I do not like Andrew Tate. He's an actual sexist (and I'm not saying this of every white male like Leftists do), homophobe and actual Islam apologist himself so it's ironic to hear him talking of Islamic problem in UK.
However, this being said, the truth itself is paramount. I support the truth no matter who says it - not just Andrew Tate but even Hitler and Stalin themselves.
To deny and reject the truth if it's spoken by an evil person is still reality denial and as such is wrong and stupid. Especially Leftists love to do this - they reject and deny everything Trump is saying no matter how right he is. Idiots.
Yes exactly. That’s pretty much an exact reflection of my view. The only possible difference is that I’m not certain that Tate is guilty of the worst things claimed about him. Once it’s being pressed by the authorities for OTHER reasons it becomes very difficult to know the full objective truth about such allegations. I’ve certainly seen the Tates say things that are vile. I’ve also seen them say things that are very true. So I judge the statements purely as statements without reference to the rest.
Well, I was judging based on what he himself said. That is, he said he relocated to Romania because of its lax laws on rape, and I found it very problematic. Doesn't prove he's a rapist necessarily but why would a normal person want to get to a place with lax rape laws if he wasn't intending to rape there and get away with it? Also his praise of Islam and Shariah is sickening.
But that doesn't cancel the truth of his other statements. As I said, truth is always the truth, no matter who says it, and lie is always a lie too no matter who says it.
The people who are going to great lengths to not mention the rapists or who they've been raping are going to great lengths to use the issue to diss people they don't like. It's easy - Keir Starmer or your friend or the BBC or whoever don't actually know anyone who's been raped by these men, they don't know these men. Therefore it's all a bit academic and distant so they can use it as a story being put about by people they don't know personally but know they don't like. "Elon Musk says Muslims rape children - well he would say that, racist right-wing fascist billionaire that he is". "Andrew Tate? Well, he is a sex fiend who makes motivational videos to destroy the morality of decent young men. Believing anything he says is just ridiculous". See? No interest in the actual raping of children by Muslims. Obviously, if those children were being raped by marauding gangs of, say, Christian men of French heritage, and the children were Muslims, that would be a different story and would cause Guardian readers to faint in confusion about how to react to Musk or Tate commenting. But the Truth is the Truth, no matter who states it.
Absolutely right. If the victims were black, or if they were white and from middle and upper class Labour voting families, the response would be completely different.
Which is why the rape/murder stories that do get extensive coverage are the ones where the victim is a posh white girl - then it's far more about her than about the rapist (unless he's a white policeman of course) and, should the perpetrator be ethnic then he's barely mentioned.
When Andrew Tate comes clean, he and others will fall. I'm including a link to one of my videos, with very specific information regarding Andrew Tate. His name come up exceedingly too many times for being involved in child and teen sex trafficking. This video is over 4 months old now.
How many people do you personally know who are repeatedly being investigated for child and teen sex trafficking? Not a coincidence. Who's protecting his ass?
It is said that Satan can recite every word in the bible, in every language ever spoken. Should I listen to him? Anyone can tell truths. That means jack shit to me.
Oddly, I'll have to RE-UPLOAD the previous two videos to the link I included. SOMEONE removed both of those videos. HMMM.
I certainly didn’t remove them. And OF COURSE truth matters and it’s very much the case that anyone CAN tell it, but not everyone IS. Up to 1 million kids were raped because nobody told the truth about it and the truth was suppressed. So if Satan tells you the truth, YES it’s worth listening.
No, not you. My bad on the removal anyway. I forgot what video it was. I updated the link in my original comment. I have a date/time clock over my head when I do these. Note the dates and times.
I for one take the charges against the Tates with a big grain of salt. After all, being a American gives me a front row seats to lawfare with the purpose of taking out a threat.
I’m genuinely unsure either way. I know good people who insist they are guilty, but I also know false sex claims are routinely used to destroy dissident voices.
Right on the money, Daniel. If one considers it a brave, important and thus laudable act to tell the truth about something, the person doing so deserves credit, irrespective of how credit worthy he is otherwise. He could be morally bankrupt in which case the assertion doesn’t vault him onto the positive ledger. It just might nudge him a little out of debt. Alternatively, he could be a virtual saint beloved by many, in which case the credit is just a nice addition. It doesn’t change his reputation either, just bolsters it a bit.
But the credit for the assertion is the same. The value of the assertion is the same. Thus the truth is protected from getting lost and obscured in a Black Forest of ad hominem.
Objective reality. Fundamental and straightforward.
So, for instance, with Tommy Robinson, weigh the value of his truth telling, its importance and bravery, against whatever random bill of particulars you can hold against the guy and he comes out pretty good. So much credit for what he’s said and done, he stands rich and heroic.
Andrew Tate, on the other hand, doesn’t deserve that much credit - some perhaps but not as much - and his deficit’s so much larger. Heroic? Not so much.
And Musk is just appreciating anyone who’ll express this truth while the government and MSM continue to deny it.
Exactly!! Purists reject truth from sketchy sources as if somehow truth depends on the source of the statement.
