Fair enough. I am pretty certain you’ve mentioned being a lefty on here before. I apologies if I mistook you for someone else.
You’re clearly trying to patronise me. Of course that’s an insult. You think your points of view are so correct that anyone that disagrees with you is mentally ill. I am not mentally ill. I am just very distrustful of governments and institutions because throughout history they have repeatedly abused their citizens trust.
Nope. Not at all. I've disagreed with plenty of people on here. Vociferously. Even myself over time given that I've moved from an out and out Tory voter to centre left. You're the only one ever on here about whom I've expressed concern. I've not accused you of being mentally ill. So I'm afraid that your claim that "I think...that anyone who disagrees with [me] is mentally ill" is thus proven to be false. I'll leave you for now as, once again, you're starting to take things personally, a habit of yours. That's why my advice is, take a break, speak to people around you and realise how decent and pleasant normal life is. Vin
It’s the internet bro. I would never take anything personally on here. You spread clear misinformation which you then yourself admitted was misinformation. You both then jumped on someone calling them an awful human without waiting for any evidence that he has done something wrong. Yet I’m the one that is out of touch with reality? You’re hilarious. You parroted exactly what the media told you (GRETA = GOOD, TATE = BAD) without stopping to think about small things like facts. Then when those facts are presented you accuse the one person that said “wait for verifiable facts” of being mentally unhealthy. “GRETA GOOD, TATE EVIL”
Greta is good. She is a kid doing something selfless. The planet is in the **** due to human greed and the only agenda worth paying attention to is the agenda of wealth. Do you honestly think that the conspiracies are that there is a global disaster looming because of oil when the world’s rich, greedy bastards are tied up in oil? Tate is bad. He has a platform from which he could empower people but even you say he is mostly interested in getting noticed no matter what. He tells boys they should be treated like kings and that male sexuality it more important than female sexuality. He also picks fights with kids for internet clout. What a loser.
Greta is a child who should not even be in the conversation. She is a mouth piece for an anti-human/anti-energy globalist agenda. She has done a lot of damage already and is continuing to be allowed to do so. The fact she gets more air and screen time than actual climatologists (some of which that disagree that there is a climate disaster) means that the conversation is being totally warped. Jury is still out on Tate.
I thought you understood what was being said. You even told me you understood what I was saying, because I'd already explained it twice. But no. You clearly didn't. "You both then jumped on someone calling them an awful human without waiting for any evidence that he has done something wrong." Once again, and please let this be the last time, because it's so simple a child could wrap their head around this. I'll do it in bullet points to make it even easier. I think Andrew Tate is an awful, noxious, unpleasant human being. That is correct. I think this because (despite what you wrongly assumed) I have watched enough of his videos, read his social media posts, watched him on Piers Morgan's show etc. to make a judgement on what kind of character he is. I don't need to see any more. My judgement of his character (based on the above - I think he's a hideous person because of the hideous things he says - it's quite simple) is not in any way impacted by his recent arrest, or the circumstances around it. If he is proven innocent of these particular charges, I will still think he's an odious piece of **** because I have seen and read enough of his crap to realise that he's an odious piece of **** (is this getting through yet?) The only impact the recent arrest will have on this, is that if he's proved guilty of human trafficking, then he's EVEN MORE of an odious piece of **** than I initially thought. It's just degrees on how much of a piece of ****. Hence why, you clinging on to your liferaft of "innocent until proven guilty" is a total red herring, because my feelings towards Andrew Tate are nothing to do with the recent course of events. All they do is to highlight, once again, what he is (watch his video response to Thunberg - he's a nasty ****). You saying "let's agree to disagree" doesn't wash for me on this one. If you in any way support someone like Andrew Tate, then I have a problem with you. His views and philosophies on life are major red lines for me. If there's any part of you that thinks he is a decent human that should be supported, then I personally would want nothing to do with you. It's that simple. I have morals.
What are the exact morals of his that you disagree with? Which specific view points are you so against?
Os - do you not understand the difference between propaganda and a small number of Twitter accounts posting something that turns out to be wrong but happens to go viral? It is a rhetorical question because you clearly don’t. That or you are implying a far greater influence to some random left wing Twitter users than they actually have
I already said what I thought. It was fake news which was spread as propaganda by many huge social accounts to try and make Tate look as bad as possible. I apologise if in my haste I used the word propaganda in a slightly loose way
Partly the issue here is that Os is mainly responding to two people at once - LTL and Vin. One is speaking actively against Tate and the other isn’t and things seem to be getting jumbled. Sort of thing that can happen on an Internet forum far more easily than in real life
It's similar to Neil Strauss's The Game and the PUA stuff, but turbocharged. Calling women 'sheep' and saying they're programmable. Calling women and girlfriends 'assets'. Beating his girlfriend with a belt (though I know you're going to say that was thrown out because she said it was consensual - I disagree, having watched the video - it's domestic violence, and the language of domestic violence) - https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFrea...drew_tate_slapping_beating_woman_with_a_belt/ "My job was to meet a girl, go on a few dates, sleep with her, test if she's quality, get her to fall in love with me to where she'd do anything I say, and then get her on webcam so we could become rich together." -- Andrew Tate. This - I mean there's plenty more, I'm not going to give you the whole list, and I shouldn't need to give you ANY MORE THAN THE ABOVE for you to understand that he's a piece of **** and you should have no truck with him. He is a mine of misogyny. It's a red line for me, and anyone that supports him can take a running jump. The fact you're even remotely trying to find excuses for him is seriously disturbing.
Mate, if you do not understand that there is a climate disaster - and that the majority of scientists who are not owned by the be try wealthy people you think we should be worried about all agree on this - then you are a lost cause. This isn’t dubious science. It is very clear and is happening right now. I repeat: who has more to earn by disinformation, the oil lobby or the environmentalists? We went through this with smoking. Were the anti smoking people liars too?
No - it was a mistake based on information that was actually being suggested by people in Romania. Just because it is wrong it doesn’t mean it was “fake news”. Which is an odious term anyway almost exclusively used to discourage legitimate journalistic criticism. So doesn’t apply here. Your use of the term here shows again that you assume some conspiracy is involved when it was just wrong information. And why would you even think there would need to be a conspiracy? What would it be? That he is even more of a jackass than he already looked by making a “I know you are but what am I” reply to a 19 year old girl? I’m sure anyone cooking up conspiracies has bigger things on the agenda than making Tate look more ridiculous. “They” would have bigger things on the agenda than him anyway
To be honest I don’t really care either way, I’m not one for worshipping celebrities in any walk of life. I just didn’t like that some people seem so willing to jump straight to “guilty” because they don’t like someone. All I said was it seems very strange just how quickly the misinformation was picked up and spread.
I think there likely is, but if climatologists that disagree are being silenced instead of allowed to have honest and open scientific conversations, then that is extremely negative for the world. I also think that the anti-fossil fuel agenda is very, very damaging for society in the short term, and that phasing them out should be handled very delicately.
