stuff about how women can’t drive, they’re his property and so on.

These comments generate outrage and convinces incel types to sign up for his various “courses” for “hustlers.” He’s been removed from various different social media platforms for those same remarks.

His “courses” are classic pyramid schemes and his outrageous opinions are perfectly designed to attract negative attention from the tabloids, inspire tedious “debate” about free speech online, and embolden the many lost young men scattered around the internet to think that women are insert-your-own-slur-here.

He’s been around for years, he is desperate to be famous. From appearing on different reality shows, winning kickboxing championships, running “hustler courses” on Discord, to pimping out women (literally), he is gagging for infamy and it’s all peaked in the past few months or so.

Looking into my magic crystal ball I see that the law in Romania will eventually catch up to him (from pimping woman out. Literally) he will suffer some humiliating downfall. He will fade into obscurity and some other dork will emerge to grift the poor, lonely young men who are desperate for father figures to show them the way to wealth and fanny on tap.

From the ashes of Jordan Peterson rose Tate and soon there will be some other squeaky voiced balding bogeyman to convince emotionally stunted little boys (such as Cognitive Dissident above) that women are sluts, particularly the ones that won’t ride them.

its_steve116

Loopholes, loopholes, everywhere...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/06/tiktok-still-hosting-toxic-posts-of-banned-influencer-andrew-tate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119527685#Comment_119527685

That particular clip which surfaced on a few forums again about a year or so ago is not actually the "gotcha" that many of the Joe Haters think it is. But taken out of context I can see why people like yourself and others could be misled by it. It makes for uncomfortable listening.

It is not a comedy style I particularly like and out of context it really makes people look bad when it shouldn't. But out of context clips will do that - like the one that made a friend of mine think Rogan was an ass because an out of context clip made it look like Rogan was claiming Trans people are only good for porn. However when I listened to the full show the clip was mined from - it became instantly clear the porn comment was what is called in comedy a "call back" to a more serious topic they had had earlier in the conversation.

Even if the clip you refer to was what it appears to be on a short listen - people tend to want to over react to it too. Rogan has enough actual faults - as do we all - without having to invent spurious ones for him too. But the people who surfaced that clip want to do exactly that - and people who are likely innocent like yourself can be understandably tricked by it as it does sound pretty awful.

Even if we take the clip seriously for a moment to play devils advocate: Instead of saying something like "Despite 1000s of hours of his own podcast where he is respectful and calm - here is a clip which shows that he is imperfect and can sometimes act a bit of an ass" the reaction on Reddit threads to the clip is more like "This is the real Joe Rogan and how he always is". Imagine if someone caught you at your worst moment in your life - because we all have them - and ignored every other moment of your life and acted like this worst moment was representative of the real you. Instead of saying "This is how X acted one time" they want to explode it into "This is how X is and always has been and everything else you have seen is a lie". Because 2 minutes of bad acting trumps 1000s upon 1000s of hours of the opposite in the head of a hater.

However the real point is that the clip is actually not what it appears to be. Context is everything. It is a clip taken in 2006 on something called "The Opie and Anthony Show". The entire shtick/MO of that show was a performance of being "Shock Jocks" who would be abusive and nasty. If you listen to the full episode with Rogan for example this is instantly clear. An example of context: The intro of the show in the first seconds is a recording of shouting "Liar whore. Liar whore. And you know it. Shut your goddam pie hole". I randomly opened another recording of their show and it was a "Oh my god how long is this caller going to give me the babble and say nothing - ALL DAY LONG!". In fact the intro to every show pretty much shows you the tone they aimed for with this show intentionally.

Calling into that show expecting actual debate or conversation would be ridiculous. It would be the equivalent of shouting "Blast her with piss" on After Hours when someone asks for advice on a relationship issue - compared to asking for the same advice in the Relationship Issues forum. It is performance art/comedy. This is how you are meant to act on that show. Even the caller herself was giggling and laughing - which Rogan made part of the performance by shouting at her for it. He starts shouting about using CNN as a serious scientific reference for pete's sake. That is an instant flag the whole thing is a joke/performance. Callers to that show are the equivalent to hecklers in a comedians act and they are meant to be abused for it. That was the show.

So really pointing to this clip and acting like it shows Rogan to be a Bully would be analogous to finding a clip of him in the ring fighting MMA and claiming it shows him to be a violent person. Or if I were to find you in a pub after a few pints and acting like this shows you are a drunk. Taking how someone is meant to act in a given context and acting like it shows their "real character" out of that context.

