Support NeoGAF

[thefool]

Don't conflate your local-board where you posted 20 years ago with the mono-culture internet we're going through.
The control of online content cannot be dictated by a couple of a companies. You either scrutinize, discuss and open up their policies or limit their growth and influence. This isn't different of any other industry that institutionalizes regulatory bodies.

 

[thefool]

You know, if kids are his main source of followers, is it possible that they follow him "ironically"? Like, the dude seems like a perfect self-parody and maybe the kids are in on the joke?

I know when I was a young millennial, we found things funny through like ten layers of irony. Stuff like "Tim and Eric's Awesome Show". Could something similar be going on here?

Some of the Tate audience is definitely people just having fun watching him trying to troll everyone and be an idiot.

 

[TheAmazingSpiderMan]

He definitely plays a ‘character‘ when he acts like this you can clearly tell. Also some of his views I would incline to agree, minus the women stuff, the rape and trafficking stuff he’s already addressed and proved. Other than that he’s just a funny guy really, people feeling offended by what he says from a masculine side of things? must be the same guys who he talks about having weak mentality.

the guy is having a laugh at your expense lol and you’re getting offended.

era must be going on a mad one, I bet they’re all offended.

 

[nemiroff]

Didn't have a clue who this was a couple of weeks ago.. But when youtube flooded my feed with his content I quickly concluded that I can't stand the guy, his "opinions" doesn't sit well with me.

HOWEVER, I see no reason to cancel him unless there's actual harmful causation. If we was supposed to cancel everyone we don't like, we would all end up cancelled.

 

[NoLootBoxDev]

Cancel culture doesn't exist guys!

For me it technically does not exist. I see it more like supply and demand kind of thing. If you do shit and people do not like it, they will stop supporting you (People has their right to love/hate things). Also as any place, you can open an account, but does not mean you can say/do anything you want without consequences, there Terms of service (ToS), which like it or not must be followed.

I reflected a lot on the term "Cancel Culture", for me it is like some butt hurt people who got:

Since they do not have a platform and people hate them, they decide to create it in a way to say "people/companies" made me shut up, and blame them for their actions, and not accept their fault. My opinion, of course, anyone can disagree.

 

[INC]

He's got the face of a serial drink spiker

 

[Dr_Salt]

There is alot of soya in this thread.

 

[Konnor]

For me it technically does not exist. I see it more like supply and demand kind of thing. If you do shit and people do not like it, they will stop supporting you (People has their right to love/hate things). Also as any place, you can open an account, but does not mean you can say/do anything you want without consequences, there Terms of service (ToS), which like it or not must be followed.

I reflected a lot on the term "Cancel Culture", for me it is like some butt hurt people who got:

Since they do not have a platform and people hate them, they decide to create it in a way to say "people/companies" made me shut up, and blame them for their actions, and not accept their fault. My opinion, of course, anyone can disagree.

"People" as in the few privileged San Francisco freaks that control the vast majority of speech on the internet. ~6 megacorps control most of the internet with the help of shadowy investment organizations like BlackRock and Vanguard but it's the "people" who want people banned. Some of you are so out of touch with reality that you think that the faux consensus these corps have enforced on the internet through mass censorship is what normal people think.

 

[IntentionalPun]

"People" as in the few privileged San Francisco freaks that control the vast majority of speech on the internet. ~6 megacorps control most of the internet with the help of shadowy investment organizations like BlackRock and Vanguard but it's the "people" who want people banned. Some of you are so out of touch with reality that you think that the faux consensus these corps have enforced on the internet through mass censorship is what normal people think.

LOL

 

[DeepEnigma]

How a Company Called BlackRock Shapes Your News, Your Life, Our Future - Common Reader

Who controls the corporations who control our news? A helpful index was just compiled—not by mainstream media, but by Harvard researchers exploring media’s future. Skimming the list, I see two names again and again: BlackRock Fund Advisors and Vanguard Group.

commonreader.wustl.edu

BlackRock, it turns out, is the world’s largest money manager, with $9.5 trillion currently under management. I whistle under my breath—$9.5 trillion is a lot of cash in play, and it makes BlackRock considerably larger than the world’s largest bank (the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China).

 

[LegendOfKage]

Where is the line drawn? Good question, because I think the line is constantly moving and in all honesty, I don't know where it'll end.

