Consept
Member-
Content count
3,067 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Consept
-
-
Great thread, well done man, if you think there's not a lot of people that will actually do what you did in their whole life so respect 👏🏾
-
22 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:I'm commenting on your picky use of logic here. If you're willing to c0ondemn Andrew/Triston Tate, then you also have to Condemn Destiny, Charlie/Moistcritikal/Penguinz0 for lying, slander and defamation. It's fine to judge and disagree with a bad faith character, find him/her immoral, but it's another thing to accuse them of something they didn't do, but because of mass popularity and mass negativity they become the 'perfect victims' of smear campaigns.
Why do i have to condemn someone else ive never heard of?
With all respect its not a good strategy to bring up a completely different case with different variables and use that as a defence of the case at hand. Even if a steelman you and say that the doc you brought up shows that that person was treated unfairly, why would that automatically mean that Tate is being treated unfairly? Why dont you extend that to Epstein, maybe Epstein was innocent because this some other guy was treated unfairly, i dont get the logic.
But if this guy has admitted to whatever his crimes are in the same way Tate has and there are witnesses, essentially all the evidence that Tate has on him, then he wouldnt be being treated unfairly, if there isnt that evidence then he has. Do people make false claims online either wilful ignorance or actual ignorance? Yeah of course, but just because that happens doesnt mean every situation is that.
If you look at the Tate examples that ive posted, which is literally nearly an hour of him admitting crimes up until just before the case, I dont see how someone can put all that out and then say its a smear campaign, if it is hes smeared himself. Also notice that hes now backtracked from everything he said in those clips, if there was nothing wrong with what he did, why is he now changing his story?
Your whole point rests on him not having done the things hes been accused of but then how do you consolidate that hes said hes done all the things hes been accused of? The only thing you could argue is that, he didnt mean it, it was entertainment etc but then you cant blame him being investigated even if he is innocent. If I go online and start saying im going to bomb somewhere as a joke, I cant then say 'theyre out to get me' when the police knock on my door. But its very clear from the clips that hes not joking, especially taking into account chat logs and witnesses etc. Honestly speaking i dont understand this defence of him, i think youre too smart for that
-
11 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:Is that not injustice for them?
Yes hypothetically if Romania made up something to unfairly target Tate then that would be injustice. But in the Tates case what are Romania making up? There's evidence of everything he's being charged for.
The other case you brought up I really don't get the relevance. Who incriminated Tate other than himself? he was on podcasts just before talking about how much money he made from scamming guys. As well as all the historical videos of him breaking down exactly how he pimped women. So I don't get this injustice thing. It's literally the equivalent of someone explaining how they killed someone, teaching others how they kill, posting it all online and then saying its an injustice that they're being investigated. What do you want to happen.
If you want to talk about injustice, what about all the women he's groomed and ripped off who by his own admission had never done any sex work before? what about the lonely men he's scammed out of 1000s? What about their justice?
If any country saw this video below and numerous others after getting complaints about this guy, should they just leave it?
-
2 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:Arguing them facing injustices? Injustices by the Romanian government? What's your definition of injustice?
I was answering the other person in thread specifically so obviously I'm mot going to cover all angles of this in single posts.
But to answer you, the whole idea of them facing injustice hinges on whether theyre guilty or not. If they are guilty then it's not an injustice how they're treated as they would be treated as any other human trafficker/rapist only difference with them is that they're famous so of course it's going to be more public. You can argue that the Romanian legal system is unjust but that's not an argument specific to the Tates as anyone that lives in Romania is subject to it and most of then wouldn't have had a choice to move away from it unlike Tate.
If the argument is that they're really innocent but they are being treated as if they're guilty, that's fine. Except imo there's more than enough evidence to prosecute as we can see in this thread, however you want to spin the evidence is whatever but its still there, if it wasn't investigated that would be an injustice to the alleged victims. If Tate wasn't famous and in the public eye and this evidence was around for some unknown human trafficker, no one in the world would be saying this was unjust.
@Ahbapx 's point of others usinh Tate for their own agenda is par for the course. Anyone whos in the public eye and commits crimes will leave themselves open for others agendas. But that doesn't take away what I've outlined in the first 2 paragraphs. Even if he was being used for an agenda he still either did these things or created enough smoke where people think there's a fire. My perspective is that he did what he said he did in videos and on his private chat, so imo he's guilty based on his own submissions.
-
10 minutes ago, Yali said:dont some girls like an eccentric-looking guy who dresses like he’s the shit?
look at mystery man for example.
Like these guys?
-
28 minutes ago, Ahbapx said:Tate's were not just making money from women, they were also making money from men. He was selling and advertising how he was making money with women to the men, This can easily lead to false advertisement, consumer-pleasing behavior, and exaggerated Bro-Science talks from the Tate's.
So, a fair system can not judge a person solely on what they said, there should be concrete evidence, if not video recordings, or sound records, there should be matching testimonials, storylines, evidence etc. Based on what is going on after a whole year he is still not in jail, even though this doesn't prove he is innocent it is enough to try to look at the case from a more objective perspective.
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.
-
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.
-
9 minutes ago, Ahbapx said:You both are missing my point. A scapegoat is not necessarily someone who has done nothing wrong/toxic/criminal, rather it is someone who is unfairly judged or blamed by society, often as a result of prejudice, bias, or a desire to avoid accountability.
He is not the only one who is mixing truth and falsehood, the people who he fights against are also mixing the truth with falsehood. So, focusing solely on him makes you blind to those who caused him.
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?
