UpperMaster

@Tahuti It's both, what is the implications of cherry picking here? Well, I would argue its more appropriate to call it an addiction because it is negatively impacting my life.

I appreciate the responses from everyone. Here, I see two different points of view: those who believe that jerking off is normal, and those who believe that there is something seriously wrong with it in terms of how it affects your life. I can also somewhat imagine how porn can be absolute beautiful from a "high consciousness" standpoint. The issue is that I watch porn out of an addiction rather than out of genuine desire. I feel like I'm going to be screwed if I don't do it. If I didn't have an addiction to it which I do, I would love to jerk off every day.

That's pretty crazy

I'm a complete spiritual newbie. Thanks to Leo, I started meditating more seriously and am currently learning about enlightenment work. The more I study about enlightenment, the more foggy my idea of it becomes. Is it a one time thing or a continuous process? Although enlightenment and awakening are often used interchangeably, according to some people, Awakening implies to a single experience of who we really are. Whereas enlightenment is this final destination, where we eternally merge with our "true nature". Yogis like Sadhguru among others discuss this, presenting the spiritual process as this "ladder" that we climb. Experience after experience, we reach the top. The final step according to him is "true enlightenment". He explains that most people wont be able to handle this, and immediately leave the body as it happens. I'm mad confused right now. Someone, enlighten me.

Right now, Andrew Tate is one of the most well-known figures in the self-help industry. He is very charismatic and attractive to the youth. He is not afraid to voice his controversial principles and life philosophy. Recently he has been silenced by social media as people took offense to his opinions on the treatment of woman. I personally don't agree with all the things he has said. I do, however, applaud his clever and deliberate approach to gaining influence on social media. I greatly admire his "experience is king" approach of living, as well as his positive outlook and mental tenacity. In response to his social media ban, he published a video clarifying himself at https://www.freetopg.com I am curious to what this forum thinks on Andrew Tate? Does he spread a good or corrupted message for society? Let me know

David Goggins and Dan Bilzerian are completely different. Dan Bilzerian plays an alpha male playboy, I don't think he'd be of value to you. On the other hand, David Goggins has a great message for everyone. Jocko Willink is pretty darn neat too. Yes you can benefit. Try to work towards David Goggin's and Jocko's discipline. That's about the best they do for everyone, regardless male or female.

You haven't explained why you think Andrew Tate is a devil. On what ground do you make your claims man?

Please tell me how to do this. How long would it take..just please please help me out. I've been really trying to fix this addiction. I need steps, it doesn't seem to help.

All the points you've mentioned have been debunked. I'm not saying there is 0 percent chance that this is true. But all allegations seem completely incoherent, they don't add up, and the objections seem far more plausible. Too many times has he been accused of something with zero evidence.

He has a book!? I thought he hated books. Holy shit. I just looked it up and I'm amazed how much I didn't even know about him. I'm going to take your word for what it says in the book but if that's the case, then your completely right. He has some agenda, and I don't know what. Yup, I don't think he is the best either.. The book is free on kindle. I'm really confused on his agenda. Thanks for replying. Great Argument.

Looks do matter in dating. Biologically speaking, we almost always tend to appreciate men and woman that look better than the ones that don't. This said, Wheat Waffles highly exaggerates the correlation between looks and respect, and seems to misunderstand how looks plays into dating. He believes that as a man's looks deteriorates, so does his respect from woman and other men. He points to statistics that seem to prove his point: "Most leaders are over 6 feet tall", "Taller men are paid more than shorter men","90 percent of woman go to the top 10 percent men" etc etc. A significant amount of his statistics are either experiments that don't include all the factors of dating (such as the Tinder example) or assume correlation is causation. Shorter men get paid less than Taller men not because their short, but because many short men are simply not confident due to their height, confidence and disagreeableness does increase wages. Putin is 165 cm at most, yet he is the most powerful man in the planet. In my observation: Looks seem to work as a threshold. For example, a 7/10 woman (in looks) will tend to only consider a guy that is 6 and above. Even this threshold tends to completely disappear when we consider someone with higher status. Improving looks however does seem like the simplest straight forward way to increase success, this is because as your looks increase, the less importance you need to put on other aspects of dating (as a result of increasing the threshold). Looksmaxxing is beneficial but obsessing about it will turn you into a pussy, and you will as a result get dominated by more masculine, more interesting men that may look worse than you. Another thing I disagree with majority of black pillars is how many of them simply disregard all other aspects of dating (sex, status, confidence, masculine frame, character and mystery). Relationships are very complex. Dumming down a whole relationship to looks is uncalled for. Wheat Waffles says that a huge cause for divorce and break-ups are because of men become less physically attractive over time. This is bullshit. Looks is all about getting you in the threshold, after that its all about masculine frame, game and etc. Not to mention being a decent fucking guy.

