Consept

The below vid isn't game related, but it just shows the perseverance and just willingness to do whatever was needed to achieve a goal. I don't even think this guys that funny but I love his attitude and dedication, its really inspiring

'Most' people can see Tates negative and positive traits on this forum and wouldnt follow his criminal behaviors. The issue is that most of his followers can not and he can and regularly does take them down the wrong path. So he is technically a role model, the definition of role model literally being someone to imitate, as people do look up to him and imitate him, but he is a terrible role model as he has led people in directions where at worst theyve ended up in trouble with the law and at best probably just lost some money. What seems to be the confusion is the difference between saying someone is good role model and saying someone should be studied objectively. For example we could say that Hitler was good at engaging people and look at why without taking his rhetoric on, this is possible however i wouldnt advise using it to other people as it involves a lot of manipulation and deception. I would say its only really good from an inquisitive standpoint but I wouldnt actually want to adopt any of the behaviors. I see Tate in the same way, as in its interesting to see why he is so effective at grabbing peoples attention but i wouldnt look at him or suggest him as a role model for vulnerable young men, I think he will cause more harm than good, this has been proven consistently if you look at actual evidence of war room chat logs or people who have come out and talked of their experience of the war room, where they say Tates word was treated as gospel and noone ever disagreed with him and did anything he said. Theres a story where Tate said most people couldnt sit in their bathroom for 12 hours and lots of the followers just did it. So you can put your head in the sand and say yes everyone can seperate the good and bad but in practice it just doesnt happen, if it did you wouldnt get cult leaders. Its the same with Trump, most of his followers dont even accept that he can do any wrong, im pretty sure if he killed someone at his rally on camera theyd still back him. So obviously they are not looking at him objectively, this is why thee people are terrible role models. If your general point is bad people can have some effective traits then yeah no one will disagree, but being a good role model is something else.

Its kinda like saying teenagers cause more problems than toddlers, why cant we just stay in the mindset of a toddler?

I would argue it is rational and objective not to follow him, when looking for people to follow you would look at the fruits of their advice and where that has gotten them. Being Tate has landed him several investigations into his behavior, to the point where hes not even allowed out of the country hes living in and when he does finish that case the UK have lined up a trial for him as well. All of his assets and everything he has achieved is purely through manipulation and criminal activities. OK yes there is some drive to be able to be a successful criminal but again this wouldnt be enough to say that hes someone that should be followed or would help a vulnerable person. Keep in mind, as I know youre stuck on this narrative, im not making a moral judgement on what hes done, im just saying his advice will lead to the circumstances that hes in. Its the same reason why i wouldnt advise a young person to listen to a drug dealer, a pimp or a cult leader, the outcomes for those that follow these types of people is usually not good. This would be a rational perspective, an irrational perspective would be believing that following someone like this would not lead to negative outcomes, this has been proven repeatedly throughout history, Nazis, Jim Jones followers etc. Even following people who promote get rich quick schemes (which Tate also does) will leave you loosing money. No one is perfect but Arnie and Bruce Lee were not actively trying to recruit people and get as much money from them as possible, as well they werent literal criminals. Its not about the numerous bad things hes done, of which there are many, its the fact that his rhetoric leads people into worse situations. He actively tells people not to study or get a job and just join his hustlers university where they can learn how to do get rich quick schemes whilst giving him money. This is not rational or objectively good advice. Im not taking it personal or serious but yeah youre probably right

Whats the point though, why not just follow someone who has the will and is healthy? Psychopaths may have lots of will to take over the world but in reality we should defend vulnerable people against them, not encourage them to be listened to. Look what happens when they get power and get people to follow them, it didnt work out well with Hitler.

