What do you think about the banning of Andrew Tate from social media?

[Datboi65]

4 time world kickboxing champions with a net worth of over $100 mil and lots of takes on YouTube and all over social media, Andrew freakin' Tate.

He became relevant thanks to a pyramid scheme by his patrons on Hustlers University reposting his clips all over YouTube shorts and Tiktok, and he got a lot of support from men and heat from women.

What do I personally think of Andrew? As many people already know, I've expressed many times on this portal that I am a traditionalist. Andrew is not a traditionalist, he is more red-pilled (don't confuse the two) so while we do agree on the importance of hard-work, leveling up and masculinity, we disagree on things like spinning the plate and cheating.

However, just because I disagree with him on some aspects doesn't mean he should be banned. I understand the need to ban someone if they break TOS (terms of service), but I think social media companies should be more consistent with it, because it's a lot of hate coming from the other side on twitter that goes unchecked.

I got to say though, his fans need to chill a bit. All this "top G" shit is cringe and simpy, and it seems like they need to take his advice and work on themselves rather than idolizing someone else.

What do you think about the banning? Justified, or an overreaction? 🤔

[Anonymous]

These platforms are private companies, not the "public square" or a free forum of ideas... You are NOT their customer, you are their product. They sell your advertising views to their customers, but there does come a point where the product becomes toxic. Just as we throw out spoiled milk, and we don't sell broken items at the store, sometimes it is necessary to cull the inventory. From this perspective, due to the toxicity of his remarks, Andrew Tate would be considered a defective product.

If you don't like the fact that he is no longer on the top tier social media, then you can go to the discount brands like Telegram.

[Datboi65]

I mentioned that point in the take. I'm not a "free speech warrior" if that's who you think I am, I know about terms of service and I respect it. Why I don't respect is the lack of consistency in banning people who are toxic. Misandry is very common on twitter, even from female celebrities and they don't get banned. Do they also not break TOS?

[Opinion Owner]

I wasn't writing that towards you, I was actually trying to reiterate your point because, as you know, there are those sorts... And those of us who know better have to stick together on that point.

And you're right, hate isn't just a guy thing against women, women do the same thing, and that sort of thing should be treated just the same!

[Datboi65]

We both agree on the same stuff, I just wish they were met with the same energy. I don't wanna post any pictures because twitter is extremely toxic, but you can probably go see for yourself.

[Opinion Owner]

I agree that Twitter is toxic, hence why I've never had an acct

[Datboi65]

I used twitter as an example, but it's not just twitter. I'm not sure if you've ever heard of the "pink pill", but it's basically a hate movement that exists in all platforms. There are YouTube channels run by women that make what Andrew says seem as compliments, and I'm not exaggerating. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the term "bullet bag", but it's basically what they call men who get gunned down by police, and they rejoice over that without getting banned.

Also, Twitch is another one. A female streamer was caught having sex on stream and was only suspended for 7 days. Another female streamer threatened to open fire in twitch headquarters, and she received a perma ban that was then overturned to only 22 days. There are many examples of this, and I think the people who wanted him gone and everyone who shares a problematic message gone need to keep that same energy when it's a woman doing that.

[MzAsh]

He deserved it. These platforms are private companies that provide a free serve. They reserve the right to kick off whoever they want. This has been going on for a over a decade. You cannot tell me that he didn’t know the risks. He knew, and acted anyway. Consequences.

[Datboi65]

I 100% agree with that. This isn't a freedom of speech issue, because that's protected by the first ammendment, but rather a policy issue, and policy isn't law. However, to me I think that it seems there is a double standard when it comes to violation of the rules and deciding on who gets banned that is the bigger issue. I don't use Twitter a lot, but I see a lot of wild stuff coming mostly from women and the LQBTQ community about the men, and they don't get kicked out. I think that if we are really to get anywhere, people should tone it down when it comes to the intensity of the discussion, but also be allowed to give their ideas that conflict with others in a civilized manner that is not subject to online toxicity.

[MzAsh]

I can definitely agree with you on that.

[DJB72]

People confuse freedom of speech with freedom of reach.

Tate is a common thug with the business sense of a lemming running towards a cliff. He's known to have bought some expensive car new, its value halving the moment he drove off the lot.

Any suggestion he has business savvy is as believable as Trump claiming he has a nine figure balance in the bank.

[Datboi65]

Yes, freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences, and the first ammendment doesn't protect someone from getting banned from social media, because companies are not the government. I understand that, and I'm not even making an argument on his behalf. I just think it's disingenuous that the same people who wanted him go allow other problematic takes to slide when it's a woman saying stuff about men, or a member of the LGBT talking about straight people, because they should also face the same consequences.

[DJB72]

I agree. The issue with Tate is more *why* he says the crap he talks. His underlying character.

