Andrew Tate

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122707807#Comment_122707807

Its not like there are countless examples of him admitting to everything hes been accused of and more…..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYhawrNc_k

Timestamps:

00:00 All the accusations are true

01:00 Training girls and being himself a camgirl

02:28 Tricking girls into doing webcam

03:00 How much he pays the cam girls

04:00 How He made big money, admitting to manipulating women

06:34 How to recruit girls for webcam

10:00 Hiding evidence and convincing his girlfriends to do webcam

12:35 Describing violence as a tool and admitting having multiple false passports

13:13 Admitting r**ing one of his girls

14:12 Tricking customers

15:10 Tristan saying he is in the business too

15:56 Saying again he was a camgirl

17:57 Tristan describing customers as losers, taking advantage of them

18:15 Andrew says their customers are inherently gay

18:34 Tate explaining why he gives bribes

20:16 Tate admitting he bribed ro officials

20:37 Andrew admitting he is a mafia guy

21:27 Andrew Tate admitting he gives bribes again, doesn’t pay taxes, admitting to multiple felonies

23:40 Andrew admitting he sold dr*gs

25:44 Saying he has false ID papers again

26:11 Says he is untouchable because he is rich, therefore he can do whatever he wants

27:18 Andrew Tate admitting he is a p**o.

28:17 Breaking down p***ing, admitting they were in business before OF existed.

32:05 How p***ing works, his PhD course, He is saving men trough his business

35:22 Being a webcam girl is the best job a woman can have

35:33 Tristan admitting he is tricking people online

36:27 AT admitting he is a scammer

36:48 AT bragging about his apparatus (mob affiliation)

37:06 AT admitting his girls are his property

37:55 AT saying he recruits girls that are easy to manipulate (they have half a brain)

38:15 Describing again the fact that his girlfriends are an asset (his property)

40:19 Andrew’s text messages (manipulating girls into doing webcam)

46:15 TT admitting again that he tricks men with his webcam business

47:05 AT admitting that he had s**al relationships with a minor

47:20 AT hitting on a minor on a livestream

47:50 AT about his PhD course, admitting using tactics to retain girls (manipulating)

48:42 Andrew Tate bitcoin scam and snitching on his fellow mobsters

50:42 AT tricks girls into thinking that they are paid fair

But no you are right we shouldn't assume hes guilty of everything hes actually admitted to.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122707975#Comment_122707975

Stop judging him by his behaviour. 😂

taxAHcruel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122707586#Comment_122707586

I think thats the point being made by the person you aimed the dictionary definitions at. The definition does not seem to be the issue. It's the extreme fickleness with which people tend to use/apply the term. Often without any back up or reasoning or explanation or justification. It's such people who need to be reminded of the actual definition, not silverharp.

Remember dictionaries do not give the definitions of words. They reflect the usage of words and change over time to reflect changing usages. At this point therefore silverharp would be forgiven for wondering if the word is coming to mean something like "anyone saying things I do not like and making money in doing so". Because that genuinely is how they appear - and to be honest my experiences are similar - to see the word being used.

When I see it used it tends to be in a "guilty until proven innocent" context. As in the word is flung at someone without any basis and then someone else has to argue that the person is NOT a grifter. I prefer the "innocent until proven guilty" axiom myself. Again simply making a profit from speaking does not make one a grifter. Where is the "swindling" occurring exactly given its such a core part of the definition?

Worse again however there are several things which can appear from the outside similar to grifting. Audience Capture is a relatively recent term coined which is one such example. But there are others.

Like my previous post earlier this morning, it seems to me people just have a list of people they dislike and they simply justify that list by finding ways to link them all to the worst on the list. And simple throw away words like "grifter" seem all too readily available to facilitate that desire.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122706858#Comment_122706858

Yeah I despise Musk but not everything he has ever said. I really can't bear Brand (never could) but ditto. Peterson and Rogan are nothing as bad as the rest. But the Tates... good lord.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122707967#Comment_122707967

The probability of Jimmy Saville commiting those crimes based on the testimony and the investigations carried out after his death is quite overwhelming.

It is not just based on accusations but thorough investigations which had evidence.

So to answer your "simple" questions.