OK so i get where youre coming from. So if we say that he has a cheaters spirit which requires ambition and a will to win by any means necessary, then i dont think this would be great for vulnerable young men to emulate. Reason being, it will mess them up in the long run, it doesnt actually develop any real skills aside from manipulation and cheating and the chances are they will get caught out, if not by a friend then worse by the law. This has already happened in his war room chat logs there are plenty of young men who describe how theyve manipulated women to work on webcam, some even talk about violence and show pictures etc. This means that they could actually wind up in a lot of legal trouble. If his cheaters spirit is taken into the world it may grant them temporary success but thats about it, as well it definitely wont give them any kind of spiritual growth. The other thing is that Tate is a manipulator and he is manipulating his audience, even know hes doing a pump and dump scheme for a meme coin, promising his followers theyll be rich if they buy in. So to say that someone like Tate should be giving advice to vulnerable young men is basically saying wolves should be in charge of lambs. In a way i get what you mean but i just dont think the good points can be separated out by the type of people that follow him, its pretty much all or nothing, he sets this dynamic by calling them brokies etc. He basically taunts them that if they dont follow him theyre a loser, which is something youd see in cults. Someone who is able to see through an ignore all the 'bad' stuff, probably wouldnt follow him in the first place. In general following a criminal is not going to give you good results, I know lots of ex-criminals who have done their time and are now excellent role models, but they have been through a whole journey and advise young people not to go down their road. Someone like Tate has actively encouraged others to do exactly what he did, which got him into the predicament hes in now.

Again i think you miss my point. Your point as i understand is that Tate has a strong fighting spirit which benefits young men, he does some bad things but it doesnt take away from his fighting spirit. You think that my point is that Tate does bad stuff so im ignoring his fighting spirit and just hating him blindly. This is not my point, what im saying is that he doesnt have a fighting spirit, this is evident because he cheats and takes shortcuts as well as manipulates people to get what he wants. If you want to call it anything its a cheating spirit, which is antithetical to a fighting spirit because it is the avoidance of doing the hard work in favour of the quick fix. Theres maybe something there in his relentlessness and willingness to just completely screw people over, but i wouldnt call that fighting spirit and definitely wouldnt say its something to be emulated for young people. Its kinda like if were playing chess and I cheat by using an engine, you can say that I found a way to win, but im not actually better at chess than you, I didnt fight to get the win I just took a shortcut. Yes its effective in the moment, but obviously it doesnt work long term as Tate is finding out now and how chess champions find out eventually when they get caught.

You miss my point, I'm not saying having a fighting spirit is bad or that capitalism is bad, I'm saying Tate doesn't have a true fighting spirit. The reason I got into specifics is to demonstrate that he puts out the appearance of a fighting spirit but doesn't actually live it. Therefore his advice of 'by any means necessary', parading as a warrior spirit is actually very bad for young people as it will lead to more problems than it solves and doesn't actually hit the root of the problems they have, it just pretends to and takes their money and attention in the process. There's plenty of examples that can be incredibly beneficial for young men, Tate is not one of them.

Heres a counter argument to Tates 'fighting spirit'. I agree that Tate has a certain drive for money, fame etc but it appears that this comes from a deep insecurity ie he has some deep, baked in issues that lead him to needing this worldly accomplishments. Now this isnt necessarily a negative in of itself, as theres probably many people have started with an insecurity and grown themselves in positive ways and maybe even gotten over their insecurities. However with Tate, he wants the fame and money regardless of what it takes to get there, he has no problem with exploiting others and manipulating his way there with shortcuts. Now you can say that he has a fighting spirit because he wants to get there by any means necessary but i dont believe these methods indicate that, i think to the contrary he doesnt have the fighting spirit to actually do it, he just wants it, and so he has to come up with ways where he doesnt need to put in the work but can still get the success he craves. For example with his webcam business, taking morality aside, he couldve had a legitimate webcam business where he paid the girls fairly and put in the hard work to recruit girls in legitimate ways. Instead of this he manipulated the girls so that they were in love with them and thought he was with them and then got them to work in his business, with various methods of coercion and control. This is not a fighting spirit, this is weak and manipulative. As an analogy, its kinda like saying, if we were in a marathon race and halfway through I ordered an uber which took me 10 miles and then i got out and finished the last couple of miles of the race. You could make the argument that i had that fighting spirit because i found a way to win but it wouldnt be a great argument. If you wanted to actually be a great winner my advice would most likely not make you a great runner although I could give you advice on how to cheat and win. This crosses over to Tate as his actual workout advice is terrible, he tells people to eat whatever and train for like 20 mins. His business advice is much the same. In reality what he does is setup the expectations and the wants of his followers but coupled with lacklustre advice on how to actually get it. Hes now promoting a meme coin where he tells his followers that if they get on board they can make millions, he showed screenshots of big transfers from accounts, which it has been exposed by those in the crypto space are just bot accounts. So again its the same bullshit, get rich quick schemes. My prediction is most of his followers will lose out and he will gain. None of this is fighting spirit, fighting spirit is someone who keeps going even when the odds are against them and does the hard stuff. Maybe somone like David Goggins, this is not Tate.