Look at Jordan Peterson. On the surface his words - out of context - could sound like Tate's repugnant vitriol. But in context, Peterson is all about equal opportunity and equitable treatment. Society needs strong men, not foul-mouthed bitter little boys in adult bodies.

Strong Men built the society that has allowed men of weak character to bloom with a mix of toxic hate speech disguised (barely) as "woke feminist" ideas that results in the toxic caricature of masculinity Tate vomits out.

Peterson, by comparison, espouses equally of opportunity and a reliance on men of character to support the society that creates by being farmers, bricklayers 500 feet up the side of a cooling tower, sewer-line repair men under the streets of the cities.

Instead we have weak boys being emasculated to the point they can't identify that they are men any more because they're told at every turn that a "good" boy wouldn't behave like that. Either they grow up into a Tate who embraces the darkness of masculinity or they retreat, burying the healthy young man they were designed to be and become convinced that because they can't live up to what toxic feminism demands (nobody can) that they themselves must be women.

The lucky ones realise before they go under the knife.

[Datboi65]

Jordan Peterson is a traditionalist, so we agree on so much more. Andrew Tate however is red-pilled. To a lot of modern men, red-pill sounds like the ideal response to feminism, but if I had a daughter she will NOT be dating anyone if those scumbags.

2 things need to be done:

1) Allowing the other side to talk without fear of cancelation, even if you don't agree with them. No, I'm not talking about guys who are more radical in their thinking like Andrew, but having a civilized discussion with red-pilled and or MGTOW individuals can definitely help the issue. I think the reason why some might be very frustrated is that women have had a platform to speak on on mainstream media for decades now, with shows such as "the view" for example when they can talk about men, but all men get is sport journalism and that's it.

2) Listen first before you argue. You don't have to agree with people to know why they think the way they do. I also do the same for feminists, and I don't agree with modern feminism at all. I think people should learn how to actually listen more and analyze what is being said instead of being so ready to counter. You might learn something new, or it might confirm to you that you were right all along. There are more moderate voices out there that if you let them listen, I believe the radical ones will start to lose their influence, or maybe I'm too optimistic.

If we are going to ban folks, this should be enforced equally according to TOS, no matter what gender, ethnicity, sexual-orientation or whatever should not come into play in making that decision.

[Googlemyahoo]

Andrew Tate? I never heard of her.

[whirled_up_girl]

I didn't even know who he was till someone here started mentioning him. I guess as long as he not making threats of violence or calling for violence I don't really care if he gets banned. I figure people who agree with him probably already held similar beliefs anyway.

[Aerolyn]

Don't give a fuck and why should anyone else, he ain't paying your damn bills, is he?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

It's their platform. Their platform has specific rules to abide by and this Tate guy violated those rules so he gets the boot.

[Datboi65]

It's not really the ban that was odd to be fair, we all saw it coming. It was the way that it happened that was very vague in nature without at least providing a reason. Once again, if you break TOS, you deserve to get kicked out, but at least give a term that was broken. The lack of consistency in which it happens as well. At the end of the day, I don't really care if he returns, but if they try to censor his idea, someone else will come in his position and continue what he started. The issues he talks about are there and are real, and while I don't agree with everything he says, I understand where his people might be coming from. I can write a whole other take about this topic.

[Fuentes]

Not a fan of Tate at all he beats women, but I don't agree with censorship.

[Datboi65]

If you're talking about the infamous video that came out, his ex denied that it was abuse and instead said that that was something that she was into.

[Fuentes]

Yeah right lol any man who hits a women is a POS. Idc what lame excuses she makes now after he's super rich to defend his character. I don't fuck with Any man who has anything to do with DV.

[Datboi65]

See, we agree that we both don't like him, but these allegations are dangerous and are taken VERY VERY seriously. You can hold an opinion of dude, but saying he beats women is a stretch, especially after his ex said that he never abused her. False accusations are real, and they get people locked up and canceled. Would you want people to lie about you and accuse you of crimes you haven't committed?

[Fuentes]

If I whooping a girl's ass on camera, accusations will be made and I will accept them cause I was stupid enough to post something stupid like that.

[Datboi65]

And she asked him to. I personally would not, because I am not into that, but some women like it for some odd reason. Regardless of that, she confirmed his innocence.

[Fuentes]

Permission or no permission if you beat a women just for fun it's DV in my eyes.

[MiseriaCantareAFI]

andrew tate, is just like joe rogan

a cult following, loser

[Agape93]

Shouldn't have been such a toxic asshole

[MzAsh]

Agreed.

[SmokinAces2000]

I don’t know why so many people are on his dick

[Datboi65]

That one I cannot deny. His fans are very cringe worthy, but I don't really know if it's his fault, or if this generation is just very pathetic.

[Nikki1989]

I just wonder why it took so long.

[joeldalton]

It seems pretty fucking stupid.

[lorenzomichael]

I really don't give a shit

[cloud9vortex1234]

I don't care either way.

[Anonymous]

I think he should not have been banned.