Should I feel left out if I am not privy to Internet drama?
It's sad that "journalism" these days has devolved into commentary on commentary. Entire stories are published about Twitter fights, which are the modern day equivalent of high-school cafeteria spats, except it's grown adults engaging.
He’s just some idiot who started a self help/motivational educational website called Hustler’s University which had a “PhD program” that controversially explained how to pimp and make money off of girls by having them perform adult content and making tons of $’s while the man collected the revenue. Then proceeded to get accused by different women of rape and human trafficking and has had a long running legal battles and police investigations about it in different countries around the globe.
Your duty of care is just as important as you want it to be
Tate is an influencer, as such he has influenced millions of young men (probably some women too) all over the world, by spread masculinist ideology, "gymbroism" and misogyny
He has multiple cases of crimes and felonies against him:
All comments but one have missed the forest for the trees.
Influencers are inessential nobodies. They contribute nothing positive to the world and produce nothing of value.
They could all disappear tomorrow and the world would be better off for it. They exist only because of your attention.
I cannot be persuaded to care about these people one iota because it only makes the problem worse in a positive feedback loop.
Ignore them and they'll go away.
If you're worried about your nephews, then they're spending too much time online. The solution is to remove them from the situation, not elevate these narcissists even further.
Women have been abused, joined cults, etc. for centuries. This is not new. There is likely a red-light district in your city full of trafficked women right now, that no one is doing anything about. Why would you care about an e-celeb halfway across the world?
You're focusing on the barest sliver of the pie. They and their ideas are entering politics, the clergy, influencing regulation and policy at national and international levels. Success anywhere is an initiation to a network of brotherhood. Accumulating clout, demonstrating acumen, amassing wealth, and coordinating at scale are not traits of people who will just "disappear" if one person does not give them attention.
And whether you care about them or not, they have access to your kids, your neighbors, your friends, your family, anywhere that social media promotes them, and you can't turn them off.
Our relative isolation was our best defense against destabilizing ideas, but we can't see inside the algorithms, and these people aren't teaching alternative value systems or ethics and civic behavior. They're role models for exploitation, preying on algorithmically selected vulnerable demographics.
And not seeing them doesn't mean you're successfully attenuating their reach, it just means that you're being excluded because you're not their mark. They know who they're looking for, and they know how to recruit. That's what we're up against.
Unfortunately a very large part of the population is living their digital life inside closed platforms nowadays and this is getting even worse with younger generations who literally think tiktok and instagram is _the_ internet.
On these platforms influencers like Tate can gain popularity extremely quickly if they resonate with your interests, fears, ideology.
Tate is/was really popular with men of all ages, representing a mix of hustle mindset, ambition, materialistic goals, working out, mixed in with ponzi scheme like courses on how to make it in today’s world.
It gives a simplistic answer to a lot of people, similar to the cults of yesterday.
Halfway across the world doesn't have the same meaning in the age of the Internet. In the mean time, their influence has real disruptive consequences in our ordinary lives. See the classroom[1] as an example.
Consider yourself lucky. He's a beyond-sleazy, probably criminal online influencer, important in what's called the "manosphere". He's made a lot of money exploiting and abusing women and encouraging other people to do so. If the online clips of him bragging about how to manipulate women into doing pornography don't make you want to throw up, you're pretty far gone. Unfortunately, lots of folks are, in fact, pretty far gone.
This would be like someone 40 years ago asking who Donald Trump is. It may not effect you yet but it likely will someday. Ignoring these people does not seem to help them go away
OP was presumably not asking literally because they thought this was the best way to find out, they were doing so rhetorically to point out that Andrew Tate is not a person of any real significance or mainstream notoriety, who has garnered a weird amount of attention from a tiny set of terminally online people.
Basically, talking about him should be beneath the New Yorker, and the choice to publish about him drags a weird little pocket of the deep internet into the mainstream, in a way that makes us all worse off.
Honest question: who the hell is Andrew Tate?
Should I feel left out if I am not privy to Internet drama?
It's sad that "journalism" these days has devolved into commentary on commentary. Entire stories are published about Twitter fights, which are the modern day equivalent of high-school cafeteria spats, except it's grown adults engaging.
