This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Not a good day for Mr. Tate Andrew Tate, Brother Tristan arrested amid human trafficking probe
I am skeptical. This does not make sense from a risk vs. reward perspective. Presumably their hustler university program and other businesses provide plenty of legal revenue; why engage in such unnecessary risk? Romania's criminal justice system probably does not have the same requirement of burden of proof as in the US.
Why would you expect them to have well-thought-out risk/reward tradeoffs? Other than what's in the other replies, most of what I know about Andrew Tate comes from youtube and instagram bits where he's bragging about how much money he has and insulting men who aren't rich, and how he has a surefire way for you to get rich. Sounds like walking survivorship bias to me, where someone made bad gambles that paid off for a time but have come around to bite him. Also, "plenty" of revenue is never enough for some people.
I never got the impression he was insulting people. It seems like his persona is mostly an act. Sorta like Alex Jones. Being insulted for being poor is hardly the worst thing . Better than being insulted for being short (cannot fix that).
"It didn't happen, and if it did, that's a good thing."
Anyway, Alex Jones isn't doing so hot lately either. Whether he believed his schlock or not, he gambled on no one calling him out, and made a lot of money...until he didn't. The obvious hypothesis is that Tate made a bunch of radical decisions, like running scams or moving to Romania, and finally hit one that had actual consequences.
He has been broadcasting ad-filled episodes and run ad-filled websites for 2 decades. he probably has loads of $ and more coming everyday, even with the lawsuit he will be fine. Just because you are not making as much money anymore does not mean you lose what you made.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't see how it being an act changes whether something is an insult or not. Jones may not seriously believe that Sandy Hook was a false flag, but it would still be pretty hurtful to hear someone say that you faked your own child being dead for a political fight (and it seems like some people did believe him). Like with most bullies and charlatans, the correct response is not to take them seriously, whether you agree or disagree, not to engage. But I also don't think it's entirely an act; he is actually living in Romania, after saying (as another poster quoted) that you can get away with rape there by bribing the cops.
And if it is an act, then Tate is still a greedy asshole, selling desperate men on get-rich-quick schemes, like 10,000 con men before him. Does that sound like a man with a great grasp of risk management to you?
More options
Context Copy link
And part of the act is insulting poor people. At least sometimes - I've definitely heard him say "brokies" and mock people who work hard for their money a lot.
this seems the same as when the left accuses comedians of punching down. his style of humor or commentary is not for everyone.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link