I think there are clearly differences between them. I read more and more about Tate. A long time ago I searched help in Jordan Peterson's videos. I heavily disagree with his political stances though. Moreover I have to say his development is very pathetic. He became a shit poster on Twitter and sucks off Elon Musk regularly only because this dude lets him spread his bullshit political takes. Peterson now is really an embarrassment all his self-help advices seemingly don't work on himself. Would someone who keeps his house in order become a drug addict?
I did not watch a lot of Tate videos but the ones I saw are enough to call him a complete douchebag. I think his popularity stems from the fact that many young men are insecure. Many young men do not know what the world demands from them. There are contradicting messages. Be soft but not whiny, show feelings but not too much, have a six-pack but at the same time be educated and not superficial etc. I think many men are puzzled by that. And Andrew Tate delivers simple answers. He creates a black-white world. He revives the good old times when men dominated the society, where there was a clear hierarchy and men ruled over the world completely. It is obvious how shallow such a world view is. There is a lack of nuances. It is a world heavily influenced by the desire of the individual. "I get what I want and if people don't want to give it to me I take it from them." Honestly this fits better than I had it in mind because it captures Tate's stance on women and sexuality. I think he plays down rape and blames (partly?) the victim for it which is completely disgusting. He acts like he could own the body of other women. There are videos where he stages the absolute domination over women. I cannot say whether all allegations are true against him. But I think he would deserve Romanian prison solely due to the fact how much poison and toxicity he spreads. He propagades an indifference or even attacks against women rights, awareness of mental illness and the LGBTQI+ movement. There is probably way more damage he causes but I don't want to waste my time reading even more about this despicable man with his huge ego.
I think Tate scams young men with his online courses. I think he even admitted that they are bullshit. He pays women he seemingly hires (maybe exploits?) to exchange text messages with young desperate men. I think Tate's popularity stems from the fact that he breaks societal norms for example by insulting mentally ill people. Playing down their pain. In a society that values education and more and more awareness for things like minority rights or mental health he offers an alternative approach. It is clear every movement has a countermovement. Though it is a very fine line. We have things like the internet death penalty. If you say too extreme things they ban you from the most popular platforms. I am not sure whether he was banned on certain platforms. I think yes. Though his young easily manipulable audience fulfils its role by uploading short videos of his most provoking takes. This helps him a lot to build his audience. I think clickbating is another part of it. Appealing to the alleged truth noone dares to speak is a pretty good strategy to get attention. And this guy seems to be pretty needy for attention.
Tate is a good example how low people can sink just because they crave for attention, money, sex and fame. I am not sure whether he believes all the shit he propagades. Of course he knows he is doing a ponzi scheme where he is the one who profits the most. He is rotten through the core and benefits from the hatred he spreads. I think many people see through his scheme but still watch him. He is like a car crash where it is hard to look away from. It is like a game which new lines are crossed. In our modern internet era attention is a very important currency and sometimes it does not matter whether the people love or hate someone. In my past threads about Tate many people here expressed their disdain towards Tate. That is very understandable because he usually shits on vulnerable or mentally ill people.
So now I am in a predicament. The thread is already way too long and I barely elaborated on Peterson. I could change the title and save the Peterson idea for a different thread. But instead I try to point out some differences between Tate and Peterson. Peterson is clearly more political. I think he also wants to adress the insecurity of young men. I think concerning self-help advices he is a better choice than Tate. Still I would not recomment it. He emphasizes way too much the ability of the individual as a medicine for societal illnesses. As Slavoj Zizek pointed it out. What if the system is flawed? Would Peterson's advices help a citizen in North Korea? He completely neglects the system and the society which can undermine the individual's power to recover. I think it is a reason why many people here (me included) want/need to commit suicide. We are too fucked beyond repair and Peterson with his libertarianism cannot offer us any help. Moreover it was a huge mistake of mine to take Peterson serious on any issues except psychology. He seems to shit his opinion out on everything he thinks about. He is like an equivalent to my daily posts though the huge difference is the people are dumb enough to give him money for the half-knowledge that he spreads.
