Was it fair that Andrew Tate got banned from all the major social media platform?
Fair Deplatforming Andrew Tate?
[Deactivated] on 10/09/2022 - 17:41
Last edited 10/09/2022 - 17:55
Last edited 10/09/2022 - 17:55
Poll Options
- 495Yes
- 201No
Comments
If he wasn't "deplatformed" I wouldn't know who he is now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Censorship sucks for a multitude of reasons.
Or “who gives a shit”
got me 😂😂😂
This is what the soviets thought when their neighbours were rounded up for wrong think and sent to gulags, " at least we will live to tomorrow".
you're really comparing getting banned on the internet to ignoring war crimes? common tate L
@bakemon0: Slippery slope mate, starts with censorship of those who we think deserve it then it becomes any dissenting voices stepping outside of the mainstream. Happening to plenty of independent media already.
@bakemon0: Why a war crime? Stalin's regime sent educated people and ordinary citizens—doctors, writers, intellects, students, artists and scientists to the Gulag. Their primary use wasn't for prisoners of war.
Andrew Taint.
My wife listened to what he said and thought it was reasonable.
What about the part where she's your property and she owes you money from her earnings?
@Ughhh: Well if you were lying and being disingenuous that’s exactly what he said…. 👍🏻
If you had some integrity, that’s not actually what he said. But don’t let me stop you from lying there.
@Gervais fanboy: If you and Tate were dating and you wanted to start onlyfans or to sell your body, he's entitled to your earnings because you belong to him.
** dating**
** onlyfans or to sell her body**
Finally some more context coming through… Keep going, you might come through with the actual thing eventually. You do that and then we can have a proper back and forth on this.
You do that and then we can have a proper back and forth on this.
My initial comment wasn't even directed at you, so, no thanks.
Do your own research ;)wasn't even directed at you, so
It wasn’t,
But you had misconstrued what he had actually said and you chose against providing the context as you should have.
If you want to hate him to satisfy your personally perceived worldviews, I can’t stop you from doing that. 👍🏻
guy with 10 negs says so!
Number of likes/dislikes shouldn’t be a measure of a good/bad argument when this is a website that has majority of its users subscribing to a very radical way of thinking.
Most users here sympathise with/support Socialism, can’t define what a woman is, support sex change therapy for kids, openly pass racist comments towards white people etcThere’s comments in this thread that falsely allege (no evidence) Tate to be a rapist and even those comments received an overwhelming number of likes… even though they are nothing but lies
I shared evidence to disprove such BS and I got bombarded with dislikes.
This place is an ideological battleground and not about seeking the truth…far from it.
@Gervais fanboy: lol right…
Keep defending the misogynist rich dude and then hiding behind your 'culture war' schtick, because that's what we need more of in society@leelemon: Dude, I am not defending/attacking anyone here.
I am only scrutinising baseless allegations. I have been asking for people to present facts or instances that’s making them think the way that they are thinking.. No one’s interested in doing that.Btw I replied to you with such civility, why do you have to be so condescending towards me.
I thought Liberal types were meant to be the ‘tolerant’ ones.Btw I replied to you with such civility, why do you have to be so condescending towards me.
I thought Liberal types were meant to be the ‘tolerant’ ones.Sorry, I didn't realise that that would hurt your feelings. Next time I'll cotton wool my words for you to be a good 'liberal' (lol?)
I am only scrutinising baseless allegations.
Dude - plenty of people here have presented evidence, but you just write it off as "it's out of context". I mean, there comes a point when it's like, what more do you want?
didn't realise that that would hurt your feelings
It was an objective questions and nothing else..
I really wanted to know what’s bringing out this hyper emotivity out of people here..presented evidence,
People here have made statements like Tate says that it’s ‘Okay to rape women’ ‘He’s under investigation’
He’s never said that. And I challenge them to present evidence. I even presented evidence to show them that they have been lied to
In response they either go radio silent or start calling me names/passing insults.
I persevere but they share no actual evidence.You liked the comments from UGGH^^, when he first clearly misquoted Tate and then later on flat out refused to quote the actual thing.
