I'm pleasantly surprised. I first thought this would be some bashing of Tate and men. Not in the least. I'll be slowly digesting the various analyses and interpretations over the next week, here and there.

It's a pity about the white noise from panelist 3 but otherwise an excellent discussion.

This is crazy and whole meeting on Andrew Tate

Great debate.

So we have come to the point where the most wise things are said by a young woman with purple hair...The men have something to say to, but they are mostly funny {with truth in it}...and Gosling is not contributing anything worthy {except the playing unsupervised}...

20:48, I can't help but think she is equivocating or oversimplifying on the associations of masculinity when she says that traditional masculinity is thought of as being invulnerable, full stop. However, masculinity isn't associated with invulnerability but with physical strength. Certainly, the antithesis of physical strength would be crying or showing other emotional signs of defeat. That hardly means though that society views or has viewed traditional masculinity as that which is emotionally vacant or that which shows zero vulnerability in any way. If so, one could declare that masculinity means not loving. I agree completely that the red-pill community routinely exaggerates, overplays, and misrepresents some characteristics of masculinity and that certainly Tate appeals to sophistry and casuistry in the name of masculinity; not conceding in any negotiation--whether one that seeks belonging, union, or any dynamic wherein some domain of power is at work.

@GreenOilBike

4 ай бұрын

Hopefully he'll come and debate next year!

19:24, I'm afraid I unfortunately have to disagree with any views espousing gender theory or gender identity theory. I think these newer discourse communities collect around still more political and social ideologies that the left isn't going to be able to entertain for that much longer because of the actual ramifications for human beings of the only two sexes and by extension genders that there are despite unsubstantiated notions to the contrary. I also think that using "toxic masculinity" is indeed discriminatory just as "toxic blackness" or "toxic gayness" or "toxic female-ness" would be since, of course, the phrase is a singling out of human [traits] rather than a criticism of [behavior] that has nothing to do with sex but with human psychology, culture, education, etc. While no one should invalidate, or better, silence anyone, let alone women who experience unfair treatment from other human beings, it's a simple non sequitur to claim that any utterance itself by said persons is, or should be, therefore, free from scrutiny and logic and the same etiquette one would think to uphold in criticizing toxic behavior in the first place. For someone with such an obvious command of English, it is indeed a wonder that she couldn't think of a better way to identify deplorable behavior in some cultures. In short: I think her wavering intonation speaks volumes more about her own intuitive understanding of the implications of her claims than those claims do about the state of society as it relates to the sexes.

I have to say, it's sad that this was termed a debate. 22:13, it seems more like a panel of friends focusing on ways to disagree with Tate, as brave as that is in academia. That's a pity. The notion that men should feel disenfranchised but not be able to criticize the enterprise of that disenfranchisement is absurd. Clearly, some opportunists abuse various forms of activism, just as there are politicians who repurpose common concepts such as freedom or change or protection for their own hidden agenda. The claim though that change or progress or "freedom" are invalid concepts based on the behavior of those perpetrators is nonetheless fallacious. It's unfortunate that we humans so often confuse belonging for an approach to determining what is real.