Tate Brothers - Round 2

unwashed potato! said:
Do you feel any of these views are partly because of your own views? Rather than someone else's experience that you view?

I wonder how many life times you've lived? Because the whole "x thing these days" I find funny, especially when it's spoken by a 30 something year old. Like how was it in the 50s? The 30s? The 80s? They don't know they were only 30 once, 20 once, and yet they are comparing "these days" to something they didn't live
Click to expand...
Those are fair questions.

I'm in my 40s now. I was born disabled with 3 genetic conditions, 2 considered rare. I've had 15 major operations. The first major one when I was 12. It was the first operation in the UK to put rods along the spine (at the time only performed 4 times in all the world).

From the age of 0 to 12 my life mostly consisted of being in and out of hospital. I was asked to consider the spine surgery at 12. Because it could have killed me.

When faced with big decisions at an early age it makes a person sit back and become philosophical about life. That's why I probably come across like an old fogey sometimes :)

I mean no harm. Everyone should try to be the best version of themselves. I'd rather kids have better role models than the current Tate brothers.
 
I truly believe the left, and particularly the younger left, have been quietly indoctrinated by schools and universities to ridicule nationalism, religion, races and Royalty, in the attempt to "de-beak and de-spur" them ready for being grey members of mankind under quiescent control of a wishful semi global body such as the European Union.

Religion, nationalism, racism, Royalty et cetera maintain elements of alternative controls, a state the left wing State and hierarchy abhor and are probably highly jealous of.

It's a relatively recent thing for religion to be so ridiculed, and it can't solely be answered by "better education". Some of the thickest people I know parrot this anti religious dogma, mainly young people who are so similar in their responses to questioning it suggests this intolerance of religion has not been a naturally evolving situation, but one generated by those with an agenda.
 
unwashed potato! said:
Are you saying 20 years ago, had social media been the same then as it is now, people wouldn't have followed tate? And what about 40 years ago, 60 years ago, social media exactly as it is today, tate wouldn't have been followed by young men?
Click to expand...
I think there was more male bonding even just 20 years ago.

You're right that there would have been the Tate version. But he wouldn't be this popular as he'd be one of many.

I remember people like him when youtube first started. Though nobody knows them these days.
 
Chris Wilson said:
It's a relatively recent thing for religion to be so ridiculed, and it can't solely be answered by "better education". Some of the thickest people I know parrot this anti religious dogma, mainly young people who are so similar in their responses to questioning it suggests this intolerance of religion has not been a naturally evolving situation, but one generated by those with an agenda.
Click to expand...

Seriously what world do you live in because it isnt the real one.

suggests this intolerance of religion has not been a naturally evolving situation, but one generated by those with an agenda.
Click to expand...

Like Islamaphobia for instance?
 
Last edited:
Chris Wilson said:
I truly believe the left, and particularly the younger left, have been quietly indoctrinated by schools and universities to ridicule nationalism, religion, races and Royalty, in the attempt to "de-beak and de-spur" them ready for being grey members of mankind under quiescent control of a wishful semi global body such as the European Union.

Religion, nationalism, racism, Royalty et cetera maintain elements of alternative controls, a state the left wing State and hierarchy abhor and are probably highly jealous of.

It's a relatively recent thing for religion to be so ridiculed, and it can't solely be answered by "better education". Some of the thickest people I know parrot this anti religious dogma, mainly young people who are so similar in their responses to questioning it suggests this intolerance of religion has not been a naturally evolving situation, but one generated by those with an agenda.
Click to expand...
Recent?

Tell that to all the dead religions when the new religions destroy them, it's just happening again that's all... no need to lament the cycle of life.
 
Tony Edwards said:
Seriously what world do you live in because it isnt the real one.



Like Islamaphobia for instance?
Click to expand...

Islamophobia (note the spelling, if you are going to project insults get the spelling right, it adds gravitas if nothing else).


How many Mosques have gone up or been generated from other buildings in the last 20 years in the UK, with council's blessings? How many illegally entering Muslim men have NGO and RNLI ships brought ashore to swamp our services and bring the government to an iniquitous situation in trying to control the immigrant situation across the Channel? How many Muslims run local councils or even hold hierarchical positions within the government itself? Compare this for me with any majority brown or black country worldwide you can find.

Islamophobia indeed.