This is not how Rogan actually conducts himself in conversations - as 1000s and 1000s of hours of his own show will attest. He hates talking over people as much as he hates being talked over. In fact he hates it so much - and recognizes it as a such a natural inclination in humans - that he maintains a "headphones" setup on his show. The effect of this - which he has pointed out himself on many occasions - is that if you do talk over someone you hear this directly in your own ears and it makes it intensely uncomfortable to do so. So he keeps using the headphones because it naturally prevents people (himself included) from talking over anyone. And he very rarely has more than one guest on at a time too for serious conversations for this reason - and has said as much very often. Because anything more than 1:1 conversation results in a disproportionate increase in people talking over each other.

That’s an incredibly long winded way of saying the previous poster was wrong and that Joe Rogan is alright.

Brevity my friend.

Not a skill I was born with as years of my posts on this forum will attest. :)

I wouldn't even be arguing that Rogan is "alright" or not. He has his faults. But this just was not one of them. I am more interested in what is true rather than defending anyone. If someone said something untrue about Hitler, I would point out it was untrue. It wouldn't be anything to do with wanting to defend Hitler :)

silverharp

I had never heard of Andrew Tate until he was banned, now there are clips of him all over twitter and Youtube

anewme

I suppose we all could wax lyrical and write long winded posts about Joe Rogan and how he’s misunderstood and he didn’t laugh about the female comedians being asked for sexual favours and how he was not obnoxious to guests etc etc etc,

but

why use 5000 words when one word suffices and sums him up in easy to understand terms.

DICK!

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

I suppose we could all employ nuanced views based on evidence and reasoning. Why see things in a nuanced, balanced way when can just devolve into petulant name-calling?

Basically: "your argument is too long, I'll ignore everything you said, and now I'm going to use ad-hominems."

Really mature and slick debating skills. 🤣

Rosalinda Eyes

He nearly had a fit when he found out James Bond had become a woman. He also claims he has different car licenses in different countries, and has some sort of explanation for how he can use this to avoid speeding fines.

anewme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119883129#Comment_119883129

I dont think Joe sees things in a "nuanced balanced way" .🤣 His "debating skills" are not up to much either!

I suppose you would have to find someone who has written a long winded post about how he is misunderstood then - and take it up with them. No one here on this thread appears to have done that.

What I myself did was write a long post about one particular claim about him based on one particular clip - to show that the claim does not stick and the clip is not what people claim it to be.

As I said the guy has loads of faults and you will not find me defending any of those. All I have said is that this particular fault doesn't stick - and the evidence used to suggest it does was fallacious and out of context and badly misrepresented.

Sleepy Joseph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119880169#Comment_119880169

Tldr

CGI_Livia_Soprano

Defending Rogan because he acted like a bully on a show where everyone is a bully makes him look worse, not better. A truly strong man (or woman) wouldn’t have engaged in horrible behaviour just because his peer group encourages it.

Indeed that’s one of the problems with Joe Rogan: he’s an incredibly suggestible dummy. He falls for every grifter and con-artist that comes his way. Rogan perfectly encapsulates that old saying about being so open minded his brain fell out.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119886265#Comment_119886265

You say that but he doesn't believe in religion and believes in gay rights even though a tonne of his guests would believe the exact opposite. He doesnt fall for all cons.

CGI_Livia_Soprano

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119886336#Comment_119886336

You’re right. He doesn’t fall for every con he comes across. He does fall for the vast majority, though.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119886265#Comment_119886265

But it is not defending him for acting like a bully. It is pointing out that it was not being a bully at all. It's an act/game being played by both the people on the show and the people calling into that show. It was the remit of the show.

Just like posting for relationship advice on After Hours - you know what kind of immature responses you will get. Not because the people posting those responses are immature or bad people. But because that is the done thing on that forum. It's an unspoken agreement on both the poster and the responders that this is the level the conversation will be at. If you want mature considered serious responses to your post about relationship advice - you know you do not post it in after hours.

Similarly if you call into a shock jock phone show like that - you are assumed to be doing so under the remit you will be abused and treated like a heckler by the comedians working on the show. It's what the show was for. It's the game you are signing up for by calling in. So no - no one is being excused for being a bully - because no one was actually a bully at all in the first place. There is nothing to be defended. They are all playing a game - caller and presenter alike - and there is simply nothing wrong with that. Even a little bit.

It would be like saying that if 10 wrestlers are put into a WWF ring to have a havoc match and beat the hell out of each other - that one of them should be the bigger person and rise above the violence or be seen as being violent too. No. They are there to fight. It's the point of the game they are playing. No one in that ring has to rise above it. There is nothing to rise above.

Now if Rogan treated anyone like that on his own show - where the context and the remit of the show is entirely different - I would be the first person to want to tell him he acted poorly in that case and he will hopefully continue to do better in future. Just like if he beats someone up in an MMA ring thats ok but if he got violent with someone on the street not so much. Context. Is. Everything.

anewme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119888471#Comment_119888471

He got so much bad publicity over those clips that if it were any kind of "game" or inside joke, he would have come out and said it afterwards - he would protect his pay cheque. He would have said it and he (his team) would have asked the people he was bullying on his show to back it up if it were all an inside joke.