1. Most probably.
2. Because of evidence uncovered from an investigation.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122707975#Comment_122707975

He is an odious oaf in my opinion, but to use a copy and paste youtube clip which has

"18:15 Andrew says their customers are inherently gay"

or "15:56 Saying again he was a camgirl"

as contributory evidence that he is guilty of what he is accused of is a little silly.

I´m sorry, but the majority of those things listed immoral rather than illegal and anything illegal wouldn´t stand up in court.

It´s strange that you only believe Andrew Tate when he says something you can use against him?

So when he says something outlandish and ridiculous, we should believe him and every word he says is gospel, but when he protests his innocence, we should disbelieve him?

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708136#Comment_122708136

It isn't. It was a lazy, underhanded comment that was undeserving of a response. The word has a clear definition as the poster you quoted demonstrated. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708236#Comment_122708236

Thats completely wrong.

You think they the use of the word "grifting" is accurate because of your opinion.

Anyone can be a classified as a grifter based on people´s expectations and opinions.

Is Taylor Swift a "grifter" because she decieves her young fans into thinking she actually cares about them to sell merchendise?

Are religious people "grifters" because the are decieving people to believe in a deity and ask for donations?

Are politicians "grifters" because they don´t follow up with promises made to the electorate?

Anyone can be is a grifter if you disagree with them.

Jordan Peterson has given many people comfort and help, as has Russell Brand, as has many other people who you would disagree with. Just because you disagree with them, doesn´t mean they are grifters. It just means you don´t see a benefit in what they are offering.

But you are so blinded by your own bias that you assume everything that you disagree with is a "grift".

A worrying view for someone who is entrusted to reviews posts in a neutral manner to hold.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708229#Comment_122708229

He is an odious oaf in my opinion

And how exactly did you come to this conclusion? Did you form an opinion by listening to his words and observing actions? Did you **gasp** pre-judge him……

I did enjoy you trying to argue that "ohh but only some of those things he admitted to are illegal the rest is just immoral" as a valid form of defense of him somehow being innocent? And like it or not all you have done in this thread is try to defend him. But go ahead, keep moving your own goalposts if it makes you feel better defending a self admitted rapist and paedophile.

Whats next? Will you try argue the girls involved deserved to be taken advantage of?

taxAHcruel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708236#Comment_122708236

Then tell it to the people pretending otherwise. I certainly am not and I do not think Silverharp is either. In fact no one appears to be doing so.

The comment Silverharp made and the post I am making are based not on the definition of the word per se but how people are using it.

And it's the throw away use of it that is "lazy and underhanded". As I said the word gets used almost always without any basis or justification. Usually just thrown into a one liner. Throwing labels and buzzwords in the hope they stick is actually lazy and underhanded.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708340#Comment_122708340

They clearly are. You're welcome to say otherwise but it's pretty obvious. It's just a lazy way to dismiss an argument you don't agree with. I've clarified this above but, as usual, that gets ignored because it is inconvenient.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708338#Comment_122708338

My opinion is based on the knowledge I have at hand. I am not labelling him as guilty of anything other than being someone I wouldn´t associate myself with.

Nobody is ever under an obligation to like someone.

I can´t see how this is hard to grasp.

I have called him an odious oaf, have not complimented him at all and yet you and others are attempting to accuse me of defending him for wanting to wait for the evidence to be presented.

Present me with one shred of proof that I am defending the Tate brothers? Oh wait, waiting for proof isn´t a prerequisite before you state things as fact

Absolutely bizarre behaviour.

taxAHcruel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708356#Comment_122708356

A lazy response to a lazy argument is justified in my opinion. It was intellectually lazy to simply fling the word "grifter" in the way that it was by not one but two users. So the response offered was exactly the response called for.

It is interesting when two people spew lazy one-liners you only take issue with the one you disagree with. As if one post was "deserving of a response" and the other not. Sauce for the goose and gander son. To be honest there was not a lot of substance to EITHER users posts.

But I can see where one of those two posts is coming from at least. Which I can not do with posts that simply spew the word "grifter" without context or substance.

If you feel someone is ignoring stuff and you feel slighted by this then by all means take it up with them not me. I certainly ignored nothing and my posting history on the forum will find me wanting of ignoring things said to me. If you feel I have ignored/missed anything by all means clarify/repeat.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708335#Comment_122708335

"I'm not interested in your attempts to defend hateful misogynists."

Bizarre comment from a CMod and one that proves my point. Not once have I defended anyone on this thread. Unless you think that waiting for evidence to be presented in an upcoming investigation is somehow defending someone.

I would expect someone with such myopic opinions on contentious subjects to hold themselves to a standard where they dont blatently lie about other posters, especially if they are in a volunteer position of moderator.

kippy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122707249#Comment_122707249

Indeed, but you could surely lump anyone into that category who makes money out of online platforms - not sure why you'd chose to group those specific people together.

Tate and Peterson have very few things in common in reality.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708446#Comment_122708446

They're similar in fairness. The whataboutery does not change that.

kippy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708456#Comment_122708456

How exactly are they similiar outside of some of the ways that any person who makes content is similiar?

They are very different people, different backgrounds, education, platforms, rap records, attitudes, behaviour - ie not similiar.

What actual "Whataboutery" are you talking about?

My opinion is that they aren't similiar in enough ways to mention them in the same breath. I am not sure why people are trying to link them.

This Tate guy seems to be a piece of work - I doubt his mother is proud of him - not so sure about Peterson.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708397#Comment_122708397

You have literally spent the last god knows how many pages defending them against people who believe they are very likely guilty of the crimes they have been accused of. Every post trying to make out there being something wrong with using their past words and actions to make an educated assumption that they are guilty is a defense of them.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708456#Comment_122708456

In what way?

What makes them similar apart from the fact that you don´t like either.

I suppose they are all like Joe Rogan and Tim Pool too?

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708483#Comment_122708483

How are they the same as a retailer selling shoes online for example?

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708487#Comment_122708487

Assuming their guilt is very different.

My point has been that evidence won´t change anyones opinion if they have already come to a conclusion. I don´t know if the Tates are guilty, I´m of the opinion that there are credible accusations against them but I would like to see what evidence is available before I make up my mind-

As has been seen before with the Rugby guys, Brett Kavanaugh etc, people are only too happy to assume guilt, and even if it turns out they are not guilty, they have already made their mind up.

I won´t and have not stood up for the Tates. If the evidence shows that they are guilty of the accusations, I will be one of the first to delight in their sentencing. If they are found not guilty, will you be happy to be wrong?

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708508#Comment_122708508

lol

I see you have raised the stakes when it comes to "Whataboutery"!

If someone is selling shoes online that I don´t see any value in or if I feel they are overselling the appeal of their shoes in comparison to alternatives, I can, by your logic accuse them of "grifting". They are using their platform to sell me something and to convince me to give them money for something I do not need.

However, someone else might see those shoes and think that they exactly suit their own needs and willingly purchase them.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708184#Comment_122708184

How do you think people get charged with crimes?

Based on testimony and investigations which have evidence.

So in the case of a dead man, you believe he is most probably guilty based on those things. But not in the case of a living person.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708536#Comment_122708536

In my opinion the only people so obsessed with arguing this pedantically about such a pointless point likely support them despite any claims to the contrary, ill be ignoring your nonsense from now on but seriously I hope you are happy continuing to defend rapists paedophiles

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708687#Comment_122708687

That's not what I said.

I said the evidence about the Tates haven't been presented yet. The evidence against Saville has been.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708695#Comment_122708695

And you are entitled to your opinion.

But that doesn't change the fact that you are demonstrably incorrect.

I have clearly and succinctly said I don't like the Tates and I would be only too happy to see them sentenced if the evidence proved that they were guilty of the accusations.

But in your warped logic, that is me defending rapist paedophiles.

Clown world.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708696#Comment_122708696

Of course it has, to the authorities. Like the authorities who conducted investigations into Saville.

Yvonne007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708712#Comment_122708712

Yes, and now it will go to trial where the evidence will be presented.

……

What part of this is confusing you?

Hoop66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708503#Comment_122708503

Tim Pool, who literally took Russian money to push their propaganda? That Tim Pool? Yes, he absolutely is a grifter.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122708745#Comment_122708745

It's very strange behaviour. You call out one of these guys for grifting and there'll be people flood in to shrilly defend each and every one of them to the hilt. Every. Single. Time. I had one lad come back to me years after to demand an apology for calling his idol a grifter.

I've no idea who Tim Pool is btw.