The reason the Tates get a hammering from the left is because they dared to stray outside the desired path for the Left's vision for the future of the UK, and that's continually empowering women to a risible extent with no self restraint or no blame for the consequences of their behaviour, appearance or ululations. (The Left call it victim blaming).

The Tates are not (yet) de-beaked, nor de-spurred, and are fighting for the survival of precocious masculinity, for role models of unapologetic testosterone laden fortitude, those giving a lot of women what they seek. Not the castrated male subjugation the Left would like to impose.
 
Last edited:
Chris Wilson said:
The Tates are not (yet) de-beaked, nor de-spurred, and are fighting for the survival of precocious masculinity, for role models of unapologetic testosterone laden fortitude, those giving a lot of women what they seek.
Click to expand...
The only thing the tates are fighting for is the money in the bank accounts of weak males. What the cause of those males being weak is, is certainly up for debate but the tates are not fighting for anything’s survival (other than their own skins now it would seem)
 
They are doing a good job of balancing what was a very imbalanced situation with regard to men and women, masculinity and femininity, both young and not so old.

Not the ideal role models, but at least they aren't role models that are men dressed in frocks debating pronouns. Or obliterating the blackboards of the gullible school governor's charges with rainbow coloured graffiti in strenuous and undebatable support of sexual deviancy to minors.
 
Chris Wilson said:
They are doing a good job of balancing what was a very imbalanced situation with regard to men and women, masculinity and femininity, both young and not so old.

Not the ideal role models, but at least they aren't role models that are men dressed in frocks debating pronouns. Or obliterating the blackboards of the gullible school governor's charges with rainbow coloured graffiti in strenuous and undebatable support of sexual deviancy to minors.
Click to expand...
They aren’t doing any sort of a balancing act. Good or otherwise. They’re grifting/scamming a load of disillusioned, weak, gullible young men.
These young men do indeed need role models to look up to and aspire to be. The tates are not that role model. Nor are ‘the men dressed in frocks debating pronouns’ - those people and their ilk, much like the tates should be no where near the role models anyone should want for our young men and women.
 
BowdonUK said:
I remember people like him when youtube first started. Though nobody knows them these days
Click to expand...

Sure, but youtube wasn't as popular nor did people know how to properly capitalise on it then, along with other social networks to add, not the sponsorships etc.

BowdonUK said:
I think there was more male bonding even just 20 years ago
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but then you hear how men were far more closed off, didn't talk about deep things a much, more suicidal, less therapy, less open to friends due to "masculinity" stopping them.

So it's hard to know and compare what it was like back in someone else's day.

I do agree that the idea that we could and should be closer now than we are as humans, I just don't agree that people in 20s, 30s etc, can compare it to what anything personal was like to that of someone that's now in their 80s.
 
unwashed potato! said:
Sure, but youtube wasn't as popular nor did people know how to properly capitalise on it then, along with other social networks to add, not the sponsorships etc.



Perhaps, but then you hear how men were far more closed off, didn't talk about deep things a much, more suicidal, less therapy, less open to friends due to "masculinity" stopping them.

So it's hard to know and compare what it was like back in someone else's day.

I do agree that the idea that we could and should be closer now than we are as humans, I just don't agree that people in 20s, 30s etc, can compare it to what anything personal was like to that of someone that's now in their 80s.
Click to expand...
Isn't suicide more prevalent now with middle aged men than ever before?
 
Thekwango said:
They aren’t doing any sort of a balancing act. Good or otherwise. They’re grifting/scamming a load of disillusioned, weak, gullible young men.
These young men do indeed need role models to look up to and aspire to be. The tates are not that role model. Nor are ‘the men dressed in frocks debating pronouns’ - those people and their ilk, much like the tates should be no where near the role models anyone should want for our young men and women.
Click to expand...

Yet they are, there is loads of young impressionable men who see the tates as role models.

Then conversation shouldn't be that they shouldn't be their role models. But why are they?

BBC had to remove the interview because of the amount of support tate got in the comments. It's very obvious they're role models to a lot of people.

It seems that's missing for a lot of people. As someone who isn't religious, but did go to church and grew up in the era of religion at school with values pretty much forced into us. It does make me wonder if it's the removal of religion (Christianity) and the values that come with it.
 
gingergundog said:
Isn't suicide more prevalent now with middle aged men than ever before?
Click to expand...
But then if people are reportedly more open now than they used to be, are people more suicidal now, or are they just admitting it more now?