I don’t think you and many others here actually care about making sure that Tate is as bad as they think they are… I think there is some empowerment is believing and hating some random man who is supposedly very evil and toxic.@Gervais fanboy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIkD3Vc5t2g
First minute lol…
He talks about this on plenty of other places too… literally took me a minute to find this
@leelemon: He sounds like a jerk but nothing fundamentally wrong/illegal with what he said…
He’ll only let her girlfriend do only fans if he gets to keep the revenue…
When pressed on it by Adin and XQC on the continued stream, he also said that if my girlfriend is reluctant on doing OF, he’ll either keep the revenue and if she’s not happy with that. They can break up.
There’s no coercion here, no abuse..
Definitely no reason to cancel someone’s account.There’s plenty of women chit chat podcasts that talk about teaching women to seduce some rich guy so they can have a baby with them, make them their babby daddy. So that those women would be set for life via child support/alimony whatever..
I don’t agree with either of those degenerate beliefs. But I do believe that they are both as bad as each other.
And we can’t have double standards.@Gervais fanboy: You can editorialise all you like, but you demanded proof and you got proof of what Ughhh said and it's still not good enough
And instead of having the strength to say, "oh wow, he really did say that - mb, I was wrong!", you decide to create and attack a strawman lol
@leelemon: Just a sec, I acknowledged what you have alleged here.
I didn’t disagree with it. Come on. I said that he sounds like jerk saying it. But being a jerk isn’t illegal or ban worthy.I asked you as to how is that a comment grave enough to have him banned ?
You never responded to me ?
Have some mutual respect here. I have responded to everything you have said so far, you haven’t..Also I am not ‘editorialising’ anything. I have watched his streams with Adin, I only told you the information related to the points you raised.
He sounds like a jerk but nothing fundamentally wrong/illegal with what he said…
First sentence lol
@leelemon: Wdym
You have just quoted my words to make an argument on my behalf ?
instead of having the strength to say, "oh wow, he really did say that - mb, I was wrong!",
As you have just quoted for me to disprove your own listed point..
I acknowledged that he said that those things. I even admit that at times he’s a jerk for saying stuff like that.I am asking you for a third time now..
What did he say that makes it illegal or banworthy ?@Gervais fanboy: lol you only just asked me that 2 comments ago :? no need to get huffy…
We are talking because of this:
But you had misconstrued what he had actually said and you chose against providing the context as you should have.
All I came here to do was point out that the 'evidence' Ughhh gave was not misconstrued and in fact, was exactly as it sounded - which you then agreed is terrible, but what's weird is you how you continue to stubbornly defend him in weirder and weirder ways lol even to the point of trying to change the topic and create strawmans to tear down…
So it's fine, you keep doubling down. There is no 'debate' of ideas if you are not grounded in logic lol
asked me that 2 comments ago :? no need to get huffy…
Didn’t mean to rush you… just that you didn’t answer my question and yet felt ready to jump to incorrect conclusions like
you demanded proof and you got proof
instead of having the strength to say, "oh wow, he really did say that - mb, I was wrong!", you decide to create and attack a strawman lolHow are you saying all that when you haven’t even made/proven your point about how what Tate said in that video was a ban worthy offence.
agreed is terrible, but what's weird is you how you continue to stubbornly defend him in weirder and weirder ways
Just a sec,
The whole point of this discussion was about presenting evidence which leads to a conclusion that yes, he deserved the ban.
I asked Uggh to present the actual quote with context was because Tate had said this same point (about OF GF) several times on different podcasts. They all had some form of context attached to it. I genuinely wanted to know which exact instance was Uggh exactly referring to.trying to change the topic and create strawmans to tear down
Specifically quote me where I did that.
I only and only provided the exact context with had Tate had said…
There is no 'debate' of ideas if you are not grounded in logic
The hypocrisy in that statement is soo rich
I have acknowledged the quote that you have referred to. What else do you want me to say?
The main discussion is and always was about what justifies banning Tate.I have asked you five times now about how is the content in that clip that you shared with me justifies banning him.
You keep acting like a smart arse whilst dodging the fundamental question that stemmed this debate in the first place.
@Gervais fanboy: Not really, you just changed the topic because you took an L lol
If you actually read back this thread, you would see that we were never ""debating"" whether or not Andrew Tate should or should not be banned lol
You just made a claim that the evidence was out of context, and I proved to you that it wasn't.I have asked you five times now about how is the content in that clip that you shared with me justifies banning him.
