Consept

OK so you're saying that he could've exaggerated his talks to encourage men to buy, so that would be false advertising. Either way it's not great. But evidence wise there are chat logs from his war room chat, that detail how he manipulates the women to stay. He specifies how he lied to one woman saying that he's heard stuff from her home town about her being a sex worker, he said this is to cut her off from her support system. There's another one where he breaks down how he gets the girl to come to Romania but cuts off her money until she agrees to work on camera. He shows pictures of the girls in the chat, there are numerous chats like this. There are others in the chat that verify this as they are part of the chats. So this takes away the marketing element as these guys have already signed up right? Some of the women have also come out with testimonials that match the chats and Tates description from the videos. Aside from that just because they aren't in prison yet isn't enough to say that they're innocent. I would also argue that I am being objective, I don't think anyone can see the evidence there and say that he didn't do anything, I would argue that seeing that evidence and still finding excuses is heavily biased as if it wasn't Tate and you saw that evidence, no one would say that person's innocent.

@Ahbapx A good example thinking about it, is someone like John Gotti, he was part of the mafia and committed lots of crimes, but because he willingly became a 'celebrity' they went in harder on him, because obviously him being a criminal and rubbing the feds face in it is going to lead to them going after him. Now you could say he was used as a scapegoat for war on crime. Probably that's true to some extent but there is no way that the feds are going to allow someone being a criminal and becoming a celebrity. It's very similar to Tate you could make the argument that Tate is being a scapegoat but he has done criminal activities and he has put himself out there as a famous person, what's kind of unique to Tate is he literally snitched on himself. People get hung up on the, 'he's saying stuff that people don't want him to say' but this is a complete misdirection. The reality is it doesn't matter what he says, it's the criminality that underpins it.

Yeah you can make the argument that society has let down young men, I agree with you. But on a personal level he has not been treated unfairly, he has done certain actions which will receive certain repercussions. What would you consider fair treatment for someone who trafficked women, influenced others to do the same and then knowing his own history put it out there as a positive thing?

No one cares about his harmful and misogynistic ideas in a criminal sense. There are plenty of content creators with similar or even more harmful ideas who are still able to upload content on youtube and have no, as far as I know criminal charges against them. What he generally says is not the issue at hand and not why he's being accused of the crimes he has been, although it has made him more visible. Its similar to if someone killed someone and got away with it he'd probably be ok, but if he starting producing content and selling courses on how to kill people, it may lead to someone investigating him, it doesn't matter about other stuff he talks about, even if it is positive. You should also be aware that Tate in his pimping hoes degree, literally said his job was making girls fall in love with him to work on camera and then lie to them about how much they get paid. This is literally a crime and he's basically confessed to it on camera and posted it online. A scapegoat would imply that he's done nothing wrong, again he has done and admitted to criminal activity. Aside from the criminality, its highly immoral and manipulative both to the women and the guys, some of which he finessed 100s of 1000s of $. The implication your making is that he's done nothing wrong and because people don't like what he says, he's being persecuted, but the 2 things are completely seperate. Even if he said the most powerful impactful things, he has still committed criminal acts, he is being treated in accordance to those acts. If he is being treated harshly by the public it is because he choose to put himself in front of the public and become a celebrity. Of course if you do that you will receive more attention for better or worse. But everything in this situation has been his doing, as a chess man he should know that. I would have some sympathy if he came out and just said yeah I did these things and they were wrong, but not taking responsibility and him still believing he was right and is being unfairly persecuted, I cant feel sorry for him. Especially as someone who's so big on masculinity, a key tenant is taking responsibility for your actions, he just blames it on the 'matrix'.

Check the start of this thread to see what they've done. What do you think has been unfairly done to them?

Im not gonna argue whether theyre guilty or not as the courts will do that, i would say theres more than enough evidence of him self snitching in this thread anyway. What I was arguing against is them facing injustices, I have no sympathy at all when they chose to go there and insulted Romania by saying they'll just pay their way out that would literally be the definition of injustice id they did what they wanted to do and then to cry like a baby complaining about injustices done to you?? The thing is, if they never went to Romania and kept a relatively low profile, they would've been fine even they kept doing the webcam stuff. But instead they literally became as famous as possible and talked about all their crimes. The only reason why they've been arrested now is because they texted a streamer exposing themselves in a bid to get more eyeballs on them. For someone who proclaims himself as a genius he does the dumbest shit, he's like a villian who tells the hero his whole plan and then gets caught.

