It would be a toxic mix of stoicism, “survival of the fittest” mentality, affirmations of harmful stereotypes (ironically; mostly harmful to the people who feel validated by hearing it) and vague notions of being a leader and working hard-
Most people, especially supporters, don’t realise that Tates rhetoric is harmful to men more than women: you’re not a success unless $materialThing and $respectOfRandoms. Completely betraying the very real success of being genuinely respected and well regarded by your community and having a family that you support and love. If you took his advice seriously, you’d be very lonely.
Stocisim is actually the only part of the toxic blend that has real merit. Although it encourages disregarding one's emotions and feelings and people who practice classic stoicism were found to be detached from reality more often, uncertain about their relationships and likely to develop mental health issues.
The mix is toxic, but it had to be at least a little paletable.
Stoicism has critiques but that wasn't what I wanted to say, just that his way of thinking would lead to most men being deeply dissatisfied with their lived.
A lot of what he says goes directly against the protections of your mental comfort afforded by a stoicism mindset.
This is strangely popular, but wrong impression. If you read the origin sources (Markus Meditations or Seneca's Letters to Lucilius) it's easily deducted from there.
It's not about disregarding, it's about understanding that what you feel and what you are and do are two distinct entities.
Stoics view emotions as a two-stage process: the involuntary experience (natural emotional reactions) and conscious rationalization (examining and responding to emotions thoughtfully).
The initial mental impression (phantasia) is an inevitable component of human responses. The point of Stoic training is not to achieve disregarding emotions, but to focus on how one reacts to them, specifically whether one reacts automatically to them. It's the opposite of disregard, because they merit a very close inspection and when possible a reasoned reaction.
The Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is build on these principles and many studies (and meta studies) prove these principles work to improve many disorders:
Most of the things Andrew Tate pushes are not harmful. Stoicism isn't bad, it's massively undervalued in today's society. I'd say that most of today's modern sensibilities are the toxic influences that end up seriously harming the mental health of millennials and zoomers.
It's super easy to tell: the more in touch they're with them, the less reasonable they're, the more they get hung up on irrelevant things and have outbursts about completely asinine topics. They always have to be treated with silk gloves and if someone doesn't they'll try to get them cancelled.
Tate just adds silly amounts of narcissism as well, what people call "being alpha" and "sigma" right now. And that obviously ends up harming other people.
> the more in touch they're with them, the less reasonable they're, the more they get hung up on irrelevant things and have outbursts about completely asinine topics.
I dont disagree. It's also true for the people he teaches.
But they didn't become like that through Tate. They were already brought to that point by our society massively overvaluing things that are effectively harmful to us as productive members of society.
Tate just uses this issue in this messaging, and profits from simps that believe he can solve it for them. Even though the fact they're going to a "daddy figure" as grown men to have it solved is part of the issue in the first place.
Why would they believe he can solve it for them, if he can't even solve it in himself—or that he can, but has chosen to retain them? It seems more likely that these are fairly off-putting traits, and he attracts people who naturally have those traits themselves, because they see him as successful because of them.
> Maybe it’s just the MSM, but I am starting to fear for my own safety and the future of the USA. Shootings every day, LGBTQ agenda, the matrix, I live in a very good area with a very good home life but I am sick of all this garbage happening here.
I can't even eyeroll hard enough to this take. The gay agenda is overpriced brunch, the anti-lgbt agenda is "elimination from public life."
How much do you hear about women's suffrage? None, because it became a non-issue as soon as we got it. If we hadn't I would still be in the streets not shutting up about it. It's the same with LGBT rights, you will only hear about it as long as it's actively being opposed. It's hard to express how much of a "okay, anyway…" being gay or trans is in liberal spaces. Pride month can become just as boring and ignorable as women's history month if we let it.
When you're the one in power, any move towards a more balanced society looks like someone coming for you.
I think it's important to have empathy with the sorts of people who make this type of statement, from their perspective they are losing something, and that's hard. The problem is that what they're losing was built on the subjugation of others, it was a privilege. As a straight white man it took me a while to reframe my thinking around this, but I want to live in a world where other people get the experience I had growing up, rather than one where I can continue to have that experience at their expense.
I see parallels in my work as well, to bring this back to a more HN appropriate position. I've seen company cultures change, and early employees feeling like they lost something or the culture deteriorated, when it would be more accurate to say that the culture changed to be more accessible to new employees and that the team was better overall as a result.
This is also confusing since the "LGBTQ agenda" crowd is generally the one in support of gun control, and then the matrix, I thought that only existed in the movie but now I don't know what's going on.
To be fair, both are distinct issues even if there is any overlap of proponents. You'll find a lot of folks like me for instance, who are okay with owning guns, okay with gun control and stronger background checks, supportive of the LGBTQ community, yet also tired of the LGBTQ, inclusivity, yada yada, being shoved down our throats. I employ some people in the community who are themselves tired of the constant pandering of the media to the agenda. To give an anecdote, all of them panned the recent Jaguar ad and rebrand, calling it unwanted and forced.
As always, politics is a spectrum and not a two-faced coin like we purport it to be, as evidenced by the recent elections.
The Matrix is certainly the confounding variable here. It's hard to square the liberal promotion of gun control with how badass the Wachowski sisters made it look. Society may never figure that one out.