Whenever someone is calling for government censorship of speech, I always ask them to define the line themselves, and so far no one has taken me up on that offer.

If you can't even explain exactly where you personally feel the line should be, I'm not sure how you think the government could do so in a way that is objectively fair and won't be misused and selectively enforced for their own benefit.

 

[Kraz]

Free Market.

 

[Konnor]

LOL

Yes hilarious, it's not as if these fucks are buying properties en masse, especially the last few years for example driving properly values up and outbidding families so that the future is one where everyone owns nothing and pays a slave tax slash rent to our corporate masters. It's not that they invest in media so that they can control the narrative even though the vast majority of them are terrible fuckng investments. No man, they just represent small investors (which is actually the brazen narrative they're pushing on the internet), they're totally innocuous.

 

[Toons]

And when that site gets banned from search engines and social media because the San Francisco monopoly wants to destroy it like they've done with many competitors before just make your own social media and search engines. And when it gets banned by paypal and patreon like many other sites before just make your own payment processor. Please, stop with the copy-pasted intellectually dishonest bullshit, I've heard it many times before.

None of it is intellectually dishonest. Thats exactly how the system works. Welcome to capitalism.

 

[Toons]

For me it technically does not exist. I see it more like supply and demand kind of thing. If you do shit and people do not like it, they will stop supporting you (People has their right to love/hate things). Also as any place, you can open an account, but does not mean you can say/do anything you want without consequences, there Terms of service (ToS), which like it or not must be followed.

I reflected a lot on the term "Cancel Culture", for me it is like some butt hurt people who got:

Since they do not have a platform and people hate them, they decide to create it in a way to say "people/companies" made me shut up, and blame them for their actions, and not accept their fault. My opinion, of course, anyone can disagree.

No, you're correct for the most part. The people crying cancel culture are usually upset that they couldn't use their power and influence cover up their own actions. Its a deflection to the other guys for punishing them, rather than taking responsibility and owning up to your mistakes. Were seeing a lot of that these days.

 

[Konnor]

None of it is intellectually dishonest. Thats exactly how the system works. Welcome to capitalism.

Ah yes, in capitalism it's A-OK for a handful of megacorps to collude and create a cartel in order to destroy smaller completion that dares to threaten their dominance and the propaganda they're peddling. I'm not even a big fan of capitalism and even I'll admit that this might be the late stage dystopian capitalism we have now, but it's certainly not actual capitalism.

 

[Kraz]

The hyperbole, oversimplification and myopia of activists is like a ten second recording on loop.

 

[Toons]

Ah yes, in capitalism it's A-OK for a handful of megacorps to collude and create a cartel in order to destroy smaller completion that dares to threaten their dominance and the propaganda they're peddling. I'm not even a big fan of capitalism and even I'll admit that this might be the late stage dystopian capitalism we have now, but it's certainly not actual capitalism.

Uuhh no, this was always the way capitalism was going to go. This is capitalism in its truest state and the funny part is Andrew tate is totally fine with that by his own ideology. Hes fine with exploiting young men and siphoning their money selling them his own propaganda. How can you not see that?

If these corporations are the bad guy to you then so is Tate. They are utilizing the same tactic.

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[IntentionalPun]

Yes hilarious, it's not as if these fucks are buying properties en masse, especially the last few years for example driving properly values up and outbidding families so that the future is one where everyone owns nothing and pays a slave tax slash rent to our corporate masters. It's not that they invest in media so that they can control the narrative even though the vast majority of them are terrible fuckng investments. No man, they just represent small investors (which is actually the brazen narrative they're pushing on the internet), they're totally innocuous.

It's to.. make money.

That's all they are doing; investment firms are ROI... and yes, stuff like market manipulation can happen.

Again, to make money.

These aren't shadowy orgs these are large companies with 10's of thousands of employees and they manage a scary amount of the economy.. but they aren't mind controlling you by getting some fucking dipshit grifter banned from platforms ROFL

 

[FunkMiller]

Black Rock... a 'shadowy investment organisation'.

 

[SpiceRacz]

This whole thing is equal parts dumb shit being spouted by this guy and equal part

 

[Relique]

The law is quite simple, especially for hate speech. It's really straight forward. Make any racist remark in hatred (so not reciting song lyrics) and you'll be arrested.

Let's look at another Marcus Rashford case.