-
11 minutes ago, Ahbapx said:I have already watched a lot of Andrew Tate's videos to understand that he has misogynistic and harmful ideas, that can easily lead to a person doing criminal acts. so, I'd rather not, because I don't want to navigate within a two-sided chaos where true and false get mixed from both sides.
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.
18 minutes ago, Ahbapx said:The unfair thing is how he is being picked as a scapegoat, which eliminates all the true and logical things he says, masculinity, corruptions in the system, discipline, hard work, etc. together with the wrong things he says.
Just because he is a dividing force, shouldn't cause me to divide my own mind.
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'.
-
10 minutes ago, Ahbapx said:I am unaware of most of the things you said, but as far as I see it even if they are criminals, there are levels to being a criminal, and I think so many people are just being unfair to them, which is also worrying to me.
Check the start of this thread to see what they've done.
What do you think has been unfairly done to them?
-
1 minute ago, Ahbapx said:one can argue for the "criminal acts" they committed since the Romanian government can't even put them in jail for good after a whole year.
I am pretty sure if there was concrete evidence, they wouldn't be on house arrest, but in jail...
no comment on their decision to move to Romania.
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.
-
1 minute ago, Ahbapx said:Tate Brothers say/do some unfair/ignorant things for sure, but to deny they face injustice is just as ignorant.
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.
-
54 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:On the other hand, and to give you what you ask for, I do care about sounding smart, not being smart has been a long lasting insecurity of mine and appearing intelligent in front of @Consept gives me what I need to maintain my sense of self.
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
-
1 hour ago, StarStruck said:The ones who were willing to hear it received 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
-
1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:@Consept said: "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"
I appreciate the feedback from both of you, it is not obvious though that dumbing down ideas will be beneficial on the span of say 10 years, but it is possible that I should learn to oscillate between both methods also in forums, this is a long format medium which is why I have done it this way.
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.
-
1 hour ago, StarStruck said:He already won because he spread the word but you won’t understand.
What word did he spread? Its not complicated what he says
-
This skit makes me laugh as well
-
1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:@Consept nah I'm getting better, I doubt it would draw any interest if it were that bad.
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.
-
31 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:Most of my ideas from two years ago sounds like rambling insanity to me.
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?
-
9 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:As someone who does take responsibility for how I feel about it, I propose banning the use of this word from dating-discourse.
I think it's fine to expect others to treat you with respect, right?! It's disrespectful to call someone 'creepy' (which is another word for 'unlovable') and we should not tolerate the use of this word towards us.
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
-
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?
-
3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:The first three are illegal. The first one is 'stalking', the second one is 'ogling', the third one is 'sexual assault'. And, the fourth one is not illegal but it's not advisable because it comes across as 'narcissistic' and 'objectifying'. So, I would prefer to not use the word 'creepy' for it, I'd rather say 'objectifying'.
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?
-
3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:Creepy' has nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with how the other person feels about it. If the other person feels 'creeped out' by your behavior, you could smile at them and they'll still call you 'creepy'.
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
in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Posted
First off theres no point in throwing in the other case for the purposes of this topic, might as well just stick to one. So the reason why hes getting investigated isnt to do with the public mob, the mob dont have the power to say someones guilty of something with absolutely no evidence and then the target get arrested, if that was the case people would be getting arrested constantly. You say 'invented charges' which is really key to your argument, as in, if they are not invented or if theres enough smoke to warrant looking for a fire then you dont have a point.
One of his crimes was being accused is recruiting girls through the 'loverboy method' which is defined as -
"The ‘lover boy’ technique is widely used by criminals to recruit victims facing economic and social hardship into forced prostitution. The suspects prey on their victims’ vulnerabilities, enticing them with expensive gifts or promises of a better life. The scam starts with the perpetrators approaching potential victims under the false pretence of wanting to build a relationship with them. Eventually, perpetrators convince victims to move away from or cut ties with their family. Once isolated, the victims are forced into prostitution to earn money for their handler. They are often kept in this situation through a combination of affection, violence, and threats against them and their families."
https://www.europol.europa.eu/operations-services-and-innovation/public-awareness-and-prevention-guides/how-not-to-fall-for-lover-boy-scam#:~:text=The 'lover boy' technique is,promises of a better life.
Now here is Tate talking about what his 'job' was -
Here is Tate explaining why he doesnt use an aggressive approach to pimp women -
This is the a report about the leaked war room chats talking about Iggy, Tates right hand man -
"He gives the members instructions on how to take advantage of a lady by "reducing attention and noting if she chases" as well as how to "set up a "coffee date" and carry out a move to find out if she is willing to pay for our coffee and serve us."
He continued, "After that it becomes a series of gradual steps to remove her entire support structure from her life," the BBC reported.
'Then we 'punish her for a transgression - real or imagined - by having her get our name tattooed on her, leaving her family's home/apartment/town/country, WebCamming/stripping/walking the track for us, getting us girls'.
He then said to 'escalate, escalate, escalate,' the message shows."
https://documentwomen.com/andrew-tate-call-log
Now Ive highlighted that this is nothing to do with just 'immoral acts', these are by the book crimes, we even know the intention behind Tate and his crews crime because he was very proud of them and breaks down his thinking behind them, he even creates a course so that others can do the same crimes which they do
Its actually incredible how unabashed he did this whole thing. Then to complain that youve been wrongfully targeted, im sorry but i dont know what world youre living in.
Even if i want to give complete benefit of the doubt that Tate was just bantering and doing it for entertainment, he 100% still shouldve been investigated if he was talking about how to do crimes and saying he was doing them, that isnt unjust treatment, do you want the police to just not investigate these types of things?
So to me the only people that can defend this are heavily biased toward Tate.