Let me ask you this, would you like to see Tate lynched, murdered?
Since you imply that, it would only be logical for you to take that into your own hands. Have you never heard that the public branding of a person may well lead others into strange fanatical acts and they become assassins because public opinion gave them the necessary impetus to do so? Since your article and comments imply such, you would have to become an avenger on Tate. If you can't or won't, you seem to approve of others might doing it for you. At the very least, harm him as a person and thereby damage his economic and social existence (character assassination). What interest do you have in supporting this?
You do not give the benefit of the doubt, which goes against every jurisdiction that we people who call ourselves civilised have given ourselves. Where a court has already taken up the matter, it is not your business, for if it were, courts would be superfluous. Which is followed by my question, do you give a shit about jurisprudence?
No, I don't want to see him lynched. Violence is not a viable solution to anything at all.. and neither, even, is death - in the long term - a solution.
I simply highlighted the degree of pain and the related rage that most people contain as a result of being life long victims of mind control. Speaking from experience, when the deeper details of how these systems work is exposed, a great deal of frustration and rage can surface. The fact that the Tates are selling themselves as emancipators from such mind control (the matrix) while also very clearly using almost every trick in the book to program and control others around them, shows the hypocrisy but also their intent. If people fully understood the situation, as I understand it, many would be enraged. I personally have never valued Tate or been a victim of his, so I don't feel anger directly at him. I feel concern for the many victims who have been exploited by him in so many ways.
You use the words "most people" very often. Have you ever tried to get along without this formulation and to avoid any "many people"; "few people" etc.? I have noticed how difficult it is for me to get rid of this annoying habit.
Why do you feel you need to highlight anger, as if there isn't enough of it already?
To Tate and what he probably said in a great many hours and a great many videos somewhere, it will be like with all public figures: even if you know all their videos, read all their texts (if any) and listened to all their linguistic formulations, you will
a.) recognize a lot of contradictions
b.) find something coherent for you in their statements
c.) find something very inconsistent in the statements.
Just take your own internet presence. At some point, if I go through your entire blog vita, I'll find everything from a to c. If I have personally decided not to like you, I will focus my attention on your weaknesses. If I have decided to like you, I look at what identifies me with you. But to claim that I know you, would be able to analyze you and prove to you crystal clear that you are of this or that particular disposition would take away the benefit of the doubt, wouldn't it?
If I use the phrase 'most people' then I do so based on having had sufficient experience with large numbers of people to understand very well the prevailing patterns within the human condition that are relevant to the context. It is a loose phrase, applied loosely.
Highlighting anger gives people an opportunity to consider the situation whilst noticing the extent of how much emotion has been denied - it does not create more anger.
In the case of Andrew Tate, it is abundantly clear from many sources that he is a walking contradiction - but it is not random - it is that he seeks to exploit just about everyone in different ways, so he says one thing to one group of people and another to another group. You only need to watch/listen to enough of the leaked material and testimony from whistleblowers.
I am an expert in patterns and have 20+ years of experience with healing emotional injuries in self and with others. I don't proclaim to know everything and I am not offering here anything other than my own views that might trigger some people to ask questions that they had not thought to ask previously.
I don't need to know an individual intimately to know how mind control functions and to see it's use.
Your headline titles
So, you are saying that you know for sure that he is a rapist and a human trafficker without giving the benefit of a doubt. Would you testify for that in front of a court?
There is a difference between a rapist and human trafficker and someone who pleases different groups with different/contradicting each other messages. You never done that? You need not to like this person and neither buy anything from him. No matter how persuasive someone appears. If there is nothing you have personally against him then, I conclude, he stands for somebody or something you abhor. I would then suggest not to pick him as a character to assassinate but the theme/topic in which you give some different perspectives.
You need to watch the video as your comments are all out of context. The title refers to him constantly claiming that the case is only due to 'tik tok videos' and running a criminal organisation, when in reality the court documents paint a very different case.
Whatever people use to position themselves publicly, whatever they sell, any modern person who doesn't know, for example, that advertising and PR are the means to get attention, sales, turnover and reputation, is not a victim but prefers not to know, since ever modern adult with a mobile device and internet access knows that advertising is manipulative and that anyone who earns money advertising via his Internet presence uses certain manipulation techniques - he builds an image, a brand from himself. You too, by the way, through the clickbait headline and certain themes that recur (I don't exclude myself).
I might actually take you seriously if you were, say, a lawyer and your argumentation was written in a purely legal/technical/objective way, or if you just blogged as a normal guy from your everyday life and I could witness anecdotally that you are neither the classic masculine success guy with a fast car (my house, my car, my boat), nor the yoga-driving enlightened eso guy who understands women.
I'm not really sure of your logic here since the truth doesn't need to be convincing and it can be arrived at without focusing so much on any messengers involved.