I think Latin culture in general theres a machismo element where its expected for the guy to pay for everything. In your case as a gringo thats heightened even further. If you were in western europe or the states there probably wouldnt be too much of an issue with what happened but i think in south America youd most likely get a reaction like that. I also dont think youd be seen as beta to do it, however that would depend on what the vibe was etc they can still definitely take advantage you

I think in all the examples you gave it was you approaching girls, sometimes they can be overly 'mean' when they think that the guy is going to be too forward. If you ask most people objectively without approach aspect i think youll find not many, if any would call you fat and ugly. Theres obviously something going on with your approach or the vibe youre giving of but i dont think it would be purely physical. Even literal fat and ugly people wouldnt get called fat and ugly that many times.

I never really get when someone living a certain way of life prescribes that way of life for everyone else. In our current society you can live as traditional family if you like or you can live single or polyamorous or whatever. The idea of the traditional family (2.4 kids) as we know it only really began to come in, in the 1950's before that children would be sent away to work from a young age. This idea of family that with have is really a relatively new concept, its almost a fantasy that has not really existed in the history of humanity, where there is such wealth that the mother can focus on raising children and the father works and provides for the whole family. Its almost an experiment which didnt really work as it limited the options of women and put people in positions they didnt necessarily want to be in. That being said it was probably a well needed step in terms of what came before. I think when people bring it up now, its seen through rose tinted glasses at a time in history where everything was 'perfect', white picket fence life. The reality is that not everyone could have it comfortably and even within it there wa a lot of repression and unhappiness.

Truly loving yourself is the answer to 99% most of life's issues. The reason why people can't do it is that their belief in needing to be something or needing something is stronger than their belief in loving themselves as they are. In this threads example, the incel believes that once they get sex, girlfriend, relationship etc, then they will be worthy of love. They come to the conclusion that they are not able to get these things and are therefore unlovable. If they gave themselves unconditional love, none of this would matter and counterintuitivly they'd be much more likely to attract someone. But when in that state its hard to switch mindsets, because they're beliefs reinforce the outcomes that happen. So because they are bitter and have a certain world view that women are only attracted to certain guys which doesn't include them, they no longer try to engage and if they do it's coming from a negative place, this then creates their reality that women aren't attracted to them.

Trump wasnt sure about declassifying the epstein files, whats also crazy is fox didnt show the full response -

Yeah it's next level compared to guys honestly

I've met a few people on the forum over zoom, it's interesting because it takes all the bullshit that comes with semi anonymously posting and just gives you the real stuff. People are very different in person, me included.

Dont think anyone said that, my position is definitely its not fine for people to be racist.

A good analogy for this is if you want to be car salesmen and get lots of sales do you ask a successful salesmen or do you ask the people that have bought cars from him? Now, there is value in asking the buyers as they could communicate what they liked about the buying experience and why they chose to buy from that particular salesman above others, but they wouldnt really know exactly what techniques he was using. Buying from a really good salesperson almost doesnt feel like youre being sold to at all, that is what makes a good salesperson, he builds rapport makes you feel comfortable etc. But the buyers are not privy to the behind the curtain of what hes actually doing. If you learnt directly from the salesmen, he could tell you exactly what he does and how you could replicate that, the buyer would not be able to do that as they dont actually know. This is the same with men attracting women, a lot of the time if you ask a women why they chose a guy the answers are typically quite vague. A personal experience i had was going to speed dating and being chosen by a woman, when i asked her why she chose me out of 25 other guys, she said because I was 'just normal'. Obviously it wouldnt be great advice to tell a guy just be 'normal', that wouldnt really teach him anything. Of course what she probably meant was you came across authentic, built up a good rapport, had confidence, werent awkward etc. But she has no need to think about it that deeply to work out why, same way a car buyer has no need to work out why the seller was good, they just know they got their dream car. This doesnt mean that a woman cant give advice of course, but they would really have to think deeply about it and theres just not that much need for them to do so, so most dont.