This man sent a tweet telling Marcus Rashford to go back to his "own country". As Marcus was born in England and is black, the comment is clearly racist.

Here is the tweet

It caused a lot of upset and outrage in the UK, and in support many people flocked to the Marcus Rashford shrine to take the knee in support.

It's clear that people feel strongly about racism and all forms of bigotry in the UK, and a way to tackle this is to outlaw all forms of hate speech, which absolutely should include misogyny.

To learn more about UK hate speech, here is a summary from the crown prosecution service.

The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of:

• Race
• Religion
• Disability
• Sexual orientation
• Transgender identity

Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either:

• demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity

Or

• been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity

See. Really easy to understand. Hopefully one day the rest of the world will catch up.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime

You posted an example where a community was able to take care of the problem. Society did what it was supposed to do, which is ostracize the offending entity and support the slighted entity. This actually works against your argument of government policing of speech in my opinion.

See. Really easy to understand. Hopefully one day the rest of the world will catch up.

No thanks bro. I am pretty sure most of us in the states are happy with the way things are.

In that tweet, it was the line "go back to your own country". Here the author is saying that because Marcus is black, then the UK isn't his country, regardless of the fact that he was born and raised in the UK.

In the UK, this is a hate crime because it demonstrates hostility based on race.

Where is the line drawn? Good question, because I think the line is constantly moving and in all honesty, I don't know where it'll end.



I've thought it about it many times. I've been torn over it for a long period.

One on hand it makes sense to outlaw hateful speech, even if it's said online. Racism and all forms of bigotry have no place in modern society. Arresting people who have made hateful remarks sends a message that this behaviour will not be tolerated in the UK and there are consequences if you do so.

On the other hand, is it right for the government to police speech? Could this be a slippery slope in the future? Possibly. Scotland's proposed hate crime bill was a bit more extreme than the overall UK one where it would punish assumed hate speech even in the home. For example, you could be arrested for making a hateful remark at the family dinner table if another family member reported you to the police. Surly this is a step towards a dystopian nightmare, no? I don't think this part of the bill went through, but the fact that it was even considered was troubling enough. Where does that lead if a government can police what's said in a private home?

I understand that you may define it that way in the UK. But that does not constitute a hate crime in the US. A hate crime has to still be a crime if you take out the "hate" part. If I tweet that you are an idiot it is not a crime. So adding any racial prejudice to it does not suddenly make it a hate crime. Home invasion on the other hand is a crime, if it's motivated by hate then it becomes a hate crime. That tweet is a racially motivated insult. It's abhorrent yes, but insults on their own are not crimes.

You also already touched on this but for sure it's a slippery slope. These laws can easily be used against innocents, and they do in many countries of the world. Once you pen a law like that all it takes is one oppressive regime change for things to turn real ugly.

At the end of the day the way I see it is that here in the US we're doing just fine minimizing these problems without the need for government intervention. We don't want new shitty laws just for the sake of laws, especially with such huge downsides. Letting a few bad apples take away our valuable freedoms isn't progress.

 

[Konnor]

It's to.. make money.

That's all they are doing; investment firms are ROI... and yes, stuff like market manipulation can happen.

Again, to make money.

These aren't shadowy orgs these are large companies with 10's of thousands of employees and they manage a scary amount of the economy.. but they aren't mind controlling you by getting some fucking dipshit grifter banned from platforms ROFL

So they might do illegal shit as you admit, they might attempt to trap the middle class, they might make terrible investments that just happen to be useful for controlling the narrative but it's just to make money and there's nothing shadowy about them. lol OK

Btw I find it very interesting how the same people who defend censorship are also the ones freaking out because I attacked fucking BlackRock and Vanguard, the malignant tumors of modern society and poster children of late stage capitalism. Very interesting indeed.

Uuhh no, this was always the way capitalism was going to go. This is capitalism in its truest state and the funny part is Andrew tate is totally fine with that by his own ideology. Hes fine with exploiting young men and siphoning their money selling them his own propaganda. How can you not see that?

So how are you different than Tate if you vehemently defend this shit? The funny thing is that I pretty much dislike Tate but because I'm consistent in my ideology I also defend his right to share his takes especially when these megacorp monsters are trying to silence him. You're not.

 

[Kraz]

It's to.. make money.