I think you think you have, but you actually haven't…
And even if that is now your question, it doesn't have anything to do with what we were ""debating"". You are just pivoting lol
I too have no (profanity) idea who this person is. Was only interested in reading the thread but OP didn't mention any context or links.
Im not googling it. But I'll have a whinge. And your comment is on point
I'm glad I'm not the only one - all over the internet is "Andrew Tate this" and "Andrew Tate that" but I still have NFI who he is!?
He's a very successful businessman who got really really famous in the past 6 months on socialedia. He speak mostly facts but also say sh1ts that upsets alot of people especially women.
Hope that answered your question.
lol
"fAcTs"
A fool who you're better off not knowing about
I agree with the fool although that's a bit mild but we should know what is going on in the world.
You have asked two different questions and only one poll under it..
fixed
Hate should be fought with apathy and indifference.
I dunno what his agenda was, and I don't care enough to find out.
Hate should be
What hate ?
Hate of person X
Hate BY person X
I asked you for an example of this ‘ hate ‘
And I told you beforehand
I dunno what his agenda was, and I don't care enough to find out
I like to find out and share about things that are useful, beautiful, joyful, funny. Since there's not much overlap with the hateful examples you're looking for, I am going to disappoint you.
I like to find out and share about things that are useful, beautiful, joyful, funny.
That’s amazing and ideally how everyone should be like…
But you need to be consistent with all those positive virtues and just maybe and not comment/suggest things that you don’t know anything about. We have enough people here to do that already.
maybe and not comment/suggest things that you don’t know anything about
I have not done any such thing.
Unless you can quote me as having said something that I know nothing about??
@Switchblade88: Okay, I then just find it odd that you felt the need to make a random statement like
Hate should be fought with apathy and indifference.
When as you have just self admitted that you have zero knowledge on this matter.
@Gervais fanboy: If you have "knowledge on this matter" that is useful, beautiful, joyful, or funny then by all means, please share!
@Switchblade88: You have contradicted yourself a couple of times here, I merely called you out on that.
Whatever I say, you wouldn’t admit to it, just more smart arse talk.So, there’s no point in this mate. Lets call it a night.
Is this why education is fought with apathy and indifference by the people with vested interests…..to generate hatefulness in the society allowing them to plunder the resources?
A famous teenage statement,
If you love hate, does that mean you hate love ?
and
If you hate love, does that mean you love hate ?
LOVE
+
HATETwo sides of the same coin. Love one, love all.
Fair? He broke their terms of service. It's up to the social media company. If he doesn't like it, he can move or create a company.
what tos was violated?
That one. And the others. See here.
Oh, I see now, yeah.
Their “Hate Speech Policy” for his misogynistic remarks (which is considered hate speech against women).
I can think of tons of other ppl who should get banned from social media.
I get to know him after the ban, some of his remarks make since and some just him been a idiot and if people want to follow his scheme, that's their choice. This giving him even more publicity.
broke their terms of service
And how did he do that ?
promoting that it is ok to rape a woman.
@Gervais fanboy: “Women have been exchanging sex for the opportunity for a very long time. Some did this. Weren’t abused. […] If you put yourself in a position to be raped, you must bare some responsibility.” - Andrew Tate
@Gervais fanboy: Gervais_fanboi, you were given EXACTLY what you asked for. Now instead of arguing, you need to change your point of view as promised.
Now, weasle on…
@MrBear: Did you actually read the thread my friend ?
The fella maliciously cropped a tweet and provided 0 context to somewhat align it with his initial allegation.
I have actually spent time and provided a complete detail on this matter…
Read it, respond to it and we’ll go from there. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/12661156/redirJust him dubiously cropping and snipping the said tweet is evidence enough about the biased narratives here and yet here you are… coming at me like that.
I’m not your enemy you know.@MrBear: So that’s how you have a discourse ?
You didn’t even examine or scrutinise the said evidence and you decided to jump on your conclusions regardless..
@pformag: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/12661156/redir
Replied to your other comment there
Try not divert this into other things..