This shouldn't be surprising, lgbt people get catapulted into the arms of liberal political thought because that's who accepts them. They aren't intrinsically linked.
"the matrix" is essentially Tate's version of "globalist elites","international jews", or "the patriarchy", it is just his way of describing a conspiratorial system that is supposedly functioning against him (and other men but mostly him).
We're barreling towards ww3 with a cabinet that believes the destruction of the middle east will lead to the second coming of christ, but the problem is what bathrooms should we force people to use?
People are generally very anxious when using public bathrooms [1] so much so that they don't if they can help it. If you think about it, we grow up pooping privately our whole lives, and now the public gets to hear us toot and fart and shit. And now the woman, and I mean this, if she thinks she is a woman that's dope, has a penis in the stall next to me?
I can understand it, I fucking hate pooping in public. And I'm a dude.
I think it’s weird to obsess about the genitalia of the person in the stall next to you, irrespective of whether you have psychological issues using the bathroom in public.
Seems like the kind of thing that might inspire one to go to therapy.
Nah, it’s literally what you wrote. Thinking about whether I have a penis in the next stall over while you’re pooping is fucking weird. Sorry that makes you feel bad about yourself, I guess. Or not. Again, get therapy. It’s healthier than getting super mad about me because you have weird mental hangups.
> It's hard to express how much of a "okay, anyway…" being gay or trans is in liberal spaces. Pride month can become just as boring and ignorable as women's history month if we let it.
You're mostly right. I would like it to stay that way. Alas it's not liberals that are doing this. Given how many of these bills are insane and destined to never pass even in the reddest state it's a hard sell to say it's not performative virtue signaling.
It's hard to understate just how much members of the lgbt would never like to never be in the news again.
Could you give me some examples of insane bills that have passed? I don’t really understand the site you linked, since I browsed it for 10 minutes and saw nothing about LGBT people lacking any rights others have.
Of course it’s liberals doing it. You’re again levitating above the issue. Liberals are pushing the LGBT agenda, and conservatives are pushing back.
They can elect to never be on the news again by dropping the subject today. Frankly there’s no need whatsoever to talk about one’s sexuality or genitalia publicly.
There's no agenda. This is the part that is so frustrating to get across. If this is the agree to disagree point then so be it.
Black people want all the rights and privileges of white people. It's not enough that black and white people are equally entitled to use the bathrooms and drinking fountains of their respective race.
Gay people want all the rights and privileges as straight people. It's not enough that gay and straight people are equally entitled to enter a marriage defined as one man and one woman.
Trans people want all the rights and privileges as cis people. It's not enough that cis and trans people are equally entitled to participate in sports leagues that correspond to their AGAB.
You are the person who is equating gay with sex and trans with genitalia. So obviously you're going to read discussion about issues facing these groups as talking about sex and genitals. Actual trans people would very much like conservatives to stop talking about their genitals.
Dropping the subject is antithetical to them being able to quietly live boring normal lives same as everyone else. It's accepting marginalization. My trans girl friends are just my girlfriends, it's an implementation detail I don't care about. Achieving that socially and legally is together and equal but we aren't there and are trending backwards.
I think you're imagining trans women athletes as more unreasonable about this than they actually are. You're right they are separated for good reason, but it turns out that being on feminizing hormone therapy for many years and muscle shedding erases any biological advantage in practice. The ask from the trans community to sporting organizations isn't "how dare you, you have to let me play" but "what do I have to do so I can play and the game stays fair?" And sports organizations all came to slightly different but similar conclusions that it can be done and added it to the requirements to play.
Exactly, that's the problem - sports bodies adjusting their eligibility criteria for the nominally female category to accommodate inclusion of a subset of males, just because these males desire to be women.
That actual female women might not want to compete against these males typically hasn't been considered. And where it has, it's usually because female athletes have spoken up against it, and they've almost always been censured and penalized for doing so.
Plus, there's no evidence that testosterone suppression can weaken the male body to a state where male advantage is obliterated. The data gathered so far indicates the opposite. Not that every competition organizer even requires this, for some events it's nothing more than a self-declaration of woman or man, with no verification done at all.
The whole approach to this is broken, as it disadvantages the very people who the women's category is intended for: female athletes.
It seems to me like the guys walking each other on leashes in the streets, dressed in leather thongs are the people equating gay with sex. I also think the people cutting off their genitalia in the name of being trans are equating trans with genitalia.
Being marginal is fine. Everyone is marginal, we're all different after all.
And you're right, we're never going to agree on these topics. It's still fun to read differing opinions every now and then.
I know yours and many others default reaction is to eyeroll, but 10s of millions of people really do feel that way. This undercurrent of fear has significantly motivated many of these people to vote a certain way in the most recent US election.
I also use to have your reaction, but recently I've realized we need more engagement if we are to fix the issues our nation faces, not less.
There appears to be no purpose to this article other than to publicize and to attempt to launder the dox. I wonder to what extent this exposes "The Daily Dot" to criminal liability.
There doesn't seem to be any doxxing in this article, in fact private details were shared with the journalists and they have only used them to confirm the hack and not published them. That seems like exactly what journalists are supposed to do?