I’m a practicing, believing Catholic. I often quote Ayn Rand who was an atheist and apparently not a nice person. How can you follow such a person? Because she is right.
I wrote about this topic in my first ever article on Substack. The media and establishment figures use a category called "malinformation" as justification for suppressing truth. Equivalent to misinformation (wrong information), disinformation (lies), malinformation is *true* information shared with malintent.
An example of their concept of malinformation would be to say that while it is technically true that individuals from 13% of the population commit 50% of the crime, people who say it do so because they are bigoted against that 13% and wish to inspire hatred and mistrust of them, therefore that data should be ignored.
While someone's motivation is important in what they say, and thus malinformation isn't a totally useless concept, the problem is that the establishment will find ways to slander and discredit any person who says anything whatsoever that they'd prefer the public didn't know. "Show me the [opinion] and I'll show you the crime," as it were. Moreover, they will even use the fact of someone sharing a fact as evidence of their sinfulness - so, any inconvenient fact is by definition malinformation, because anyone who would cite such a fact *must* be motivated by bad intentions and bigotry. It's so corrupt.
This only works if you can be entirely objective in your approach to truth and, particularly now, almost everybody's truth is subjective.
I find it difficult to separate Andrew Tate's persona from his statements, as it implies heavily that I approve of his character's right to pass moral judgement on others.
It's the thin end of the wedge, as it gives him carte blanche to declaim on any subject, and should he be given that privilege? Haven't we had (more than) enough of the cult of media personality?
Truth is never subjective, I'm sorry, it's a very Woke and wrong thing to say. It's always possible to separate truth from the person speaking it too, it's your problem if you can't do it, I fail to understand you and your logic at all.
2+2=4 ALWAYS no matter who speaks it. Are you claiming that if Hitler spoke that 2+2=4 it would make it 5? It's moronic, ridiculous and idiotic.
Sky is always blue and grass is always green no matter who speaks it. Truth is always truth, 100% objective, I'm and irrelevant to who speaks it. I won't reject true statements even spoken by Hitler. If you would, try to be less Woke and study less postmodernism.
You’re outlining why leftists make controlling the language a paramount tactic. Blue isn’t blue if they say it’s red. Men become women. Up becomes down.
Exactly! That's why we need to break this spell, not cater to it by pretending that truth is subjective and that true things become untrue if spoken by allegedly bad people. That's the way straight into abyss.
I do not like Andrew Tate. He's an actual sexist (and I'm not saying this of every white male like Leftists do), homophobe and actual Islam apologist himself so it's ironic to hear him talking of Islamic problem in UK.
However, this being said, the truth itself is paramount. I support the truth no matter who says it - not just Andrew Tate but even Hitler and Stalin themselves.
To deny and reject the truth if it's spoken by an evil person is still reality denial and as such is wrong and stupid. Especially Leftists love to do this - they reject and deny everything Trump is saying no matter how right he is. Idiots.
Yes exactly. That’s pretty much an exact reflection of my view. The only possible difference is that I’m not certain that Tate is guilty of the worst things claimed about him. Once it’s being pressed by the authorities for OTHER reasons it becomes very difficult to know the full objective truth about such allegations. I’ve certainly seen the Tates say things that are vile. I’ve also seen them say things that are very true. So I judge the statements purely as statements without reference to the rest.
Well, I was judging based on what he himself said. That is, he said he relocated to Romania because of its lax laws on rape, and I found it very problematic. Doesn't prove he's a rapist necessarily but why would a normal person want to get to a place with lax rape laws if he wasn't intending to rape there and get away with it? Also his praise of Islam and Shariah is sickening.
But that doesn't cancel the truth of his other statements. As I said, truth is always the truth, no matter who says it, and lie is always a lie too no matter who says it.
The people who are going to great lengths to not mention the rapists or who they've been raping are going to great lengths to use the issue to diss people they don't like. It's easy - Keir Starmer or your friend or the BBC or whoever don't actually know anyone who's been raped by these men, they don't know these men. Therefore it's all a bit academic and distant so they can use it as a story being put about by people they don't know personally but know they don't like. "Elon Musk says Muslims rape children - well he would say that, racist right-wing fascist billionaire that he is". "Andrew Tate? Well, he is a sex fiend who makes motivational videos to destroy the morality of decent young men. Believing anything he says is just ridiculous". See? No interest in the actual raping of children by Muslims. Obviously, if those children were being raped by marauding gangs of, say, Christian men of French heritage, and the children were Muslims, that would be a different story and would cause Guardian readers to faint in confusion about how to react to Musk or Tate commenting. But the Truth is the Truth, no matter who states it.
Absolutely right. If the victims were black, or if they were white and from middle and upper class Labour voting families, the response would be completely different.
Which is why the rape/murder stories that do get extensive coverage are the ones where the victim is a posh white girl - then it's far more about her than about the rapist (unless he's a white policeman of course) and, should the perpetrator be ethnic then he's barely mentioned.
When Andrew Tate comes clean, he and others will fall. I'm including a link to one of my videos, with very specific information regarding Andrew Tate. His name come up exceedingly too many times for being involved in child and teen sex trafficking. This video is over 4 months old now.