You can quote from anything/everything that I have mentioned and let’s go from there
@Gervais fanboy: I hope you have other things in life that you invest as much time in as some random online dude who couldn't care if you live or die.
@stjep: It’s about objective truth…
It’s not about me defending him or defending you or anyone, I don’t pledge my loyalty to any one like that.
You can resort to this cheap way of insulting me or whatever..
But I all I saw was people here being dishonest and lying about something/someone that I factually happened to know was completely inaccurate.. I felt the urge to speak out, sharing evidence to disprove their bogus claims, what I have learnt is I can’t discuss/reason with ideologically driven people… truth is a calamity that they’ll easily pass up on.@leelemon: People here are brainwashed to hate him.
If anyone really cared, they’d do their own research.
He addresses all those allegations here
https://youtu.be/iv-C4CVGk28Ps - I am aware that users will dislike this comment without even reviewing the other side of the story.
@Gervais fanboy: I would argue that that is out of context and that people say incredible things after they get banned off a bunch of platforms…
It's kind of weird how you're all about 'question everything' except when it comes out of Tate's mouth lol
@leelemon: Wait a second
Your logic is - he’s lying when he explains the context of things that were presented to the masses by snipped up headlines or clipped up 5 second audio recordings from an hour long podcast..
But also your logic - He was 100% saying the truth and meant things as presented in the quotes that were used in the articles that you read and the 5 second audio recordings that you heard.
Btw you can do that with anyone, any public figure can be framed as evil by clipping up their words without context.
So Do you even consider the possibility that he was wrongfully framed for things he never said or meant ?
They didn’t even give him a reason for why they had blocked him from everywhere…No strikers, no review process. Nothing.
His instagram account - only had stupid selfies and pictures of his useless cars.
He said nothing controversial there…
They still banned him. No reasons provided.This was a coordinated thing against him.
On the same day - Uber banned him
Insta banned him
Fb banned him
AIR bnb banned him
All banks froze his accounts/assets
YouTube banned himThis is the establishment coming down on someone who spoke against it, spoke against Covid mandates,
He hasn’t said or done anything to deserve it.
He has no criminal records. Meanwhile there’s activists on social media that are working to normalise pedophiles as some disorder and how it’s just a preference etcThis is the establishment coming down on someone who spoke against it, spoke against Covid mandates,
He hasn’t said or done anything to deserve it.
He has no criminal records. Meanwhile there’s activists on social media that are working to normalise pedophiles as some disorder and how it’s just a preference etcDude… where's your proof?
I mean if your proof is just him saying "everyone attacked me because I'm special" then maybe you need to reflect on your logic..AND LOL I'm sorry but YOU'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT COVID hahaha Yes it all circles back to covid that def makes sense
circles back to covid
where's your proofI have just about enough proof on this particular point as you have on your/other people’s suggestions that his account was terminated for other sexist reasons.
Reality : These social media companies gave 0 reason on as to why they blocked him.
To answer your question, I deferred to Covid because in recent memory
Hundreds of people had their bank accounts/insurance policies/Uber accounts cancelled/blocked was because they either protested against mandates, donated to GO Fund Me’s supporting protests or people who blogged videos against mandates or lockdowns or the ruling class.
I used that reality as a precedent.
Other than that, he has no criminal records, has 0 ex girlfriends/hookups that have public ally alleged anything against him. Especially with him blowing up recently,
As I said he did have his bank accounts, insurance policies, Uber, Air b&b services blocked. Does that make sense to you ? Is that not scary too ?Because if it was supposed ‘hate speech’ ?
Muslim organisations are allowed to be on Social media platforms…
All they do is propagate hate speech.@Gervais fanboy: Jesus… Muslim organisations = hate speech? Covid? Fear mongering?
It's 2022 my dude.@leelemon: I am sorry
I accidentally edited out a line about Sunni and Shia extremist organisations** existing online… Wasn’t talking about non-racial Muslim organisations. Only the extremist ones.
He doesn't appear to have broken any of their ToS though ?
They can deplatform whomever they choose, they don't have to cite anything in the ToS because they are written to given them ultimate say in who uses their service. Also, why care?
