Current Andrew Tate Arrested * Charged with Human Trafficking, Rape & Forming an Organised Crime Group

[Kurve]

London Cop Admits to 24 Rapes in a Career Campaign of Abuse
Jeffrey Epstein - Virgin Islands sues JP Morgan for facillitating sex trafficking

 

[mcgrath_truther]

Just out:

Dr Stephanie Wescott on Manfluencers & Schools

This week we have a chat with Dr. Stephanie Wescott about misogynist influencer Andrew Tate and the impact he's having in Australian classrooms.

www.3cr.org.au

I'll post this in a few relevant threads.

• Australian teachers surveyed about misogyny in their schools.
• A flood of responses, from which they picked thirty to get more details.
• A consistent and disturbing picture of acts across states, across schools.
• Classrooms "from small coastal towns to big city private schools" noticing a strong uptick in the occurrence of gendered violence, misogyny, Andrew Tate quotes and defences of their behaviour.
• "What do you think of Andrew Tate, miss?" as a provocation to argue and Gish-gallop with Tate quotes and ideals.
• Major social platforms allowing it to manipulate for more page views and active accounts. Even supporting it at times in the case of Elon Musk.

extremely interesting. from my experience teaching the target demographic of his stuff it's very different. while i don't disagree with the findings as anecdotally i think it's reasonably accurate. a lot of my year 9 students end up either not even thinking about him or outright calling him a dickhead

 

[Bostonian]

Any kid interested in this has already heard of him, and Tate can access them via his social media.

And the ones who had never heard of him?

It's not like new people aren't exposed to him.

Any coverage on MSM will hardly be seen by his target audience.... until it is spread via online channels that should delete his s**t.

Once again don't agree. He's in the mainstream media cycles now it seems.

And if you're talking about 3CR ... I wouldn't call them MSM at all.

I'm taking about all the MSM that keep bringing up his name when talking about wider issues.

No that's not how it happened. He was removed from social media and lost his job at Breitbart. He lost funding for his "tours".

His support was taken away - no more money from oil billionaires. No more social media accounts.

He went to Telegram and raged to 2500 losers. He's selling bible and vitamins now or something.

Being removed from social media doesn't diminish much.

Alex Jones still kept a high profile despite being removed from social media platforms.

Tate is still being supported by billionaires - one in particular who is all gaga over "the marketplace of ideas" which means "let a rapist and sex trafficker share his ideas online with millions of people so my investment can give me a return".

Remove him and make him a martyr or let them show the world the real vile them?

Social media for its faults has been a useful tool in letting fools trip themselves up and provide evidence due to their vanity.

Then give time to the effects - that is what this research does.

It's part of the argument to remove his access to social media and thus the minds of impressionable kids. That is what will kill his influence.

You'll make him a martyr to even more. Make an angry mob even angrier.

Is that an ideal situation?

I prefer the softer approach. Make him irrelevant by just not reporting on him, talking about him, giving his words air.

 

[Chief]

And the ones who had never heard of him?

It's not like new people aren't exposed to him.

His influence is already in effect. If new people hear about him, that's unavoidable, but at least their first exposure is an analysis of his grift rather than a promotion of it.

Yes, some people do give him a platform to spout his garbage when they have enough material to analyse and respond to without letting him - and those like him - speak first hand. They will never take part in interviews with any sincerity or good faith.

Once again don't agree. He's in the mainstream media cycles now it seems.

You don't agree that kids will not see him on TV unless clips and shows are shared online?

Do you know any kids that watch FTA TV? News shows?

I'm taking about all the MSM that keep bringing up his name when talking about wider issues.

He is a source of those issues. It's unavoidable but you will se that before he appeared on TV in interviews and the like, most kids knew of him.

His lies had already circled the globe before the truth had got its boots on.

Yes people put his name in their headlines as clickbait. Sad state of affairs.

Being removed from social media doesn't diminish much.

Alex Jones still kept a high profile despite being removed from social media platforms.

He hasn't disappeared from social media. He isn't on TV news or radio any more that I can see. He has his platforms.

But his influence is much diminished. I haven't heard anyone mention him - and I used to hear "he is a bit nuts but he tells the truth about x, y and z".

Never hear of him any more.

Remove him and make him a martyr or let them show the world the real vile them?

Social media for its faults has been a useful tool in letting fools trip themselves up and provide evidence due to their vanity.

I think this is a naïve view.

Talking about their views, analysing them, giving people the tools and responses to counter their garbage, I think that is all worthwhile. Specially when Tate is specifically mentioned, quoted and revered by too many young boys.

You'll make him a martyr to even more. Make an angry mob even angrier.

Is that an ideal situation?

I prefer the softer approach. Make him irrelevant by just not reporting on him, talking about him, giving his words air.

