Banning Andrew Tate

Published on 23 January 2023 at 20:21

Emory Andrew Tate lll, born December 1 1986, is a man of many facets. He is a former four time world
champion kickboxer, a businessman, and social media influencer. More famously, rather infamously, he
is a perceived hatemonger. Recently, his views of women have come under attack, and the casualty has
been Tate’s online presence. Whether you derive any veracity in the claims Tate has made on social
media, such as dodging bullets and killing Afghan terrorists is a mundane activity or the egregious belief
that women are subservient to men, is not the metric to discuss. What needs to be addressed is why.
Why did a man with a misogynistic thought process become the most searched figure on the planet? Is
Mr. Tate galvanizing men to become women beaters or is his ascent to popularity indicative of less
discussed problems facing the youth today?

First, let's discuss the ban. Andrew Tate has universally been banned across all social media platforms
for violating terms of use via hate speech. He does have disturbing views such as woman being property,
being subservient to men if men are the provider in the household, double standards on sexual
promiscuity between genders, but those views are being painted over more accurate and lighthearted
takes of Mr. Tate. Examples of which include saying that men and women are biological different and
those difference translate to different abilities in sports ( reference Lia Thomas), and the
aforementioned super power to dodge bullets and kill terrorists. For his stance on woman, Tate was
banned from all social media platforms just like every other rapper or rock star who degraded woman
before him. Actually, wait, society doesn’t ban rappers or rock stars for calling women bitches and hoes,
and lyrics equating the value of a women to her sexual appeal.
What makes Andrew Tate's message so attractive is his demographic, the oft ostracized male. In recent
years, society has undertaken the much needed and often delayed task of female empowerment.
Today’s woman is more outspoken, more career driven, strong-willed, and conquest driven than ever
before. However, when those traits are ascribed to a man, it transforms to toxic masculinity. The very
tenets that make up a man, and were taught to males from birth, are now vilified. So, young men see a
tall, strong, wealthy man, who is unabashedly spouting his personal beliefs as facts, not as another man.
He is an idol, a hero to them. The average man today loses their virginity later than the man of twenty
years ago. Andrew Tate boasts of bedding several women and even owns a cam-girl site. The average
man moves out of his parents house and his late twenties now, compared to late teens and early
twenties from just two decades ago. Andrew Tate owns several properties and makes absurd boasts of
being a trillionaire. The average man today is out of shape. Andrew Tate is absolutely sculpted. Poor,
physically undesirable, and sexually frustrated, these men of today aren’t marriage material. Lyrics of
today’s music will tell you as much. (I don’t f*** with no broke ni****) being a common refrain. Now
you have a generation of boys who have desires that they cannot fulfill and traits that are deemed
undesirable, yet they have a man to look up to who is defying societal expectations and laws while
achieving great success.
Does this mean that Andrew Tate is correct in his views? Absolutely not. But is banning a person whose
views are not totally socially acceptable the correct thing to do? Absolutely not. Rather than defeat or
expose somebody with flawed ideology, outright banning that person makes them a martyr. We have

evolved to society where we do not have a conversation. We automatically filter out and cancel
anything we deem unacceptable. This is not accountability. This is a erasure. But it erases the person,
not the message. And who gets to decide what we should and should not hear? In today's world, it is
acceptable to say that men aren’t shit and make fun of small penises. Even male prison rape is still used
as a comedic trope. But Andrew Tate was actually banned from Twitter in 2017 initially, because he
insinuated that female sexual assault survivors bear some responsibility in their victimization. Clearly
this is wrong. But if we as a whole can understand the misogyny, why do we tolerate misandry? Is the
opposite of one extreme, not also an extreme? Therefore, there is wrong on both ends. Why persecute
one and offer protected class status to the other? If the mission is to eradicate all evil, why not go after
evil that has power to influence and shape minds? For example: On August 18th, 2022,the Lawrence
County based Republican party, the state of Alabama issued an apology for depicting an elephant
donning KKK attire and symbols in a children’s book. Where is the outcry here? What is the scale and
tipping point that merits us as a better people to pay attention and seek answers?
The solution to the Tate problem is not simple. We can’t restart civilization and reprogram human
beings to understand that we are equal and all deserving of respect. We also can't chastise a generation
for ideas forced upon them and advantages they have not experienced. The correct way to deal with
someone like Andrew Tate is a public open debate format where Tate would present his worldview and
be debated by someone with a different worldview. If Tate's ideas are clearly evil and nefarious, he
would be exposed. Of course this would not turn everyone away from Andrew Tate. History has shown
that even if a notion is proven to be clear nonsense and lies, it will not stop a motivated prejudiced
subset of people to take action. We can look to the January 6th