That's all they are doing; investment firms are ROI... and yes, stuff like market manipulation can happen.

Again, to make money.

These aren't shadowy orgs these are large companies with 10's of thousands of employees and they manage a scary amount of the economy.. but they aren't mind controlling you by getting some fucking dipshit grifter banned from platforms ROFL

Exactly. And the simple answer that the banned individual in question violated ToS gets rejected for a comfortable conspiracy theory that supports their allegations is revealing of their state of mind.

 

[DragoonKain]

I took one of his classes and I just beat Halo 2 LASO no deaths in 15 minutes, lifted a car over my head, and I have a date next week with Ana de Armas.

 

[Richard Packer]

and I have a date next week with Ana de Armas.

Can I come over to watch?

 

[DragoonKain]

Can I come over to watch?

Ok, but I expect a fair review.

 

[Toons]

So they might do illegal shit as you admit, they might attempt to trap the middle class, they might make terrible investments that just happen to be useful for controlling the narrative but it's just to make money and there's nothing shadowy about them. lol OK

Btw I find it very interesting how the same people who defend censorship are also the ones freaking out because I attacked fucking BlackRock and Vanguard, the malignant tumors of modern society and poster children of late stage capitalism. Very interesting indeed.



So how are you different than Tate if you vehemently defend this shit? The funny thing is that I pretty much dislike Tate but because I'm consistent in my ideology I also defend his right to share his takes especially when these megacorp monsters are trying to silence him. You're not.

Because while I'm not a big fan of capitalism as it is, this is consistent in my ideology to shut down hateful ideology and harmful propaganda that encourages destructive behavior.

 

[Senua]

This dude cracks me up, gota be a bit of a dunce to believe in anything he says, he's just a cunt/troll. Didn't know about the whole pyramid scheme thing tho that's rather wankered.

 

[Konnor]

Because while I'm not a big fan of capitalism as it is, this is consistent in my ideology to shut down hateful ideology and harmful propaganda that encourages destructive behavior.

Shutting people down that are being meanies on the internet is a priority over real problems like mass censorship even though the methods used are the same as the people you hate use, OK got it. And of course megacorps were never guilty of (actual) harmful propaganda so we should totally let them control the internet and deplatform the undesirables, it's the dumbfuck who gloats that he doesn't read books the REAL threat here. I weep for humanity.

 

[Slicker than your average]

Damn there's a defence force for everything.

A cunt being banned off a private platform isn't cancel culture.

 

[NoLootBoxDev]

"People" as in the few privileged San Francisco freaks that control the vast majority of speech on the internet. ~6 megacorps control most of the internet with the help of shadowy investment organizations like BlackRock and Vanguard but it's the "people" who want people banned. Some of you are so out of touch with reality that you think that the faux consensus these corps have enforced on the internet through mass censorship is what normal people think.

Anyone can open their own service, at the same time, if you had the same power as they have, would you place rules people must follow or not?

I believe Trump opened a platform for their own "free speech" service in which anyone can talk whatever they wanted, but still bans people who do not agree with them/derail/hate/etc.

Nothing stops those banned people to go out and yell at the seven winds, street, or whatever (so not canceled, just banned from talking on a platform that does not approve of their behavior).

That is how I see it.

 

[YCoCg]

gota be a bit of a dunce to believe in anything he says.

Teenage Boys amirite?

 

[HoodWinked]

Anyone can open their own service, at the same time, if you had the same power as they have, would you place rules people must follow or not?

I believe Trump opened a platform for their own "free speech" service in which anyone can talk whatever they wanted, but still bans people who do not agree with them/derail/hate/etc.

Nothing stops those banned people to go out and yell at the seven winds, street, or whatever (so not canceled, just banned from talking on a platform that does not approve of their behavior).

That is how I see it.

it's not quite that simple, because these platforms also operate with governments and is an official channel for statements and messaging. this starts to tread far more closely to being a public utility rather than just a private platform.

there are broadcast laws which prevent candidates from having too much airtime, for example Dr. Oz isn't allowed to have his show on syndication in certain regions because of this. so if this is the case having an individual just outright banned would be far more of a detriment to their prospects than not being on TV and yet the law's haven't caught up with that reality.