Yeah maybe it would have been better to split these two men in two threads. The critic of them has a different emphasis.
What do you think about my analysis?
I did not watch a lot of Tate videos but the ones I saw are enough to call him a complete douchebag. I think his popularity stems from the fact that many young men are insecure. Many young men do not know what the world demands from them. There are contradicting messages. Be soft but not whiny, show feelings but not too much, have a six-pack but at the same time be educated and not superficial etc. I think many men are puzzled by that. And Andrew Tate delivers simple answers. He creates a black-white world. He revives the good old times when men dominated the society, where there was a clear hierarchy and men ruled over the world completely. It is obvious how shallow such a world view is. There is a lack of nuances. It is a world heavily influenced by the desire of the individual. "I get what I want and if people don't want to give it to me I take it from them." Honestly this fits better than I had it in mind because it captures Tate's stance on women and sexuality. I think he plays down rape and blames (partly?) the victim for it which is completely disgusting. He acts like he could own the body of other women. There are videos where he stages the absolute domination over women. I cannot say whether all allegations are true against him. But I think he would deserve Romanian prison solely due to the fact how much poison and toxicity he spreads. He propagades an indifference or even attacks against women rights, awareness of mental illness and the LGBTQI+ movement. There is probably way more damage he causes but I don't want to waste my time reading even more about this despicable man with his huge ego.
I think Tate scams young men with his online courses. I think he even admitted that they are bullshit. He pays women he seemingly hires (maybe exploits?) to exchange text messages with young desperate men. I think Tate's popularity stems from the fact that he breaks societal norms for example by insulting mentally ill people. Playing down their pain. In a society that values education and more and more awareness for things like minority rights or mental health he offers an alternative approach. It is clear every movement has a countermovement. Though it is a very fine line. We have things like the internet death penalty. If you say too extreme things they ban you from the most popular platforms. I am not sure whether he was banned on certain platforms. I think yes. Though his young easily manipulable audience fulfils its role by uploading short videos of his most provoking takes. This helps him a lot to build his audience. I think clickbating is another part of it. Appealing to the alleged truth noone dares to speak is a pretty good strategy to get attention. And this guy seems to be pretty needy for attention.
Tate is a good example how low people can sink just because they crave for attention, money, sex and fame. I am not sure whether he believes all the shit he propagades. Of course he knows he is doing a ponzi scheme where he is the one who profits the most. He is rotten through the core and benefits from the hatred he spreads. I think many people see through his scheme but still watch him. He is like a car crash where it is hard to look away from. It is like a game which new lines are crossed. In our modern internet era attention is a very important currency and sometimes it does not matter whether the people love or hate someone. In my past threads about Tate many people here expressed their disdain towards Tate. That is very understandable because he usually shits on vulnerable or mentally ill people.
So now I am in a predicament. The thread is already way too long and I barely elaborated on Peterson. I could change the title and save the Peterson idea for a different thread. But instead I try to point out some differences between Tate and Peterson. Peterson is clearly more political. I think he also wants to adress the insecurity of young men. I think concerning self-help advices he is a better choice than Tate. Still I would not recomment it. He emphasizes way too much the ability of the individual as a medicine for societal illnesses. As Slavoj Zizek pointed it out. What if the system is flawed? Would Peterson's advices help a citizen in North Korea? He completely neglects the system and the society which can undermine the individual's power to recover. I think it is a reason why many people here (me included) want/need to commit suicide. We are too fucked beyond repair and Peterson with his libertarianism cannot offer us any help. Moreover it was a huge mistake of mine to take Peterson serious on any issues except psychology. He seems to shit his opinion out on everything he thinks about. He is like an equivalent to my daily posts though the huge difference is the people are dumb enough to give him money for the half-knowledge that he spreads.
Yeah maybe it would have been better to split these two men in two threads. The critic of them has a different emphasis.
What do you think about my analysis?
Last edited:
