What’s your most controversial opinion? **Read OP** **Mod Note in Post #3372**

People who use terms incorrectly do my head in. In this thread I've seen the term incel used to describe men who get women pregnant and abandon the kid. If they are impregnating women they would be the opposite of an incel. I've seen that fcuker Andrew Tate described as an incel too, he's probably had sex with more women than 99% of men.

Ah now, the term has come to encompass, far more, than just those who aren’t getting their hole. It’s the same with the term “boomer” when it’s applied to middle aged lads who don’t like that things are changing in the world. It’s an attitude.

Sure, one of the biggest incel “types” I know is a lad with kids who hates every woman who’s never slept with him. Small fella with a weird shaped head, you know the sort.

Anyway, language evolves, as they say.

So he's a misogynist or a prick, Incel is a specific thing, means an involuntary celibate. How can it now incompass things which are in fact the opposite of that.

No complaint. I would just prefer to wait until the verdict has been delivered before I label people as such.

But don't let your prejudice hold you back. You speak your mind.

I'm unlikely to be selected for the jury so I'm inclined to say there's enough publicly known for me to make a judgement. There's nothing particularly harsh or unacceptable to make such a judgement. They're exploitative scumbags and that's the reality, all indications are that they did engage in violence, trafficking and the rape of women. On top of that, they tended to use their platforms to encourage abuse of women...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66581218

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66604827

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz955kjw17no

Good stuff. I will admit that I have no intention to read your links because I'm not particularly interested in Andrew Tate. But again, I wouldn't call him a sex trafficker or a rapist based purely on accusations.

I can say I find him wholly disgusting as an individual but that is purely my opinion. Definitively calling people a certain thing as if they are facts when it hasn't been proven is dishonest and prejudiced.

Strawberries are the most over-rated fruit around.

I love the by-products of it. Strawberry jam, syrup, sweets, ice cream etc. But the actual physical fruit itself is meh.

And there is some weird fetish about Wexford grown strawberries like they are manna from heaven. Only an excuse (like Irish made artisan shops) to over-charge the consumer.

Don't think most people will consider it controversial but imho, if there's sufficient publicly available information from multiple countries that Andrew Tate and Co grooms, trafficks and rapes women then it should be okay to call him as such. On top of that, his rhetoric motivates his own followers to engage in abuse of women. So, nope I'm not being dishonest. I'd be dishonest if I said he had been convicted which I haven't said.

Fyi, lots of people viewed both Bill Cosby and Weinstein as guilty of rape prior to any conviction because there was lots of publicly available information on the cases.

You called him a sex trafficker and a rapist.

None of that has been proven but there are credible allegations. But to state it as fact is wrong.

You may not like the man, a feeling I share, but stating things as fact is dishonest.

You can give your opinion, but you can't categorically state your opinion as fact. "Sufficiently publicly available information" is quite the noodle scratcher. If you are already prejudiced, your idea of sufficient will be dramatically reduced because you want your prejudice to be validated.

This is a lovely post that kind of proves my point.

I have said repeatedly that I am not a fan of the Tates and I actively dislike them, but will refrain from saying they are definitively guilty until they are given a fair trial. I have also said that I want them persecuted to the fullest extent of the law if found guilty.

Somehow, in bizarro world, you have interpreted that as me somehow defending them.

I hope you can see how bizarre that is.

And yes, although I disagree with the verdict of the OJ Simpson case, we have to acknowledge that he is not a convicted murderer.

My belief that he was a murderer doesn't change the fact that he was found not guilty.

We either believe in the legality of court cases or we can just go on personal opinion.

I didn't call him a convicted rapist or trafficker. I also pointed to the fact that plenty of people have been viewed as guilty prior to a conviction. I'm happy to call him such based on the publicly available evidence. I won't be on a jury so how prejudiced I am or not, does not matter.

You seem to like to jump to the defence of edgelords tbh. Also sort of fascinating that you're doing so given the fact you continuously portray yourself as wanting to protect the women. We should absolutely emphasize the kind of person he is given how he has treated women, no? Doing so makes women more likely to be aware of the danger he poses. Or should we not mention those bits until he stops dodging justice?

I agree, we probably shouldn't call him an incel even though that group are fans of his and he intentionally plays to that audience. Most people wouldn't tend to have a problem with calling him a rapist or trafficker though... In fact, we absolutely should do so to highlight what a contemptible person he is.

No. You didn't say convicted. You "just" called him a sex trafficker and a rapist.

But ok, you deem it suitable to call people things based on the evidence you have seen. Fair enough. It still doesn't make it correct or a fact. You are entitled to your opinion.

And no, I don't jump to the defense of "edgelords". I have repeatedly stated that I do not like the Tate Brothers. And yes, I do like to think that I am a staunch defender of women. However, I also am equally a defender of men. I'm not a feminist.

Again, I am not a fan of the Tate brothers and AGAIN repeat that if they are guilty of the allegations put forward, I want them punished. I don't like how they present themselves but unless they are found guilty, I have to accept that the way they carry on is legal but still not something I condone or endorse.

Hmm…

Yes, I am wary about claims about rape because sometimes women don't always tell the truth. And I acknowledged how hard it is to prove a case of sexual assault.

But (and despite your lovely quote, I will still use it because it fits) I also said I find her claims more THAN credible. You omitted the word "THAN" which changes the context.

More than credible means that I would find it at a higher standard than credible which would bring it into the believable category. That doesn't suit your framing of my position so I see why you left it out.

So perhaps, instead of using Game of Thrones to interpret language, you may be best served actually reading what has been said.

I have edited my post, I genuinely didn't mean to leave "than" out and it is in there now.

No, it was a genuine error and I hold my hands up for it.

I'll leave it there so other people can discuss other controversial opinions that hopefully are more trivial than this subject.