 

[Toons]

Shutting people down that are being meanies on the internet is a priority over real problems like mass censorship even though the methods used are the same as the people you hate use, OK got it. And of course megacorps were never guilty of (actual) harmful propaganda so we should totally let them control the internet and deplatform the undesirables, it's the dumbfuck who gloats that he doesn't read books the REAL threat here. I weep for humanity.

Pretending its mutually exclusive(that either we stand with this idiot or were pro censorship somehow) or that this guy stands for any of those things at all is the ACTUAL intellectual dishonesty. There are a million better people to make this argument for than thus cornball.

Andrew tate is not a champion of free speech or anti censorship. Hes a douchebag who is siphoning money from people on the internet by telling them that women are lesser beings and appealing to the lowest common denominator of human society. Why choose this guys hill to die on?

If you wanna fight against ""censorship""(he's not being censored by the way) then why not choose an example who doesn't make a strong argument FOR silencing by virtue of the kind of stuff he puts out? No one rational wants to hear his BS, and the people that do aren't constitutive members of society who should be given any influence or validation for that matter.

People aren't owed a platform. Either play nice with the folks who give you that platform, or build it yourself. He would likely agree. He niether deserves nor garners any sympathy from me.

 

[AfricanKing]

Oh shit, words from his mouth. No actual source provided for these "words from his mouth" or the actual context of what he was talking about. I can't even take you people seriously anymore.

"if some people are targeting me with false rape allegations, I move to Romania" -Hugare
Words from his mouth! Wow!

Tate ran a cam girl business in Romania after moving there in 2017, and he previously made statements surrounding sexual assault in the country.

Speaking in a now-deleted video from Tate’s Youtube channel, he said that it is easier to get off on rape charges in the Eastern European country.

Explaining that it’s “40 per cent of the reason I moved to Romania,” Tate said: “I’m not a f****** rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free.

https://www.indy100.com/celebrities/andrew-tate-most-controversial-moments-2657868947

 

[Konnor]

Pretending its mutually exclusive(that either we stand with this idiot or were pro censorship somehow) or that this guy stands for any of those things at all is the ACTUAL intellectual dishonesty. There are a million better people to make this argument for than thus cornball.

Andrew tate is not a champion of free speech or anti censorship. Hes a douchebag who is siphoning money from people on the internet by telling them that women are lesser beings and appealing to the lowest common denominator of human society. Why choose this guys hill to die on?

If you wanna fight against ""censorship""(he's not being censored by the way) then why not choose an example who doesn't make a strong argument FOR silencing by virtue of the kind of stuff he puts out? No one rational wants to hear his BS, and the people that do aren't constitutive members of society who should be given any influence or validation for that matter.

People aren't owed a platform. Either play nice with the folks who give you that platform, or build it yourself. He would likely agree. He niether deserves nor garners any sympathy from me.

Dude, how are you not getting this, it's not about Andrew Tate being some free speech hero, this is about cancel culture, megacorps and woketards that keep censoring more and more. It started with Alex Jones and the standards for who should be deplatformed and silenced keep getting lower and lower.

 

[BadBurger]

Dude, how are you not getting this, it's not about Andrew Tate being some free speech hero, this is about cancel culture, megacorps and woketards that keep censoring more and more. It started with Alex Jones and the standards for who should be deplatformed and silenced keep getting lower and lower.

Sometime around 2014 all of the normal, well-adjusted, non-incelish people decided they didn't want to keep empowering awful people on social media who habitually broke the rules, so they began speaking out against them. Platform owners took notice and begrudgingly decided to take action - most of the time after years of being asked to enforce their own policies - being the kind of laissez faire organizations that they are after all.

There's still plenty of terrible people on every social media platform, they just learned to not break the rules so they stick around. You are free to enjoy their truly thought-provoking grifts aimed at teenage boys and disaffected, unsuccessful young men.

This is the world we live in whether you like it or not. Carry water for absolute, embarrassingly douchey grifters like this guy all you want. No normal person is going to be compelled to tolerate these d-bags, though, nor are they going to entertain your calls to "please think of the bigoted, hateful grifters!".

It is what it is man. Just move on and leave all the regular people alone IMO.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

Dude, how are you not getting this, it's not about Andrew Tate being some free speech hero, this is about cancel culture, megacorps and woketards that keep censoring more and more. It started with Alex Jones and the standards for who should be deplatformed and silenced keep getting lower and lower.

You've managed to give me a bingo on my bingo card in one post.