Its not so much what they say it's criminal acts they have committed. Also any injustices they've faced atvthe hands of the Romanian legal system, fall directly at the Tates as they've said they moved there specifically because they believed the legal system to be lax and corruptible.

@Reciprocality That's very honest and it totally makes sense. For the first time on this thread I've got a glimpse of you and I appreciate it

You talk about him like he's Jesus He made money convincing girls to love him and then sold their bodies online to lonely men getting them to fall in love with the girls. His message is anti-establishment and that a man should be strong and conquer, its not that deep

@Reciprocality No one said dumb down, Re-read your original post, I'm convinced no-one on this forum bar you can understand it. That's not saying people on this forum are dumb, that's saying it is incomprehensible. What @Carl-Richard was true, you have to be honest with at least yourself in what the intention of your post is, not just this but in general witness how you communicate and the reasons behind it. For example I would say with you, your main focus isn't to communicate an idea, that might be a secondary focus, but a big part of your communication is show how smart you are and how deep your ideas are. Which is fine all of us when we communicate have different motives that we might not be conscious of, I might partly be wanting to help you but also I might be wanting to win a debate and feel smarter and more grounded than you. But in your case I think you've gone so far one way that we can't even decipher what you're trying to say, in which case you need to look at, is everyone else so dumb or is it on me to really identify the reasons behind what I'm saying and how I'm saying it.

What word did he spread? Its not complicated what he says

This skit makes me laugh as well

its drawing interest because of how confusing it is. But I don't mean to insult you anyway, what I'm trying to push you toward is seeing how you could better improve your communication. You seem on some level to be a deep thinker, you just need to work on how to best deliver your ideas to other people's minds in a way that can be understood as much as possible. Some of the stuff you've written in the thread I'm not sure anyone in the world would be able to comprehend. Communication itself is a delivery method of ideas from one consciousness to another. The package you're delivering maybe amazing but it's useless if the delivery chain doesn't function.

At least you know how we feel

The British lawyer has been building his case for a long time and he has got evidence but it's a civil case so there won't be jail time. What im not clear on is when the UK case is done does he go back to Romania to finish that trial?

You feel bad or disrespected when someone calls you that, but that's subjective to you, other people might not care. So just because you feel bad doesn't mean the word should be banned. You're suggesting that if women feel uncomfortable around men for whatever reason they should take responsibility for it and not blame the gut. Similarly you should take responsibility for how you feel and not blame anyone else

@mr_engineer If you're overall point is that women should take responsibility for how they feel, shouldnt you take responsibility for how you feel when the word creep is used?

I'm not sure they arent illegal but even if they are, they're still creepy behavior. You could say the examples are potential precursors to illegal action. Also do you accept that there are many crimes committed against women, rape, abuse etc that are predicated by creepy behavior?

So do you believe there's no behavior that could be classed as creepy? Some examples - if a guy is following a woman late at might on a street and not saying. If a guy stares at a woman's crotch or tits whilst speaking to her. If a guy touches a woman's ass on purpose on a crowded train. If a man tells a woman he just met he's imagining having sex with her. Would these examples be on the women for being creeped out? Keep in mind none are illegal

@mr_engineer What do you regard as real toxic or creepy behavior in men?

i still dont understand his point

Fucking is overrated but true connection is probably underrated

@Reciprocality So wait I'm still confused, in your example who is it that repulses you (as per the topic title) is it the African tribe or the healthy suspicion people?

Everyone would agree with this definition. Even if you used the word civil they would have a similar understanding. This is where you are very confusing. So just I'm clear you're saying a civilised or civil person would be around strangers in a public area and see them as a threat, so using the definition you've researched, this attitude toward strangers is one of a member of an advanced society who is polite and refined. This is categorically not true it doesn't work with your definition. A member of an advanced society would definitely not see other random people as an arbitrary threat. If they were in a deprived area that they were not familiar with, then maybe they would see people as a threat, but even if they didn't it doesn't make them uncivilised, it just makes them naieve and ignorant to danger. On the contrary someone who sees danger where there isn't is going to be more likely to be uncivilised. I don't know man, maybe I'm missing something, maybe you're really smart and everyone else is dumb, but this just seems like a lot of words for absolutely no substance. I could be wrong and also I don't mean to be harsh esp if English is not your first language

It feels like op is using words they maybe don't understand or have a different meaning to than other people. This is a very confusing thread, when he said civil I assumed something like being very careful what you say and going along with how society wants you to be. But then his example is sitting carefree in a city lol. Op don't worry about sounding smart, try and communicate in a way that others would understand. I think a better lesson from this thread is how to communicate.