Not interviewing him is the start. Not letting him talk directly is the start.

Analyse what he has left behind. Learn how to counter its effects. Support those in our schools - teachers and students - who are dealing with the fallout - and of course the boys who wind up unhappy, broke, and excluded after following his advice to commit violence to get what they think they want.

 

[Chief]

extremely interesting. from my experience teaching the target demographic of his stuff it's very different. while i don't disagree with the findings as anecdotally i think it's reasonably accurate. a lot of my year 9 students end up either not even thinking about him or outright calling him a dickhead

It's definitely a self-selecting population in the research, which is why they talk about needing more work done.

 

[mcgrath_truther]

It's definitely a self-selecting population in the research, which is why they talk about needing more work done.

absolutely, the other thing is that trends and what not change so fast and change a lot depending on what the young person sees.

kids into fortnite in term 1 now think it's a bad game and play and talk about rainbow 6 siege constantly

 

[Chief]

What they did find from responses is that kids from richer families generally had their parents come in and defend them from consequences. Otherwise no real difference between small state schools and top private schools.

 

[Bostonian]

His influence is already in effect. If new people hear about him, that's unavoidable, but at least their first exposure is an analysis of his grift rather than a promotion of it.

It is preventable for a % of new people.

These younger generations seem to love grifters.

It doesn't seem to bother them at all.

The fact influencers are a thing seems to suggest they actually support all kinds of grifts. The majority of which aren't positive things.

Yes, some people do give him a platform to spout his garbage when they have enough material to analyse and respond to without letting him - and those like him - speak first hand. They will never take part in interviews with any sincerity or good faith.


You don't agree that kids will not see him on TV unless clips and shows are shared online?

I'd never heard of him until I saw his name on Big footy.

I'd never heard of Milo until he popped up on some CNN thing years ago.

The MSM will do anything for clicks and traffic.

Do you know any kids that watch FTA TV? News shows?

I do.

Amazing what happens when parents turn off the wifi.

He is a source of those issues. It's unavoidable but you will se that before he appeared on TV in interviews and the like, most kids knew of him.

His lies had already circled the globe before the truth had got its boots on.

Yes people put his name in their headlines as clickbait. Sad state of affairs.


He hasn't disappeared from social media. He isn't on TV news or radio any more that I can see. He has his platforms.

But his influence is much diminished. I haven't heard anyone mention him - and I used to hear "he is a bit nuts but he tells the truth about x, y and z".

Never hear of him any more.


I think this is a naïve view.

Talking about their views, analysing them, giving people the tools and responses to counter their garbage, I think that is all worthwhile. Specially when Tate is specifically mentioned, quoted and revered by too many young boys.


Not interviewing him is the start. Not letting him talk directly is the start.

Analyse what he has left behind. Learn how to counter its effects. Support those in our schools - teachers and students - who are dealing with the fallout - and of course the boys who wind up unhappy, broke, and excluded after following his advice to commit violence to get what they think they want.

Have you thought that you too as someone in your position can impact his reach?

Is it not possible that you can limit his influence on your site by using the function that changes names when someone types a word in?

You could change Andrew Tate into cockroach so that anytime any young impressionable mind types in his name on a search or in a sentence on BF his name will never show up.

 

[jason_recliner]

Make him become Andrew Taint on BF please.

 

[Chief]

I'd never heard of him until I saw his name on Big footy.

I'd never heard of Milo until he popped up on some CNN thing years ago.

Then you were late to the party. These people were whipping up big followings before they were ever reported on by TV news. Did this exposure get you to follow them? Put money in their schemes?

In some cases they were reported on by TV news as they were a topic of interest. They should never have been given direct access to air time, but that got the eyeballs. So in that respect, yes the MSM shouldn't give them exposure.

They were a topic of interest due to support from rich people, and lax application of rules by social media platforms.

Tate was, it seems, initially funded from laundering money through casinos. His initial public exposure was getting kicked off Big Brother for harassing female contestants.

 

[Bostonian]

Then you were late to the party. These people were whipping up big followings before they were ever reported on by TV news. Did this exposure get you to follow them? Put money in their schemes?

In some cases they were reported on by TV news as they were a topic of interest. They should never have been given direct access to air time, but that got the eyeballs. So in that respect, yes the MSM shouldn't give them exposure.

They were a topic of interest due to support from rich people, and lax application of rules by social media platforms.

Tate was, it seems, initially funded from laundering money through casinos. His initial public exposure was getting kicked off Big Brother for harassing female contestants.

I probably was late to the party.

My algorithms probably play a big part in that.

Not much correlation between Tony Robinson and Time Team and these other worlds.

I also would never watch anyone who looks like they are off some trash reality tv series.

I think there's plenty that can be done to minimise and silence his influence without making him a martyr.

Starting with the algorithms then perhaps.