How many people do you personally know who are repeatedly being investigated for child and teen sex trafficking? Not a coincidence. Who's protecting his ass?
https://rumble.com/v5c1uy9-ep-639-another-one-bites-the-dust-usable-proof-at-last.html
Thanks I’ll look at the link. My point remains though that even if he is guilty it doesn’t make a thing he has said that is true, untrue.
It is said that Satan can recite every word in the bible, in every language ever spoken. Should I listen to him? Anyone can tell truths. That means jack shit to me.
Oddly, I'll have to RE-UPLOAD the previous two videos to the link I included. SOMEONE removed both of those videos. HMMM.
I certainly didn’t remove them. And OF COURSE truth matters and it’s very much the case that anyone CAN tell it, but not everyone IS. Up to 1 million kids were raped because nobody told the truth about it and the truth was suppressed. So if Satan tells you the truth, YES it’s worth listening.
No, not you. My bad on the removal anyway. I forgot what video it was. I updated the link in my original comment. I have a date/time clock over my head when I do these. Note the dates and times.
Nailed it.
Thanks William 😀
Tate says some true things. But the person to save Britain from Muslim rape gangs isn’t a Muslim rapist like Tate.
I for one take the charges against the Tates with a big grain of salt. After all, being a American gives me a front row seats to lawfare with the purpose of taking out a threat.
.
I’m genuinely unsure either way. I know good people who insist they are guilty, but I also know false sex claims are routinely used to destroy dissident voices.
Right on the money, Daniel. If one considers it a brave, important and thus laudable act to tell the truth about something, the person doing so deserves credit, irrespective of how credit worthy he is otherwise. He could be morally bankrupt in which case the assertion doesn’t vault him onto the positive ledger. It just might nudge him a little out of debt. Alternatively, he could be a virtual saint beloved by many, in which case the credit is just a nice addition. It doesn’t change his reputation either, just bolsters it a bit.
But the credit for the assertion is the same. The value of the assertion is the same. Thus the truth is protected from getting lost and obscured in a Black Forest of ad hominem.
Objective reality. Fundamental and straightforward.
So, for instance, with Tommy Robinson, weigh the value of his truth telling, its importance and bravery, against whatever random bill of particulars you can hold against the guy and he comes out pretty good. So much credit for what he’s said and done, he stands rich and heroic.
Andrew Tate, on the other hand, doesn’t deserve that much credit - some perhaps but not as much - and his deficit’s so much larger. Heroic? Not so much.
And Musk is just appreciating anyone who’ll express this truth while the government and MSM continue to deny it.
Exactly!! Purists reject truth from sketchy sources as if somehow truth depends on the source of the statement.
I’m a practicing, believing Catholic. I often quote Ayn Rand who was an atheist and apparently not a nice person. How can you follow such a person? Because she is right.
Your final sentence says it all, Daniel.
Truth does not come from a single source. Truth is truth. Thanks for defending that.
I wrote about this topic in my first ever article on Substack. The media and establishment figures use a category called "malinformation" as justification for suppressing truth. Equivalent to misinformation (wrong information), disinformation (lies), malinformation is *true* information shared with malintent.
An example of their concept of malinformation would be to say that while it is technically true that individuals from 13% of the population commit 50% of the crime, people who say it do so because they are bigoted against that 13% and wish to inspire hatred and mistrust of them, therefore that data should be ignored.
While someone's motivation is important in what they say, and thus malinformation isn't a totally useless concept, the problem is that the establishment will find ways to slander and discredit any person who says anything whatsoever that they'd prefer the public didn't know. "Show me the [opinion] and I'll show you the crime," as it were. Moreover, they will even use the fact of someone sharing a fact as evidence of their sinfulness - so, any inconvenient fact is by definition malinformation, because anyone who would cite such a fact *must* be motivated by bad intentions and bigotry. It's so corrupt.
This only works if you can be entirely objective in your approach to truth and, particularly now, almost everybody's truth is subjective.
I find it difficult to separate Andrew Tate's persona from his statements, as it implies heavily that I approve of his character's right to pass moral judgement on others.
It's the thin end of the wedge, as it gives him carte blanche to declaim on any subject, and should he be given that privilege? Haven't we had (more than) enough of the cult of media personality?
Truth is never subjective, I'm sorry, it's a very Woke and wrong thing to say. It's always possible to separate truth from the person speaking it too, it's your problem if you can't do it, I fail to understand you and your logic at all.
2+2=4 ALWAYS no matter who speaks it. Are you claiming that if Hitler spoke that 2+2=4 it would make it 5? It's moronic, ridiculous and idiotic.
Sky is always blue and grass is always green no matter who speaks it. Truth is always truth, 100% objective, I'm and irrelevant to who speaks it. I won't reject true statements even spoken by Hitler. If you would, try to be less Woke and study less postmodernism.
You’re outlining why leftists make controlling the language a paramount tactic. Blue isn’t blue if they say it’s red. Men become women. Up becomes down.
Exactly! That's why we need to break this spell, not cater to it by pretending that truth is subjective and that true things become untrue if spoken by allegedly bad people. That's the way straight into abyss.