Andrew Tate

must check that out, was it a cluster b personality disorder, do you know, as thats what he more than likely has, npd maybe?

That's provably one tool that some peole use to push their way to the top of things. But you're talking about a load of young lads who don't have much guidance and aren't too bright (or else they wouldn't be listening to the likes of those guys) and they're not going to the top of anything.

They're just learning that bullying is a great technique in life to bang a pornstar girlfriend (not to have a happy, stable relationship) to make money grifting on the Internet (not to get a good job that can make useful things or provide for a family) to be an alpha (not to be a good family or community member or leader)

Nothing wrong with being driven and focused, but they're not driving towards useful things. They're just teaching that being a d1ck is the goal and Bugatti will find it's way to you then you post it on social medai, then you've won. Won what?

Okay but he's also a climate change denier and persistent contrarian who clearly borrows from the antics of Trump/Tate to get attention and notoriety. He may not be at their level, but he's certainly on the same wavelength. At least they are direct about it, he covers it with a veneer of quasi-intellectualism.

Your using your imagination to link Peterson to Tate and Trump and its a silly thing to do, he borrows nothing from them.

Okay. I don't agree with that opinion.

I'd argue he wasn't always this way, but he's certainly evolved into a grifter like the rest of them, promoting far right views, conspiracies and pseudo-science under the guise of intellectualism.

Of course I'm just a "cultural Marxist" for pointing out that for example clinical psychology has nothing to do with climate science.

Actually he talks about a 100 different subjects, sometimes he's right and sometimes he's wrong.

Fringes love any intellectual who can appear to validate their BS beliefs. There is a huge demand there.

Whether it's racism, misogyny, conspiracies, anti-science crankery - if someone, anyone with a qualification can appear and "support" those beliefs then they are lavished with attention, fame and money. It's proved too tempting for some.

Joe Rogan and Tate can only go so far..

David Goggins is a perfect example of someone who is not a grifter, actually theirs loads of people that do podcasts/YouTube and sell books that are not grifters but theirs a few people on here who seem to think that everyone who does it is a grifter

Multiple examples have been given at this point.

Since you've dropped the "both sides" line, I suggest leaving it there.

I wouldn't class Rogan as being "the same" as Tate (who is definitely much more extreme) but he's a part of the same broad circus. Used to like him too, but yeah he just has difficulties with critical thinking and is drawn to a lot of the far right tropes and conspiracies

You keep saying he's intelligent, and ignoring the point that he's not honest. He isn't trying to help his audience to understand things by explaining the whole picture, he's pushing an agenda which sells.

Surely even his fans recognise he doesn't give a rounded view of a topic. He just says things that lead to the same conclusions: women have too much influence, trans is bad, climate change isn't real and god definitely is real.

These aren't nuanced points. They're just conclusions that his core market of conservative American men want to hear. Nothing he says is challenging to his core market and that's the way he keeps it.

What good is intelligence if he uses it dishonestly and doesn't use it to genuinely enlighten?

In fairness I did give a few examples of his opinions and why I disagree with him/them. He has some truly out there nonsense and even harmful opinions. Like his claim that you can not recover from alcohol addiction unless you are religious. He espouses this view in a few places, but a good place to see it is in his debate with Matt Dillahunty, because Matt pushes back on it quite hard and Peterson doubles down on it.

He also believes atheists do not really exist, that they are lying to themselves and/or others. Why? Because he thinks that if they really were atheists they would all act like the bad guy from Dostoevsky. The fact atheists do NOT act like that means either A) he is wrong or B) atheists must not exist. And he clearly does not believe the former can be true so the latter nonsense must be true by default.

He also has this really weird idea that some tribal types discovered not just the existence of DNA but the double helix nature of DNA long before Science did. He believes they did this using the magic of some drug, probably Ayhuwasca. And his evidence for this claim? They had art depicting a snake eating it's own tail. That's it. That's his reason for thinking they magically discovered the nature of DNA. If that is not deranged non sequitur nonsense, it is hard to know what is!

All that said I am STILL one of the people who think he is a good person, genuinely does care about the well being of young men in our world, genuinely does care about laws in Canada that are what he sees as compelled speech, and genuinely is a net good in the world both on and off line. But yes there are many places I'd like to see him either A) do better or B) stay away from it because he hasn't a notion what he is on about (Climate Change for example).

I am not one of these "All or nothing" types who think someone either has to be perfect or they must be some evil that must be stopped or bad mouthed. This thread is about Tate however, not Peterson. And so far I have seen literally nothing suggesting he is a good in the world on any level. I genuinely suspect him to be quite far along the "net negative" continuum.

Like you however I have ZERO time for the term "grifter" for three reasons.

The first is that it's an accusation that requires no evidence for it, and against which there is no real defence. It's a "guilty until proven innocent" move and how would you prove innocence? Especially as the people being called grifters obviously do have a platform from which they make a profit. It's a pretence at being psychic. The person using that term is pretending to know what is in the mind and heart of another human being without any actual evidence for it.

The second is related to the above. The people who throw out that term basically throw it at people they hate, and not at people they like, who are just as readily making their money from social media platforms and books and tours. It's a true "Cake and eat it" canard. As if making a profit is somehow a bad thing. I think the opposite. If someone is doing good in the world, I want them to find it a profitable move for them.

The third and final is the "so what?" rationale. For me the important aspect is whether the person making a profit is having a net positive or net negative effect on the world. If they are in it for the money - if they are in it because it's truly what is in their heart - or they are in it for both reasons - why care? It's just an empty and transparently desperate ad hominem. By the time the dust of one's shrilly screeching "grifter" settles - the reality remains that the shrill screecher still has not shown anything useful or relevant or rebutted a single thing their object of vitriol and bile has actually done in the world.

No you haven't, you just stated something that you cannot prove

Just did a quick search and he has a video "advice to young men in their 20's" it's short and not particularly good but it proves he has generated good advice within the last 5 years.