Andrew Tate

And when he's found guilty you will always be a person who was defending a rapist

I'm 5 minutes in and I just think what a sad, sad man. Has obviously had some immense trauma in his life. Doesn't excuse his disgusting rants and misogynism but this is a man who is deeply unhappy.

They're still under investigation so nothing has changed on that front. Also worth remembering that Tate left the UK because of sexual assault allegations... So it's pretty reasonable to view them as scumbags.

theres an element of assumption in regards trauma, as most such behavioral issues experience significant childhood trauma, but you can gather some of that from the sources linked, the times podcast is very telling, the way his father treated him as a child was very dysfunctional, in which trauma is commonly the outcome, apologies but i cant remember the specifics, so maybe its for listening later

Yeah i think they only actually owned like 1 maybe 2 of the multiple cars seized

In a scenario where a person flees the UK due to sexual assault allegations and then gets caught up in even more serious allegations, at a certain point no smoke without fire becomes relevant.

Are any of us preventing him from facing due process? We're making educated conclusions based on the fact he has previously fled due process in the UK and the many warped views he's expressed in relation to women.

Andrew must not be a fan of due process though given the fact he chose to leave the UK rather than proving his innocence.

Would you agree he avoided due process in relation to other sexual assaults? You can be as annoyed as you want with me but it's a bit odd that you're so intent on defending his pretty atrocious name. He's facing charges in more than one jurisdiction before any of this he was known to be a piece of ****.

Out of interest what do you think of Andrew Tate as an individual? You seemed to rushing to declare him innocent.

So do you believe Jimmy Saville was innocent?

Lets look at a definition of Prejudice shall we since its a word you seem to be using as a bit of a cudgel while being very selective about all of the definitions of it. Here's one you are conveniently ignoring "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." So based on that it seems you are trying to argue there are absolutely no reasons whatsoever for people to make an assumption that the tates could be guilty of the crimes they are accused of?

Very little reason for it that I can discern. Nor is it just Peterson. Quite a few names have been mentioned in comparison on the thread. Peterson. Rogan. Morgan. Brand. Musk.

The only real point of comparison I see between the names mentioned is the demographic they more often than not tend to appeal to. Which is young men of a certain age.

However two things usually missed when that point of comparison is used is that 1) It's a very wide and diverse section of the human demographic and 2) they do not always appeal to the same section(s) of that demographic.

It seems subjectively to me that certain "horse paste" type commentators have a list of people they dislike. People who repeat the same lie(s) about someone over and over, even when shown not to be true, just because its the only thing they have to explain why they hate the person in question.

So they pick the worst person on the list and compare everyone on their list to that one person to "Guilt by association" them and justify their hate.

"Oh sure you hate Tate? Well he and X Y and Z are all just the same really".

Thing is I know much about many of the people on the list and there are redeeming things about most of them. Even Peterson who I disagree with on oh so many things - seems to me to have some very strong and genuine points.

I have invested some time over the life of this thread looking into Tate. I have yet to find a single redemptive nugget about him anywhere. He genuinely seems to be a hateful professional troll who brings no postive (let alone net positive) to the world or anything he touches.