Gab did that:
- Made their own social media site
- Hosting services decided to ban them
- Made their own social media site
- Decided to ask for funding from their members
- Started using paypal
- Paypal banned them
- Credit card companies banned themDo you see where this ends up?
I know friends in Australia who were part of a politically inconvenient group and not only was their group's bank account frozen, but their personal as well as bank accounts linked to their personal businesses. They couldn't move their money out as no other bank would open with them. So their money is frozen.
Exactly how in the world do you make your own bank?
Can an individual even make their own bank?I know de-platforming supporters say, "make your own", but this slippery slope and can end up with you entirely excluded from society.
end up with you entirely excluded from society.
I mean, if you're being actively anti-social - what do you expect?
There is nothing more anti-social than abortion. Should we ban everyone who gets one of those?
Yeah that's the classic leftist response, like "oh you don't like Twitter's rules, we'll go start your own"… So people start their own… Lefties get mad again, so go after the hosting company to get their site taken down. It's never ending.
If you have an "opinion" these days that can be considering "hate speech", an example being "you can't become" a woman just because you feel like it". Which is something that wasn't that controversial only 10 years ago, you've basically gotta build everything from the ground up to avoid being taken down.
The lefties are loving these undefined "hate speech" laws now as they benefit their believe system… But it does concern me the path we are heading down, people being convicted over "speech" doesn't seem like it's going to end well to me.
Lefties get mad again, so go after the hosting company to get their site taken down. It's never ending.
People on the right keep breaking TOS.
"you can't become" a woman just because you feel like it"
No one believes that. That's a straw man.
people being convicted over "speech" doesn't seem like it's going to end well to me.
No one is being convicted. Freedom from government for free speech isn't freedom from consequences.
The paradox of tolerance is that in order to maintain a society that is tolerant of opposing views, we must be intolerant of those that are themselves intolerant.
People absolutely are being convicted, or at least the framework is now being put in place for it to happen. This has gone further than just being kicked off public websites due to TOS violations. QLD just recently passed "hate speech" laws, as have many other jurisdictions.
If you think "no one believes" you can become a woman just because you feel like it, try going on twitter and questioning whether a trans woman is a "woman" and you'll quickly find yourself struck by these same "hate speech" rules.
"People absolutely are being convicted"
Who? and what laws? the banning of displaying Nazi symbols? if that is impacting you I have concerns about your activites…
"Trans women are women" is true. Believing one is a woman is different to genuinely identifying and taking actions to change the societal roles you fulfil.
How would you define a woman?
@boxycelery: A woman is a human who has the female biological markers. This is the only correct answer. There is no grey area.
As far as banning the display of nazi symbols, is that what the law states? Or does it ban "hate speech", I believe it's option 2 and the definition of "hate speech" is decided by the government in power at the time.
Hence my concern that some of you who are so supportive of these laws, may some day come to regret that…
And really… Did we actually have some huge problem with people running around with Nazi flags that we needed to enact a law to specifically ban them? I've lived in Australia for 32 years and never seen one. It was purely virtue signalling to the left.
As far as arrests go, I believe Qld only enacted these laws within the last month or two, so I'm unaware of any at this stage, but lots of stupid arrests have been happening in the UK over these laws that they have had for a while now.
One example : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-gl…
@Binchicken22: It happened because a guy was flying a nazi flag in front of the Brisbane Synagogue and it was found that it wasn't illegal. Seems hardly like it's virtue signalling.
And in the example, the guy spent weeks teaching his dog to Sieg Heil when he said "gas the Jews"? Interesting that you are so defensive of one particular type of view… Crazy coincidence.
@boxycelery: I'm not in "defence" of Nazis if that's what you are implying (quite obviously).
I'm saying that A. That YouTuber is 100% not a Nazi and yet he was convicted. He did it as a joke. Does this mean you are would be supportive of comedians being arrested for hate speech if their jokes are deemed to go "too far"?
You wouldn't have to look far to find "hate speech" in a lot of comedians work.
And B. The only way to have free speech is to have absolute free speech. Not, "You can say whatever you like… Unless it goes against what the current political class believe (no matter if the science agrees with their "beliefs" or not)".
It's not going to end well once you start setting rules around who and what can or can't be criticized.
Need poll option of Who?