Its more about being authentic with yourself, its not something you have to do of course it's only if you do want to get better with talking to girls or people in general. If you're being authentic and there's someone you're genuinely interested in then you would want to talk to them. You may feel fear as you're not used to doing it but it's something you want to do. So then your choice is to give into fear and not do it or challenge the fear and do it. Its totally up to you. Think about a 5 year old kid that wants to play with another kid they don't know, they're not thinking 'what am I getting out of this interaction and what is the kpi of this', theyre just thinking 'that person looks fun I'm gonna ask them to play'. It's not more complicated with people, you're basically just having fun with people. How you choose to approach is if you feel like it will be fun to approach. I don't really subscribe to the 1000 approach but I think it's a really good habit to talk to people you don't know generally, as it helps with social skills, it's fun, you might meet a long term friend or partner. The only downside is rejection which you'll get desensitised to anyway

If you read what I put in the last paragraph I said you don't have to go put specifically to pick up as many women as possible. Ideally you want to incorporate into your normal life and places you would go anyway. So for example if you go to the gym a d see a girl you find attractive then go and talk to her or on the train on the way to work etc. No ones saying blindly approach every girl, that would be ridiculous. If it was part of your routine and you approached even one a day on average you hit a thousand in less than 3 years. A thousand is obviously an arbitrary number but the idea is to just do it and get better. Obviously you would be better after this 3 years than you were before, I dont think there's any question.

I don't see why this is complicated. Obviously any skill you want to learn requires practice and repetition. I think people make posts like this because of the emotion behind it, social skills and attraction skills is often seen as 'you have it or you don't'. But these skills are as teachable as any other skill. Imagine someone made a post like - 'the church of learning guitar says you need a thousand hours to become good. My question is why not a million? Is there any reason why there should be this magnitude of hours to learn guitar?'. I would just conclude that you don't want to put in the hours learning guitar. Just to caveat I don't think you should necessarily go out specifically to pick up women but you should definitely practice approaching in your day to day life as well as having more social interactions in general. Desensitisation is good if its something you fear, its literally the treatment for phobias.

This is why I'm not really interested in skiing, everyone who does it usually picks up an injury

Your parents may have been dysfunctional but I'm not sure the example is necessarily indicative of that. It's not like people are robots and it's very possible that a child could make their parent upset, you can't remember what you said but it could've been hurtful. Also your mother could've just told your father but not expected him to tell you about it, she could've just said jav said 'something hurtful to me don't say anything to him'. If she was going to manipulate you it could've been directly at you from her, like guilt tripping or stonewalling you or something like that. Your dad could have handled a bit better maybe talking it through with you etc but I'm guessing that's not something he does. But don't get me wrong you could have 1000 concrete examples of them being narcissistic and they could be. I'm just saying this particular example doesn't confirm it. Generally though, I think we can be a bit harsh on our parents, from whatever consciousness they're at they are trying their best. Some are of course very toxic and there's no way around that, but it's important to be able to look at things as objectively as possible.

Well theres 2 sides to peoples response to you, one is questioning your "bad views", so this as im sure you understand would be a normal response to the prejudice you hold. This would be the same if someone posted on here that they dont like black people or men or muslims for whatever reason. Essentially this position doesnt really work because it generalises a group of people around a negative perspective of a stereotype, for example you dont like pretty women because you think they are all arrogant. Its the same as saying you dont like black people because theyre all criminals, obviously generalisations are wrong because you wouldnt have interacted with every pretty woman or black person so there is no way you could make a statement like that. So because you are "wrong" people will of course challenge your position, which you cant really defend and i guess youre not defending it youre just saying you should be allowed to have 'bad views' without having to defend them, which begs the question why even post about said views where people would disagree? The second side which can exist parallel to the above is that people see the issue you have is internal to you and want to help, either to make themselves feel better or just to genuinely help someone, probably a mixture of both. This makes sense because you are on a self-development forum, so obviously if you post something that reeks of inner turmoil you will get advice that is deeper and directed at your inner self. Again your rejection of this advice doesnt really follow as it seems obvious if you post what your posting you will get that kind of response. In fact youre lucky that people are not just condeming you for your beliefs bat are actually taking the time to try and reach you. My advice would be actually take in and listen to what people say in response to you or just dont post this type of stuff as i dont see what you aim to get out of it. Youre either crying out for help or youre looking for validation for 'bad views' or youre just looking for attention.

What parts do you disagree with?