, 2021 Capitol Riot attack for a measure of
how far people can go when common sense is not common. But is it right or fair to be selective when
choosing what evil to combat? Is silencing a voice a testament to an advanced society or the intolerance
of difference? Cancel culture does call out people who have done wrong? However, it selectively attacks
people who do not parrot what society says today. We haven’t grown as a society; We just know how to

act in public. Telling a group of people to repress innate and instinctual desires, does not create a well-
behaved society. It creates a time bomb that won’t make any noise until it explodes.

You may be thinking that Andrew Tate has already exploded. A simple Google search of his name reveals
that he was accused of abusing an ex-girlfriend and kidnapping another woman. Both reprehensible,
criminal acts. If you choose to dig deeper you will see that the woman he was accused of assaulting was
actually engaging in a consensual act with him, and the woman he was accused of kidnapping was with
him cheating with on her boyfriend willingly. In today’s culture accusation is enough evidence to indict
and pass a verdict. So often we as a people like to claim that we listen. But listening has three different
levels. First, there is listening just enough to offer a reply. This is where most of us fall. Then there is
listening to comprehend. This is when we look at things analytically and most often where we pass
judgment. Lastly there’s understanding; This is not a place of agreement, but an acknowledgment of
reason. If you can understand why a person does things, you can alter their actions by correcting the
reasoning. Think of the phrase,“ I did this because”. If you understand what the “because” means, you
can teach and show right and wrong. For example, you can tell a child to stay away from the stove
because it is hot and fire. And the child will nod and understand the best of their capability. Punishing
someone for their actions is only a cursory exercise in the aftermath. However, if you can steer the
thoughts that lead to actions you can truly affect change.

I am all for accountability, but we cannot choose where to apply it. If we are capable of recognizing
wrong on one side, then we are just as capable of recognizing wrong the other side. The existence of
Andrew Tate as a social media influencer and men’s right activist is, in whole, a symptom and indictment
of the culture that nurtured him and continues to do the same for young men today. You cannot teach a
subset of people equality while shaming them for their part of the equation. If we are to advance or at
least reach a place of understanding, we need to stop broad stroking groups of people with phrases such
as “All men ain't shit” and “Woman are hoes”. Deleting Tate from the internet only removes the vessel
spouting misogynist rhetoric. The ideas and principles that he represents can be everlasting. Only the
next time someone has ideas like his, they will know that they are not allowed to say them aloud. When
ideas are bottled and repressed it gives way to anger and action. If words are the reason so many people
are offended, how much more so will you be when words are not the recourse but action is taken?
As for cancel culture: It has done some good. But who gave this group of people the right to determine
what’s good for the masses as a whole? Are you to concede your powers of reasoning, deduction, and
common sense for a nobler self and greater good? If we act according to what is acceptable in public,
what happens when something you do regularly is now labeled toxic? Many longtime comedians and
rappers, happily assailed homosexual men with the label of f*****. What if we could hold a microscope
to each individual member of cancel culture? What sins or past transgressions transgressions would be
revealed? Does knowing and exposing the imperfections of others somehow make the rest of us a
better people? No, that’s negative elevation. It doesn't matter how much judgment we pass, when we
take away voices we lose. You can't grow by taking away. Do I agree with every word that Andrew Tate
said? Absolutely not! Do I believe that he should have been deleted from social media? No! While some
of his views are disturbing, they at least gave an insight as to what can be an impetus for the youth of
today to move in one direction or another. If you think of Andrew Tate as nothing else, think of him as a
compass or litmus test for the condition of society.
I posed many questions when writing this. The only question that matters is “ why?”. And if something is
worth questioning, it is definitely worth investigating. Stay sharp. Stay observant.

Add comment


There are no comments yet.