Very well said argument, Tate (as you suspected) is a self proclaimed Morpheus. His "teachings" center on the idea of freeing people from continuous servitude to the government. Tate does give people a sense of certainty, he advertises his "cut the shit attitude", which is why most hard core Tate fans are very arrogant. Many of the "Truths" Tate teaches, are be justified by real life, making them believable to many people. For eg his teaching might go like: What is true relies completely on what you believe is true. If you believe in ghosts and you here a sound at night you'll think "ohhhhh its a ghost" and you'll get scared. If you don't believe in ghosts then the damn ghost doesn't exist A more controversial teaching might go like: Woman cheating is worse than when a man cheats because a man can have sex with other woman yet be emotionally attached to his main chick. A woman on the other hand is always emotionally attached to whoever she has sex with. And on and on, you get the idea. Although Tate's sense of truth is skewed, his arrogance still can help people. People that take on his attitude are more likely to get shit done than overthink. This "cut to the shit" attitude is what some people need, especially unsuccessful and lazy men. It stops overthinking and focuses more on taking action and getting what you want.

No I agree that's dumb. But man, since when was Andrew Tate a rapist? Your either over-blowing how bad the guy is, or I'm very ignorant and don't know much about him. I don't think he raped anyone, or in charge of human trafficking, the proof is non-existent.

Stalin killed millions, he is a devil if there ever was one. He used his power and skillful manipulation to satisfy his greed. I wouldn't go near him, and I assume you wouldn't too. We agree on that. Although we've strayed away from the core of this debate, I think it is necessary we make a strong distinction between skill and the person. Stalin was a horrible guy but that doesn't mean he wasn't an extremely skillful manipulator, that carefully placed himself at the right time and the right place, acting the right way, doing the right thing to secure his place of power. Gaining power is a skill like anything else, you must have a knack for psychology and be very creative and careful. His skill on it's own can be appreciated as it is its own genius (an evil one). People do appreciate his skill, that is why George Orwell used his story as a central plot for The Animal Farm. A less gruesome example would be conmen like Charles Ponzi or Victor Lustig. If you read more about con-men, specifically the best ones, you will realize that it is less of a shortcut and more of a skill of its own. Not everyone can pull elaborate cons off, and are very likely to get caught. People may dislike conmen because of their dishonesty, yet still acknowledge the skill used for conning. The best swordsmen in the world might be the most ruthless murderer, but that doesn't take away form the fact that he is the best swordsmen.

The question wasn't about the impact Tate's content has on people in this forum but on his effect on society. Huge value difference between Tate and Leo, can't compare. I just recognized that people here were less emotional, and more informed and was curious to what you guys think. It is a time pass topic, but when I asked a bunch of people I just get one sided emotive responses.

Ahahaha, yea well I was curious to have another perspective here. People around me either kiss Tate's ass or hate his guts. Both sides emotional.

Mhmm. Yes I see your point, red-pill misogynist culture spread their values to the youth, who grow up to be more misogynist. As I said, I overall disagree with many of the ideas he has on woman. I don't understand what you mean by "exploit females and he also exploits males", he has certain values but there is no exploitation of people. Yes pyramid schemes are not an honest way to make money whatsoever (good point you made here), but unlike majority of other pyramid schemes, there is a very solid commission rate in hustlers university ergo people are not exploited. It seems to me that he definitely isn't the best role model as he does make money through cheap ploys, but I don't think this should cancel out his core message for responsibility, which is majority of his content.

