[flagged]
I don't know enough details on the 'kafka-esque' nature of the charges, so I won't comment on them, but he has more than one credible rape accusations him against in his home country, and he talks openly about using women as sex workers and taking their income from it.
There are plenty of women pretending to be cool, even doing rape role play and then using recorder material to blackmail men. He was obviously into BDSM stuff (he was being grilled for a video in which he was hitting a woman with a belt - the woman went on video to record it was consensual), so it would be incredibly easy to trap and blackmail.
Similar situation with human trafficking: the girls were always free to leave but they were getting paid for sex work. He was for sure a digital pimp (not sure if that's a crime).
Overall, I don't think Tate is an actual abuser: it would be incredibly stupid to go public with such a past; I'd bet he is just a self centered narcissist who likes to get into risky and dumb situations and thinks nothing bad will happen to him because he's God.
> I'd bet he is just a self centered narcissist
These two things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, one would think that a narcissist who has gotten away with it all his life would think he was invulnerable. It certainly tracks that he would be open about it.
And really, if it walks like a rapist, and it talks like a rapist, and it acts like a rapist... it is probably a rapist.
That's why he deserves a fair trial, and as a result, probably jail time. It's possible he didn't actually do anything wrong, but that's very improbable.
For what it's worth, I do. The shit he and others of his ilk teach to young, vulnerable men is inspiring a lot of real-world violations of women, some even get drawn to outright terrorism and murder.
In Germany, we call such persons "geistige Brandstifter" for a reason. They may not light a fire on their own - in general they keep their hands very clean and shiny to be able to spread their message far and wide - but they sure as hell have no issues when others do the dirty work for them. And of course when someone follows the stochastic terrorism strategy, the preachers disavow them.
The "there's a world for that in German" thing is probably a good (but obviously imperfect) inoculation against extremist propaganda.
I'm often frustrated that we don't have pithy little phrases specific to all kinds of bad behavior in English. It is easier to talk about things if they're given specific names.
Language doesn't really work unless there's broad social buy-in, otherwise you're just talking to yourself.
If people cannot be trusted and should rather be cocooned from the true range of human thought, doesn't this go against every assumption we use to justify our freedoms?
Well, we've seen in 1933-1945 where that sort of orthodox interpretations of "free speech" leads. And we've seen in the Covid era that some people are able to politicize wearing masks... or to put it differently: the intersection between the dumbest humans and the smartest bears and crows is so large that we cannot design actually bear/crow proof trash cans because enough people wouldn't be able to open them.
With politics it is just the same: there are more than enough dumb fucks on this planet that someone like Donald Trump was able to lead them to storm Congress, leading to multiple people getting killed, and more severely injured. Society needs some sort of defense mechanism against those ruthless enough to use moronically dumb people as a weapon and, like Trump did, discard them aside when they outlived their usefulness. People got sentenced to many years worth of prison time for following Trump's suggestion - and yet, to my knowledge, he didn't pay a single one's legal bills, assist their families or grant a pardon. Even the goddamn mafia takes better care for those actually risking prison time and their families!
I want to live somewhere with liberal values, universal suffrage, same sex marriage, the right to change your gender, tax-funded healthcare and capitalist neo-liberal means of production but I cannot deny someone else's dream of a white nationalist state or socialist dictatorship or black ethnostate or Shariah theocracy.
I'd hope if people actually lived in a society that had those values and endured all the limitations it brings they'd change their minds about the rules they want to structure society, given the only rule would be for everyone to be free to choose where they want to live.
Yes I do think people should be free to ruin their own lives as much as possible if it doesn't infringe on others.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel#Mass_murders_and_violenc...
I think Tate is going to be super surprised to learn that. Dude is many things, an incel is not one of them.
Perhaps you have been caught up in the hysteria and are attributing things to him that he is not responsible for? I'm not a Tate fan and think he is probably not a good person but there has very much been a witch hunt / circus atmosphere around those who are anti him. Dude advocates for traditional male roles in relationships and for people to think for themselves and try to be the best version of themselves. Alot of it is very much a money making scheme. He is no worse than a lot of other people and far better than others. He has his good and bad aspects like everyone else. If its found he is guilty of the crimes he was charged with then I hope he goes to prison. If not then he has a right to speak.
I do realize he doesn't do this out of the kindness of his heart and there is a monetary aspect.
As far as people that are not incels not being a target for his rhetoric, I somewhat disagree. He preaches a lot about discipline, and personal responsibility. Something I can relate to. I am not an incel, I am happily married with kids, financially successful, and decent looking. I say this not to brag, there are many people on this site multiples more successful than I am but just to illustrate that very few people are 100% bad and worthy of silencing. There can be good in most messaging. The OP I replied to advocated for silencing Tate, I personally don't think anyone should be silenced, we are all responsible for our own actions and reactions to stimuli.
The few truly evil people on this earth live on in history books, everyone else is shades of grey.
Despite the name, most folks in Western Liberal Democracies who call themselves "liberal" or similar aren't actually interested in liberalism and only want democracy when they win (so they can oppress those who disagree with them).
If I understood you correctly, it would be something like (as rhetorical example) liberals wanting the government to take action in ensuring same sex marriage even if that goes against the cultural beliefs of the majority?
My rebuttal ,if I understood you, would be to point at the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship of the masses.
You hopefully can't legalize lynching in a liberal democracy even going by their original intent, which includes human rights and civil liberties.
In various recent interviews (Tucker Carlson, Patrick Bet David, both on YouTube), Tate has claimed he is not charged with any sex/violent crimes including rape (contrary to NYT and other reports) nor is he charged with anything in connection to his webcam studio. Tate claims the only charges against him are seducing women (so-called "Loverboy method" of trafficking) to make Tiktok videos for which he did not receive financial compensation. If this is true, I would file it under the "bogus"/"arbitrary" category. (And without victim blaming, I would also observe that any woman who believes Tate's promise of a serious relationship has clearly not done her research.)
Again because the full details of the charges are kept confidential ("Kafka-esque") none of us know, but I would think that Tate (with nudging from his lawyers) would be smart enough not to misrepresent the charges against him in interviews. He will have his day in court, and we will see then.
You’d have to be a complete idiot to associate with a trafficker unless your gut made it clear as day that there isn’t much meat to these potatoes.
—-
Oh no… the “i downvote but don’t comment” brigade has arrived.
This is a fundamental premise of freedom of speech and a large reason as to why it exists.
For some reason your comment was flagged, I vouched and voted it up.
> This is a fundamental premise of freedom of speech and a large reason as to why it exists.
I cringe whenever somebody makes this point. Offensive speech isn't even in the top 10 reasons to support free speech. It isn't a reason at all.
Tolerating offensive speech is something we have to do to make free speech work, it's one of the "cons" not the "pros".
You're free to say you like pickles over carrots in Saudi Arabia. Offensive doesn't necessarily mean demeaning of human rights.
You would find that porn and personal insults are not legal in many parts of the world. The Chinese government has adopted a zero-tolerance policy toward so-called sexual content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_China
To them it is offensive therefore illegal. Again, protecting offensive speech is the point behind free speech as a human right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
I don't know how those examples relate to my point. "protecting offensive speech is the point behind free speech as a human right."
> If speech is not offensive it wouldn't be suppressed
My point is that's not true, and it's trivial to find counterexamples. I listed a few in my comment.
Good speech is often considered offensive to some, so we must tolerate offensive speech in the name of free speech.
Offensive speech is not automatically good speech and offensive speech in and of itself isn't automatically worthy of broadcast.
Free speech as a right was thought of by people that deemed offensive speech to have inherent protection. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...