Instead he said nothing.

I do get what you are saying about shock jock broadcasting being a format.

The other side are not always in on it though, are they? In the case of Jeremy Kyle, it was deemed exploitation.

Triangle

Edit: in reply to soprano

Now that's just pushing the blame for tates popularity in the wrong place.

My eldest is a fan of him and I've rebuked most of his 'beliefs' (not that it's done any good!)

But I've seen him (my son) grow up and over the last 6 years - he's been talking about radical feminism more and more. I can see how being a young man constantly attacked would push him into this type of sphere. Things like the UN’s body for “gender equality and women’s empowerment” wrote in a tweet, citing figures from UNESCO.

“On the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists, let us say out loud: STOP TARGETING WOMEN JOURNALISTS,” the organization continued.

It's a stupid comment when only a small % of killed journalists were women and written by an idiot in power and just leads to polarisation and the hyping of people like Tate.

But to summarise it up - his appeal isn't due to 'emotionally stunted young boys' being influenced as you say - it's caused by this gender polarisation that modern feminism has created.

erlichbachman

Wouldn’t be a fan at all but he isn’t misogynistic, actually makes some very good points, and the polarising thing is when someone makes a factual statement which clearly has a lot of sense in it, and is then shut down we have to ask ourselves where does it stop.

Ok he does do so much talking that it’s become unclear what exactly is he is being shut down for, but I don’t think anyone can argue that he has made some very good points.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119888583#Comment_119888583

My experience of Rogan is if a lot of publicity suggests he has done something wrong he will either address it if he has done wrong (he made a video about a racism issue for example where he agreed he had done wrong or could do better) or ignore it and move on if he feels he has nothing to apologize for.

To be honest I would act much the same way myself. If I feel I have done wrong I would own it. If I do not I would not pander to it at all for even a millisecond.

I imagine if Rogan had to address every clip that was taken out of context to make him look bad - he would lose more time than he has :) There is a lot of them. I mentioned for example a video that made my friend think Rogan was an ass. It was a clip of Rogan making a comment about Trans people being good for porn. Out of context I can see why the clip upset. In context however the comment made total sense.

The clip we are discussing here was stand up comedians doing their stand up comedy on radio rather than stage. But the format is essentially the same. And comedians who do "crowd work" and comedians who deal with hecklers - do so in a rather robust way. And that is what was being done on this radio show. So I do not see Rogan as having done anything wrong - nor is there anything there to "make excuses for" or to "defend" or that he should have "risen above". It was all perfectly fine and moral and ok. It's not the style of comedy I enjoy myself mind you. But I see nothing wrong with it.

Taken out of context however I can see why his haters want to portray it that he was acting horribly - because they could not contrive to find anything in his 5500 hours of the JRE to misrepresent so they must have fallen over in glee to find this particular clip - or people who know little about him are led to believe he is awful because of how he sounds on the clip. Out of context it is not comfortable or pleasant listening. Even in context its not my kind of comedy. I was never into aggressive crowd work or heckler put down comedy personally.

But I have listened to a few episodes of that show this week as part of researching my posts here. They did much much worse than they did in the clip above. One caller who spoke slowly they abused for example for sounding like she was "retarded" (their word) and kept asking her if her mum was a drinker because she sounds like she had fetal alcohol syndrome. And that is just one example.

I did enjoy the comedians they had on with torrettes and speech impedements. I enjoy people with issues like that who take it seriously but also can laugh at themselves (QBall from Northern Ireland on You tube is a great example). They had them try to read out news articles from the day, which decended into madness. And the guy with Torettes was unable to not jump if he heard the word "jump" so when he took a toilet break to take a dump they all stood outside the toilet shouting "Jump" at him mid dump to cause the obvious chaos that would entail. He also could not physically stop eating a certain kind of american candy so they put so much of it in front of him that he projectile vomited all over the studio live on air to shouts of "Well that was the money shot!" when globs of it landed on Bill Burr.

So in General the Joe Rogan clip was not just on par for the show and entirely in context - it was actually very tame compared to what that show normally got up to at the time. Also its worth noting this was 2006. I doubt in many ways a Rogan in his 30s and a Rogan in his 50s today are entirely the same person. But that's the internet for you where people do things like find tweets people made when they were 15 and use it against them when they are a mature adult in attempts to get them fired or cancelled or fail to get elected etc.

I think this Radio show was a big influence on Rogan starting the JRE but he has clearly "Risen above" or removed many aspects of it and kept the baby from the bath water while ditching the more low brow aspects of it. A nice irony that the people looking at the clip saying he should have "risen above it" miss when they fail to note that - that is exactly what he did when creating his own show. :)

EmmetSpiceland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119888680#Comment_119888680

Without trying to cause offence, that sounds like someone with severe emotional stunting.