Thanks for the reply man. I think that whether he is ethical or not entirely depends on the product he is selling, and the message he is spreading. The core message Andrew Tate spreads are positive in my eyes, he talks about being accountable and developing mental toughness to face adversity. I'm in high-school, and he has had a beneficial influence on my friends. Despite the fact that he is now a meme, I have noticed that my close friends' attitudes have improved as a result of him. For the better or for worse, they are more ambitious. I have mixed feelings about the product he sells, I never tried Hustlers University so I can't say. I don't think that exploiting social media algorithms as a way to increase popularity is unethical..isn't that the same as just optimizing your thumbnails so that more people click your content?

@Tyler Robinson I have mixed feelings about hustlers university. I don't have personal experience here. It seems to be very generic information. I wouldn't join it personally. They do seem to have "coaches" that guide you when your stuck, which does seem like the biggest selling point. In terms of result it has been mixed too, many people have made a ton of money, but people have also failed.

There is no emotional music, he was affected by the ban, he does say so. He might be deeply insecure, honestly I don't know. I posted this because he has had a huge impact in real life (he has become a sensation among youth), and I wanted to here your opinions on what the ramifications are. This part of your reply basically says your opinion, you do think he is slimy and a bad influence.

This post wasn't to compare him to Leo (Leo gives different and often more nuanced advice, whereas Andrew does a lot of entertainment too). I wanted to know what other people thought about Tate as an influence to the youth, is his overall impact good or bad? Even if we were to compare both as self improvement coaches, the argument that we have Leo so we don't need anyone else seems absurd. If we listen to only ONE person then its highly likely that we won't ever contemplate about the lessons we learn, and accept them blindly (I think this goes both for spirituality and self improvement). I ultimately think that it is far better to listen to all teachers, field test lessons then pick the ones that work for you.

Yes I am familiar with his ploy. Although Affiliate marketing is an old way to make money, he skillfully implemented it. Usually percentage commission is quiet low, affiliate marketing can also be very time consuming. In Andrew's case, affiliate marketers had a pretty easy job to do, as they just needed to promote Andrew Tate using already made content. Not only that, the percentage return was very good, people that were successful actually made a very good sum of money from this. Affiliate marketing at this scale has not been done before. Experience is king, is something I've only come to terms with quiet recently. I disagree with "experience is king" being a universally excepted way of understand reality. In truth, most people comply with what people around them say. Most people (including myself even), believe in whatever they believe in not because it is something they've experienced, but rather because someone drilled it into them. Leo is great in this regard, and yea he really did encourage me to take this outlook. Many people can benefit from a model to tell them the most simplest things. Leo is somewhat of a model too so I don't understand how you use that to devalue Tate.

His values of woman are most controversial. For example, he says that a woman cheating in a relationship is far worse than when a man cheats in a relationship. He justifies this view by saying that woman always need an emotional connection when having sex, whereas when men don't need to be emotionally attached to a girl to fuck her. Men can fuck other woman, and still be a true lover to one girl. I personally don't think this argument is good as I believe a relationship is a mutual contract, saying your not going to cheat then cheating is bad regardless of if your male or female. He also believes in old fashioned gender roles, he believes men are providers and protectors whereas woman are caretakers. He admits being sexist here, he says woman are worse drivers then men. He claims that personal experience is the basis for all his arguments. I don't agree with his view here either, my experience says the contrary. I do however think that Andrew is straw manned by social media, in the sense that people take his clips out of context and then present him as a problem. His main tactic for increasing influence is by being charismatic and funny. He says some pretty outlandish shit sometimes like " I wont give CPR to anyone that isn't a hot woman because I'm not gay", but this is very obviously exaggerated. Although I disagree with many of his viewpoints on woman, I think his treatment of woman is totally fair. A relationship is a mutual contract, as long as both parties agree to each others terms and conditions, its totally fine. He supposedly has many girlfriends, and quiet openly has sex with other woman, but this is completely fine as the girls he is with know the man he is. I'm busy now, I'll reply to the rest later. Thanks for the reply!

pretty cool insight, through psychedelics?