 

[Konnor]

Sometime around 2014 all of the normal, well-adjusted, non-incelish people decided they didn't want to keep empowering awful people on social media who habitually broke the rules, so they began speaking out against them. Platform owners took notice and begrudgingly decided to take action - most of the time after years of being asked to enforce their own policies - being the kind of laissez faire organizations that they are after all.

There's still plenty of terrible people on every social media platform, they just learned to not break the rules so they stick around. You are free to enjoy their truly thought-provoking grifts aimed at teenage boys and disaffected, unsuccessful young men.

This is the world we live in whether you like it or not. Carry water for absolute, embarrassingly douchey grifters like this guy all you want. No normal person is going to be compelled to tolerate these d-bags, though, nor are they going to entertain your calls to "please think of the bigoted, hateful grifters!".

It is what it is man. Just move on and leave all the regular people alone IMO.

The internet has become far more toxic, obnoxious and dumb since then, mostly thanks to the very people you identify with taking over and censoring anyone that contradicts their idiotic dogma. It would be rude if I showed examples of how the "well adjusted" people that shill for corporate censorship look and I'm getting tired of this circular bullshit discussion so I'll just leave it at that. Imagine thinking the people who throw tantrums every time someone says something they don't like are the well adjusted, hilarious. Anyway, I'm getting bored with this shit, I'm out.

 

[BadBurger]

The internet has become far more toxic, obnoxious and dumb since then, mostly thanks to the very people you identify with taking over and censoring anyone that contradicts their idiotic dogma. It would be rude if I showed examples of how the "well adjusted" people that shill for corporate censorship look and I'm getting tired of this circular bullshit discussion so I'll just leave it at that. Imagine thinking the people who throw tantrums every time someone says something they don't like are the well adjusted, hilarious. Anyway, I'm getting bored with this shit, I'm out.

I never claimed places like Reddit or Twitter are glowing communities of support and dialectical discussion. Because clearly they're not much of the time. But they are a damn sight better than they were in the late 2000's / early 2010's when essentially all of social media was always one post away from an emulation of 4chan (if you weren't around or paying attention during that era of the internet, it was ugly, especially for casual racism).

It's just that most people recognize hate and general low effort grifting by leverage of bigotry/misogyny/racism and call it out, and don't want to engage with what are now archaic calls to tolerate the intolerant.

Side note: the people who throw tantrums about this kind of thing online are uniformingly coming from your line of thinking, by the way. The rest of us either mute/block/ignore and move on, or report and move on. It's not a big deal to literally anyone else out there aside from those who carry water for the awful, banned people.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Tate is calling out bodybuilders and calling them pussies. GymWolf where you at?

 

[GymWolf]

Tate is calling out bodybuilders and calling them pussies. GymWolf where you at?

The fact the he does body building aswell make that even more hilarious.

He think that training at home instead of going to the gym is not considered body building...oh my sweet summer tate...

 

[West Texas CEO]

UPDATE:

Andrew Tate is now banned from all social media platforms, including YouTube and TikTok.

 

[IDKFA]

Dude, how are you not getting this, it's not about Andrew Tate being some free speech hero, this is about cancel culture, megacorps and woketards that keep censoring more and more. It started with Alex Jones and the standards for who should be deplatformed and silenced keep getting lower and lower.

Are you really defending Alex Jones and Andrew Tate? Two of the biggest snake oil salesmen of all time?

Nothing of value has been lost by removing those two clowns from social media.

 

[GymWolf]

UPDATE:

Andrew Tate is now banned from all social media platforms, including YouTube and TikTok.

He must be happy now, i remember tate trolling this fat fuck once or two

 

[OmegaSupreme]

He must be happy now, i remember tate trolling this fat fuck once or two

This guy is a twat too.

 

[Star-Lord]

How are people still defending Tate? The guy literally went on record saying women should bear some responsibility if they are sexually assaulted and that he moved to Romania so he could rape women at will without fear of conviction. The only reason I can see why people would defend him is if those people defending him share the same beliefs as him. If that's the case, you're all cunts too.

 

[Kenpachii]

Tate is calling out bodybuilders and calling them pussies. GymWolf where you at?

Most guys train for better aesthetics and health or getting more attractive for the lady's, who gives a rat ass about fighting when u are a adult, it aint no high school time anymore. U fight u go to jail.