He’s just some idiot who started a self help/motivational educational website called Hustler’s University which had a “PhD program” that controversially explained how to pimp and make money off of girls by having them perform adult content and making tons of $’s while the man collected the revenue. Then proceeded to get accused by different women of rape and human trafficking and has had a long running legal battles and police investigations about it in different countries around the globe.
"motificational"? Excellent! "motifictional" also "motivafictional" would work , definitely reusing that!
Your duty of care is just as important as you want it to be
Tate is an influencer, as such he has influenced millions of young men (probably some women too) all over the world, by spread masculinist ideology, "gymbroism" and misogyny
He has multiple cases of crimes and felonies against him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Tate#Criminal_investiga...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_the_Tate_brot...
If you have nephews, sons, (younger) brothers, I'd pay attention to their opinion about Tate. Could be a good warning that something's happening.
You can also afford not to care ^^
All comments but one have missed the forest for the trees.
Influencers are inessential nobodies. They contribute nothing positive to the world and produce nothing of value.
They could all disappear tomorrow and the world would be better off for it. They exist only because of your attention.
I cannot be persuaded to care about these people one iota because it only makes the problem worse in a positive feedback loop.
Ignore them and they'll go away.
If you're worried about your nephews, then they're spending too much time online. The solution is to remove them from the situation, not elevate these narcissists even further.
Women have been abused, joined cults, etc. for centuries. This is not new. There is likely a red-light district in your city full of trafficked women right now, that no one is doing anything about. Why would you care about an e-celeb halfway across the world?
You're focusing on the barest sliver of the pie. They and their ideas are entering politics, the clergy, influencing regulation and policy at national and international levels. Success anywhere is an initiation to a network of brotherhood. Accumulating clout, demonstrating acumen, amassing wealth, and coordinating at scale are not traits of people who will just "disappear" if one person does not give them attention.
And whether you care about them or not, they have access to your kids, your neighbors, your friends, your family, anywhere that social media promotes them, and you can't turn them off.
Our relative isolation was our best defense against destabilizing ideas, but we can't see inside the algorithms, and these people aren't teaching alternative value systems or ethics and civic behavior. They're role models for exploitation, preying on algorithmically selected vulnerable demographics.
And not seeing them doesn't mean you're successfully attenuating their reach, it just means that you're being excluded because you're not their mark. They know who they're looking for, and they know how to recruit. That's what we're up against.
Unfortunately a very large part of the population is living their digital life inside closed platforms nowadays and this is getting even worse with younger generations who literally think tiktok and instagram is _the_ internet. On these platforms influencers like Tate can gain popularity extremely quickly if they resonate with your interests, fears, ideology. Tate is/was really popular with men of all ages, representing a mix of hustle mindset, ambition, materialistic goals, working out, mixed in with ponzi scheme like courses on how to make it in today’s world. It gives a simplistic answer to a lot of people, similar to the cults of yesterday.
Halfway across the world doesn't have the same meaning in the age of the Internet. In the mean time, their influence has real disruptive consequences in our ordinary lives. See the classroom[1] as an example.
1. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c625yleq8w7o
This is easily googled, no? It is not a twitter fight.
Consider yourself lucky. He's a beyond-sleazy, probably criminal online influencer, important in what's called the "manosphere". He's made a lot of money exploiting and abusing women and encouraging other people to do so. If the online clips of him bragging about how to manipulate women into doing pornography don't make you want to throw up, you're pretty far gone. Unfortunately, lots of folks are, in fact, pretty far gone.
I'm not so good of a judge of these things but I don't think this is thst kind of article.
Yes, I profoundly dislike the lede "the defining figure of the manosphere"
Like, in who's opinion?
This would be like someone 40 years ago asking who Donald Trump is. It may not effect you yet but it likely will someday. Ignoring these people does not seem to help them go away
Are you incapable of using some kind of search engine to find out?
OP was presumably not asking literally because they thought this was the best way to find out, they were doing so rhetorically to point out that Andrew Tate is not a person of any real significance or mainstream notoriety, who has garnered a weird amount of attention from a tiny set of terminally online people.
Basically, talking about him should be beneath the New Yorker, and the choice to publish about him drags a weird little pocket of the deep internet into the mainstream, in a way that makes us all worse off.
Yeah I think you're right
They're a troll given their reply to my comment a little above this same discussion. I thought they were literally asking for info xD but nope :/