dualnon

Sure. But the broader point I'm trying to make is that there's room for higher order analysis of Tates worldview outside the confines of the morality framework. Instead of gossiping and tribalistically arguing about if Tate is or isn't a bad guy, a community like this should be able to map his worldview precisely and integrate it into the bigger picture. To do that you can't just be stuck on the level of "change my mind, because I actually like Andrew Tate". It should be able to say, "here's some insight I've gleamed into Tates worldview, and here's where and how I think it fits into the larger model of society" and we should be able to discuss and improve on that model to come to an accurate understanding. Not a judgement, just plain old understanding.

There's not much point trying to change your mind if your point is that "I like him". Ok, you like him, great. People like all sorts of people and they don't have to be good or bad to be liked. People can like things and still see problems. Personally I also "like" Tate. I find him very charismatic and enjoyable to listen to. But I also consider his worldview to be quite self centred and limited. It is functional within certain parameters, but it is not something I'd subscribe to whole cloth. There's a lot of back and forth debate on this forum about Tates character as seen through the lens of morality and ethics. But there's not an awful lot of just looking at it and seeing it for what it is. Does Andrew Tate have a place, does he serve a purpose, does he meet a need arising in society? Of course he does! But what is BEYOND Andrew Tate. What worldview supersedes the limitations of Tates? That's where this community should be looking. Considering Tates worldview, understanding it without placing it in a good or bad box, and gaining a meta perspective and big picture view that can integrate that perspective and then discover that which transcend it and steps out of it's limitations.

Interestingggg...... I've been toying round with the idea that the Andrew Tate philosophy actually IS functional, given certain societal conditions. And something that Andrew Says in this video leads me to believe there is something to that idea. And the implications of it are kind of mental. Take the following with a grain of salt. Just an idea I've been contemplating. If you take, for instance, the idea that structural hierarchy and gender roles throughout history are founded on two things. 1 Access to resources, 2 Need for resources, you'll arrive at a worldview that necessitates traditional gender roles in the sense that the biggest and strongest biological entity is the one with all the control over the resources and who gets them. This makes sense in a tribal society. Also, take the idea that societal progress doesn't just happen. It is spurred on by technological progress. Why do other animals not develop societal systems as complex and atomised as Humans have done? Because they don't know how to use technology, and they don't have minds sophisticated enough to apply that technology to novel problems. And so, there is biological evolution, but no societal and cultural evolution. Now, one thing that technological progress achieves is a kind of egalitarianism that most people would attribute to legislative change and alterations to the justice system. Where there were once tribe leaders who controlled all the resources, and then kings and queens who passed down access to resources to those below them, soon capitalism allowed any man or woman to become a king or queen to themselves. And as this process continues, it becomes evident that the gender roles that were emergent from the conditions of the early tribal society are not necessary anymore. Tate says: "your goal is to inspire a girl to make money and then give it all to you" "At the beginning she will need you, but then she won't need you, but you have to keep that fallacy, keep that dream alive". A criticism of Tate I hear often on the left is that Andrew Tate teaches young men who want to protect their position of power in the social hierarchy exactly how to do that by oppressing women. The key question here is. Why would the woman not need you anymore? The answer: because she can get resources for herself. So Tate has to keep himself in a position that he controls the resources, through dominance (both physical and mental), intimidation, and coercion. And to do that he has to know what drives women at the most primal level. And of course, it does actually work given you can preserve the environmental conditions by convincing the woman that her access to these resources is limited. I think there's something to be said here about how Andrew Tate could be seen as a microcosm of the capitalist system as a whole. And how if you know the rules of the game, you can "win". Andrew knows the rules. And young men flock to him to learn them so they can also win. Something the left doesn't teach people how to do because it doesn't value the same things the right does. Also an interesting insight into how capitalism seeks to maintain artificial scarcity to secure its dominance. Even though there is abundance available through the application of technology in the right way. I don't have a conclusion to any of this. lol. Just thoughts I don't know what to do with

This article is from 2011. It would be really interesting to see if there's any follow up information about the kids who went to that pre-school.

Following from the idea that Socialism would be the evolutionary result of overcoming the limits of capitalism just as capitalism evolved out of feudalism. Is there much value to the idea that progressivism will eventually result in a kind of socialist-esque society? So long as we keep pushing forward and addressing oppressive systemic issues? Or is that just wishful thinking?