And are suicides up or just feeling suicidal? Is that covid bumping that? Is that as a percentage or just the numbers that feel it etc etc.
 
Begbie said:
It seems that's missing for a lot of people. As someone who isn't religious, but did go to church and grew up in the era of religion at school with values pretty much forced into us. It does make me wonder if it's the removal of religion (Christianity) and the values that come with it.
Click to expand...
I'm always slightly bemused by people and their apparent glee at the 'downfall' of Christianity. If it wasn't for Christianity then we wouldn't have the world we live in currently, nor the laws we enjoy. As to those cheering on how belief in a god is on a downward trend, that's only in the western world, Islam and the like is more popular than its ever been.
 
Fubsy said:
Genuine, curious question, in response to the above re: suicidal men:

What's happening to suicide rates amongst women while it rises for men?
Click to expand...
Women's rates have continued to fall pretty much year on year over the past 40 years whereas men dipped but has risen in the past 10-15 years, not quite as high as it was late 70's/early 80's though
 
BowdonUK said:
Seen as you've rebuffed my attempted explanation of why kids are following Tate, with all the consequences that entails, I'd be interested to see what your opinion on why, and more importantly how do we solve it?

I'm genuinely interested because though I don't care for the way Tate goes about things I'm concerned about the increased objectification of young people and its negative impact on their lives.
Click to expand...

unwashed potato! said:
Are you saying 20 years ago, had social media been the same then as it is now, people wouldn't have followed tate? And what about 40 years ago, 60 years ago, social media exactly as it is today, tate wouldn't have been followed by young men?
Click to expand...

This^^

Some posters are adding 2+2 and getting woke.

Bowden you ask for my explanation. In some ways its fairly simple, the internet has changed our lives to such a degree that it isn't recognisable to what it was before. Though in other ways nothing has changed. You think some boys in the 60/70/80/90s didn't feel like they lacked something, you are calling it male role models, I think that is just being used as a convenient tag. Plenty of young men felt this way in the past. Its why they joined gangs, became football hooligans, became skin heads or joined other such groups. If Tate had been around then and the internet had been it would be just the same. Some young men are drawn to such characters, they always have been and always will be. Tate as others have said is just a grifter and criminal, he has discovered like all those before him that there is a market for his wares. If you tell people they are lacking something and you have it you can make a killing if you are a good salesman.

How we tackle it, Well now there is the problem. How do you stop such people reaching these young people on the internet? And now its become fashionable to tell these young people that they lack something, that they aren't men, they are beta men and then we wonder why they go looking for the likes of Tate :rolleyes: The people complaining that boys/young men don't have male role models and aren't masculine enough are pushing these same young men towards Tate. They are helping to create Tate's market for him.

I also think sometimes people forget that every generation is different. When I was a teenager my parents/grandparents generations looked at us and sighed that it wasn't like that when they were kids. Then we grew up and now those same people who weren't like their parents are now looking at this generation and saying exactly the same things. The world isn't coming to an end though, just as it wasn't when David Bowie wore a catsuit, dyed his hair orange and wore makeup. Though my parents and grandparents thought it was.

Tate and is like are a problem though. Like with every generation young people are impressionable, its why religions want to get children while they are young, they are easily manipulated and indoctrinated. How we deal with that I'm honestly not sure. We have to somehow let them know that Tate's views are healthy. Society has changed as it does with every generation. When I was young you might see a women getting a right hander every night on the TV. That now isn't seen as acceptable and that is a good thing. Society evolves, older generation rarely like how it is evolving and Tate in some ways is appealing to that, his views of women are those of the 70s and 80s. Men should be the dominant ones, women should know their place in life. My god we have enough posters on here that think like that.

It is a problem that young people aren't spending as much time out with their friends as we did. We had no choice though, if we wanted to see out friends we went out, they can just log on to their PCs or unlock their phones and see their friends. Again I've no idea how we solve that or if it really needs to be solved, maybe its just the way it is now. What I don't think though is that there is some huge crisis of masculinity, though it has now become very political and is being used in left vs right arguments for political power/influence. The sad thing is that its just the younger generation being used as a political football and its only going to get worse.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom