This dude's been just about banned from every social media site/app. Not good for him at all.
What does everyone else think of this controversial character?
I looked this up and it never happened. Tate made a pathetic message aimed at Greta. Greta’s handlers gave a pathetic reply and Tate followed up with another pathetic reply. No winners on that Twitter battle, just sad from both really.
Don't get the appeal at all. Seems like a very sad and angry little man.
She made him look a right tit. I’d say he’s raging.
I see Greta Thunberg made a right muggins of this angry chancer.
^^
that "Chicken Dinner" #260 rant was funny as fuq !! 😁 Tate's great 🙂🙂
Dearie me.
this is a lol
Did you know?
Big Brother's Stephen Bear, who's on trial for revenge porn and seems like a right bellend about it, was once on a reality show called "Shipwrecked" with Andrew's brother, Tristan.
Typical bluepilled ignorant advise from someone who has no idea what some men go through.
"Just take a shower bro"
"Just get a haircut"
"Just go for a walk in woods bro"
Many men will be going for walks in the woods, with a noose in hand.
I have heard him mentioned in incel forums but I haven't watched him, I assume he is a blackpilled individual who stands up to this clown world.
I usually watch videos from Grotesque Subhuman. He receives Autism bux even though he shows very little autistic traits. It must be very easy to get autism diagnosis in USA.
His views on woman are like what you'd hear 50 years ago or in extreme parts of the world today where they are treated as second class citizens.
Says a lot about modern society that a man like him can get so wealthy and famous with such an attitude and mindset. Kudos to him for his commercialisation on those beliefs.
A grifter is exactly what he is, a bottom feeder appealing to incels and enraged hermits.
As a human, as a man, he's just a piece of sh1t.
Never heard of the guy, but decided I'd watch one of his videos. Got about 3 minutes in and sussed him out as just another grifter in the mold of Peterson. Presume he's also the sort of lad who suggests Bitcoin is a route to financial independence, women have got a bit uppity lately, and that existing on a diet of supplements, game and raw eggs will turn you into the best version of yourself.
His followers should spend less time being so desperately angry, and instead try and form a few meaningful relationships and an appreciation for going for a good walk in nature.
So to sum up the 9 pages he's just a bit of a prick then
My Granny would have said "sure he didnt lick it up off the stones."
Andrew is the perfect example of what's wrong with society but not in the way people think .
Andrew wanted to become super famous & know but he knew he had nothing of real value to add or give that could get him there , So he made a choice to use "cancel" culture against its self. He literally hit the internet & socials with the whole plan of saying **** to get people properly riled up but not to go to far so some people would support him & there would be DEBATE about him,
He 's a clever man & has found & fortune by banking on the "CANCEL " crowd to come after him & make him something he could not achieve with out them,
The more negative press he get the more he is talked about & the more anti establishment people adore him ,
If everyone shut up & ignored him he would have disappeared already ,
He 100% makes sexist comments. Out of context he actually reads like a parody of an alpha male like he had a story where he got on a plane and saw the pilot was female and declared she probably doesn't even know how to drive a car and was kicked off the plane and banned from flying with airline. Its slightly funny, obviously fake and definitely sexist. He also refers to women as bitches and hoes in his stories and thinks they all want to be part of his harem. He is like the Kardashians for insecure lads.
Well, it's a good thing that I have 20 years knowing him and he's pretty stable emotionally and intellectually.
But I'm free to discuss his well being with a person on the internet that doesn't know him 😉
Without trying to cause offence, that sounds like someone with severe emotional stunting.
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’re right. He doesn’t fall for every con he comes across. He does fall for the vast majority, though.
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.
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.
Tldr
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.
I dont think Joe sees things in a "nuanced balanced way" .🤣 His "debating skills" are not up to much either!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0c95fbacfd3f8db330cceee65321bca3.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b605825002726fa398519aca553ff0db.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/877aa92d1fda3704e03b5aa206affea2.svg)