site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   3520 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 4, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Who is Andrew Tate and whose icon is he? How these people reflect on him using multiple women, even if his subscribers become all hypermasculine, multiple women would be still possible only for men near top.

He's a Black pimp. He engages in classic Black pimp activities and tactics. Men who aren't aware of this think seducing, then isolating and beating, low class women into whoring themselves out is a brand new philosophical invention.

Latest "red pill"' icon, former fighter, pimp and now grifter selling information on how to make money, become fit and, of course, get women.

A lot of his audience like him because he's an aspirational figure that emphasizes an internal locus of control rather than victimhood - while also feeding the part of men that likes to see themselves as temporarily embarrassed ubermensch. Or, more charitably, a recognition that no feminist-style solidarity or ideology will change that men have to develop themselves and compete against other men and someone has to fail.

People like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Huberman do offer positive messages and roadmaps, but as relatively stable married men with conventional advice (Peterson especially is vocally against hookup culture) they don't really satisfy young males' natural fantasies of unlimited sexual access and climbing the status hierarchy, perhaps by literally kicking people's asses.

Yes, Tate's worldview is one where a lot of "loser" men will fail but the trick is of course that he's telling you the audience member how to not be that guy.

The logic is that there's no going back to some sort of equitable 1950s distribution of women anyway, the romantic safety net for normal guys is gone and we live in an inegalitarian time, a new sexual Gilded Age. No point complaining about it, it's done. Since you can't just count on finding one normal "modern woman"* easily like your grand-daddy did at the church ball or whatever, all men should be trying to maximize your chances by becoming the Top G(uy).

You're gonna be that top guy, obviously (if you buy his course).

As for his "using" of women - the men he sells to are products of the oppositional, transactional, selfish culture of the gender wars, rap music and hustle culture - it's every man for himself in the market. The logic being that women (well, everyone) are in for themselves and have all sorts of advantages now so why not shouldn't men play their own game? If you don't want to be "used" don't sign a bad contract.

There's probably an added element of vengeance and vicarious pleasure in that feminists are blamed for ruining any old arrangements and trumpeting female freedom and agency, so if things also go wrong for them (as they've gone for the audience) and the tables are turned, well...that's just the game they wanted to play.

Of course, in a highly porn-friendly world, many may simply not give a shit at all about women being "exploited" via a webcam business cause they're already jaded to it happening on an industrial scale. Contractarian logic doesn't lend itself to sympathy here - especially if the charge is of emotional manipulation.

TBH the oddest bit is how he admits to basically preying on male loneliness (basically running a webcam business and leading men on to think they're chatting with the women when they weren't, basically defrauding them) while also sounding notes about how hard a man's life is and never gets called on it by his audience.

But, again, temporarily embarrassed millionaires and all.

* A polite euphemism for everything from "slut" to "naive blank slateist" to "unjustifiably selective harpy"

Just to insert an emetic to the stream of praise Tate seems to be getting from the throwaway account, I would suggest Tate seems to be the 'icon' of disaffected pubescent males, which isn't a new phenomenon. I remember reading The Game years ago and some of Tate's schtick reminds me of Neil Strauss, if Strauss were a sadistic psychopath.

Narcissistic, Machiavellian, sadistic, psychopathic, Tate seems to exhibit all of these traits and revel in the reaction to them, which is again not surprising in the least.

Regarding "multiple women," sure, it's not every day you see a guy manipulating simultaneously numerous women to debase themselves for his own financial gain. I wonder if the folks at Guinness Book keep records of that sort of thing. Reminds me of Charles Manson, though without the guitar or swastika in the forehead. Or luxurious head of hair.

And like Manson in his day, Tate is a tedious reminder of the stupid times we live in. Also like Manson, at times what he says has a ring of truth, but then gets distorted into extremist, paranoiac ranting. Then when backed into a corner that might prove disadvantageous, Tate says things like "It's just me playing a character." Textbook.

He's not unlike Jordan Peterson. Both likely have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Low empathy. Emotionally dysregulated at times. Delusions of grandeur. Paranoid. Both think "they" are out to get them, to silence them. Peterson thinks he's a prophet of sorts and has a politically conservative, Christian-ish agenda. Tate's more of a hedonistic grifter who plays the "top g" character. Both are very theatrical. Very performative. Clownish at times. Not unlike Trump.

And yet, at times, they've delivered far more truthful statements than the vast majority of adults in my life personally.

Would I want to hang out with Tate or have my sister date him? Hell no. But I view him like gore websites. Not particularly healthy to view, but offers a closer depiction of reality than MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News. And even gore videos can have agendas (America bad! Ukraine bad! Russia bad! China bad!). But the bias is out in the open. And you can take what's truthful (human nature) and discard the agendas (political or religious or financial or whatever).

Tate strikes me as mostly destructive-- less of a useful, enlightening iconoclast and more an opportunistic showman whose sole interest is in using people and teaching those same people how to use others. I can't speak to whether Peterson has any, most, or all of the flaws you mention, but at least so far I haven't seen him posing in sunglasses with his shirt off.

I would also argue that gore websites (if I understand correctly what those are, and I am not entirely sure that I do, having successfully avoided that genre) don't pull back the veil of Isis (only the first letter capitalized) any more than does hard-core porn. Does grim reality exist? Sure. People die in violent accidents, and some take it up all orifices at once That doesn't mean this is some sort of truth more meaningful than a story off the broadcast news. (Full disclosure： I don't watch any of the MSM sources you listed, not out of any principled stance but because they're not that accessible here without taking time and trouble. Neither of which I take to seek them out.

I find him difficult to summarize succinctly, but his wikipedia page does a fair job. He's a notable figure in the manosphere. A portion of (conservative?) Millennial and Gen Z males look up to him.

Calls a spade a spade. Speaks about the competitive, hierarchical nature of today's global, capitalistic society as well as the hypergamous nature of women. Doesn't sugarcoat reality like mainstream media. Mainstream media dislikes him for not towing the party line and, worst of all, being popular. Mainstream media tries to discredit him.

He tells the worker drones the truth. Can't have that.

EDIT: More specifically, he's discussed how marriage, divorce, child support, and alimony are rigged against men. How men are disposable cannon fodder, and how the state (and women) don't have men's best interests at heart. How, outside of specific degrees and/or career paths, college is a scam. Things the state doesn't want to be common knowledge among the populace.

EDIT 2: The college bit might've been his brother Tristan. Though Andrew may have spoken about it at some point, I don't know. Also he's not against marriage or divorce or child support or alimony in theory, but he thinks the current laws in the west favor women too strongly. And he's not anti-women, he's just realistic about their nature and biological imperative, which isn't the same as men's.

Mainstream media dislikes him for not towing the party line

I'll mention this is "Toeing the line" as opposed to towing, though I can see how the latter could make sense.

Darn. I think I used to think it was "toeing the line," as in not crossing a red line or a line in the sand, and then erroneously changed it to "towing the line," like carrying the water for [blank]. Thanks for the correction.

Thanks, can you give comment on this?

How these people reflect on him using multiple women, even if his subscribers become all hypermasculine, multiple women would be still possible only for men near top.

If you're referring to his critics, they dislike him "using multiple women" because they either genuinely believe the women are being used, or they cynically think he's exposing women's nature, warts and all, and they want him to stop for some self-serving reason, real or imagined.

If you're referring to his followers, they think that women "want to be used" (or led) and that his success with women proves his thesis about how women are. They respect him for walking the walk.

If Tate has N girlfriends instead of 1, he creates N-1 incels this way. How is he helping low status men?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats