in

Why Banning Andrew Tate Is The WRONG Move | Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

Saagar dives into the viral popularity of Andrew Tate with young men and why banning him from social media is the wrong reaction to him

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/

To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and Spotify

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl

Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/

Tickets: https://www.ticketmaster.com/event/0E005CD6DBFF6D47

Adam Weinstein: https://quincyinst.org/report/strategic-patience-sustainable-engagement-with-a-changed-afghanistan/

Written by Breaking Points

Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. not that long ago, we had guys similar to this having their own vh1 shows, wrote books, on late night tv shows, hell there was even conventions about this stuff. but now we completely ban individuals for similar

  2. Americans and their freedom-of-speech absolutism. No thanks. He's welcome to keep talking about whatever he wants but he's not guaranteed a platform and businesses shouldn't be obligated to platform him and give him and his opinions a wider audience and voice. The rest of society shouldn't be subjected to people like these's views either. And this radar just serves to advertise him and proof is in encouraging people to go research him and do their own deep dive. You're driving people to him and giving him an audience.

  3. Being way way way too kind describing Tate to the uninformed lol

    Off topic sort of but… back in the "wild west" days of internet most communities I was a part of or moderated would ban for way way way less (non profit, or rather negative profit lol, volunteer-run) it's an interesting question why when it's a for profit company banning is wrong when many bannable offenses are done when the audience is large enough, which then brings us to do we make it all a utility? But that roll out would be contracted out to incompetent contractors, if public employees the talent pool would suck in our current environment because you can't attract talent for low wages. Tough situation

  4. What is Misoginy? Whats Racism? Whats Fascism? Whats being a Nazi? Whats gender? Whats Truth? They already destroyed every meaning, nowdays they just dictate what is allowed to say and vaguely put one of the labels to make SJW atack you for your opinion. Very democratic and beautiful free speech. f them

  5. Big tech has absolute freedom to take and use your data. You do not have freedom to speak how you want on big tech. We are more like the feudalism of the Middle Ages than the 1970s. Let that set in

  6. Very hard to stick to my Libertarian "well they're private companies they can do what they want" when these supposedly private companies act in unison at nearly the same time….what was that story a couple weeks ago about the White House pressuring twitter to ban some guy?

  7. It baffles me the double standards applied, look at Cardi B and the Kardashians the media and women praise them as a queens even the vice president happily admits to listening to cardi b. Both shouldn’t be banned but neither should be idolized by society either. Same with tate

  8. While I’m not sure I agree with him being banned, I’m still glad it happened. Home boy is insufferable and his points have no merit in todays society (from what I’ve seen)

  9. Men have problems. Agree. Single men have more problems. Agree.

    The issue with statements like 4:08 "more single men has all sorts of downstream effects which are actually terrible" is that it seems like a case of correlation vs. causation. Are men unemployed because they're single, or are they single because they're unemployed? Are they financially fragile because they're single, or are they single because they're financially fragile? Etc. Or are these ALL just symptoms of something else entirely? The reasoning 4:38 makes it seem that everything is caused by men being single, but no one's saying that.

    STILL, single men can have it rough, and they can feel lost, and they're in need of a role model. Agree.

    "Fitness, status, seeking a partner" 5:13 can be great goals to have. Agree.

    5:19 "The real problem that we have is that all of those have been denounced as misogynist"

    Wait, what? Who says that?

    5:23 "They're values that you're not even allowed to aknowledge even exist, let alone place a value judgement on them as 'good'".

    You're not allowed to aknowledge that fitness, status, seeking a partner are values that exist? And they can be "good"? Again, who says that?

    5:29 "in a world where MSNBC is claiming fitness is far-right"

    The article shown says "It’s critical that leaders, including parents, physical trainers, gym owners, coaches and others in the fitness world understand how online grooming and recruitment can intersect with spaces that we generally think of as promoting health and well-being". That's it. Understand the risks. No one even remotely says "fitness is far-right".

    (Here's the article: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/pandemic-fitness-trends-have-gone-extreme-literally-n1292463 )

    The reasoning wants to make it seem like simply pursuing goals of fitness, status, and seeking a partner is somehow problematic. I don't see it substantiated. The HOWs matter, just like in all other things in life. People hate on Tate not because of having these goals, but for going about it in problematic ways (overly materialistic, and straight up misogynist). Tate wasn't banned for being succesful, he was banned for being a misogynist AND having an immense reach for spreading that message.

    5:38 "is it any wonder, why guys like Tate are so popular". Circling back to this, yes, there IS a crowd looking for someone like Tate to speak to them. But the reasoning before all this is a little dodgy. Single men can have it rough. That's all there is to it. It can suck.

    5:42 So Max and Strauss moved on to more balanced messages, Bilzerian did not.

    6:12 "That's the real antidote to Andrew Tate" – So since the "conversion rate" for other similar guys is 2 out of 3, we should just let Tate run his course, and hope for the best? I COULD see that work IF there was a fierce competition for people to be in his place, and he was properly challenged. But without that, he just spreads his message to an enormous amount of followers, unchecked. In this scenario, I think it's perfectly reasonable to just ban him, thereby significantly restricting his reach.

    6:15 "The more social media companies and feminist organizations want to ban him, they will only embolden his ilk and his followers"

    For some of his following, sure. For others, they'll just move on. For some, they'll be enraged, then lose interest, then move on. For all the new people who just heard about Tate, they'll have a harder time reaching his content, and be less likely to follow his views. In this era of internet, trends come and go in weeks. Sure, right after being banned, he'll get a popularity bump. People will talk about him. Then they'll move on to the next thing. The less content there is about Tate, the sooner his questionable message will die down. He will not go away, we're just attacking ONE cause of the "Tate issue", his rapidly growing popularity. And that's fine.

    6:22 "You cannot ban an idea". Agree. But you can choose the messenger.

    6:27 "This cycle will literally only repeat itself" – Good! I'll happily watch all popular misogynists get banned until someone with healthier messaging comes along. The Tate phenomenon IS a symptom of a larger issue. I also would like to see it addressed. Still, banning Tate is a good move. It doesn't solve the underlying problems of single men, it helps the problem of unnecessary radicalization against women.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Loading…

0