And to think, Greta inadvertently took him down. What a timeline we live in.
this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
216 points (99.5% liked)
World News
22055 readers
174 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The whole situation reminds me of a water balloon battle I had as a kid. I kept getting some really good tosses in and one kid really didn't like that. I didn't have the wherewithal at the time to realize I was distressing him, assuming he was having the same fun I was having. Anyway he spent like 10 minutes trying to get the world's biggest water balloon created while he got soaked constantly and balloons broke like mad as he overfilled them.
Eventually, he managed to fill a particularly massive balloon. This thing was absurd sized, to a 9 year old. Properly absurd. I don't even know how he lifted it. But once he finally achieved his goal, he finally staggered to his feet with the balloon, roared a mighty 9 year old battlecry, and charged at me, only to trip on his own feet and tumble to the ground with his face impacting the balloon just as it exploded, soaking him. The meltdown was legendary; we all stopped playing, most of us just watching with bemusement at his misfortune. It was a huge own-goal, a massive self-own, and while I was certainly the motive, I had nothing to do with how it all played out.
I bet Greta feels a similar way, though she probably has way fewer conflicted feelings about the justice behind it, though.
Would read again.
+1
I screamed laughed at this story lol, wasn't expecting that twist xD
such an appropriate name, then!
Lol!!!! Just saw this response haha xD
This is why I'm here. Thank you.
I love the thought of the story being true but I have to be the wet blanket and say that it has been debunked. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/andrew-tate-arrested-jerrys-pizza-box/
Greta taking town Tate is one of those things that is head canon to me, truth be damned.
I will go to my grave believing that story. No one can take this away from me.
Never apologize for encouraging accuracy, especially on the internet!
Besides, any wet blanket tendencies are more than made up for by that absurd picture of Tate on the page you linked to. Also, I had forgotten about the “small dick energy” thing. Thanks for the laughs!
Aw, man... Boo.
All that says is the police unit issued a denial, which isn't the same as it didn't actually happen, and that there was an earlier video from a week ago in Romania, which may not have been recent enough.
Seems very coincidental that he started some twitter beef with Greta Thunberg right before he was arrested.
Wouldn't be surprised if he got tipped off that GRETA (The Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings) were building a case against him, then being the weapons-grade moron that he is, assumed they meant Greta Thunberg.
I love it when bad things happen to worse people.
Good riddance. I just wanna stop hearing about him everywhere on social media already.
Good.
Very good.
I'm just flabbergasted each time this guy crawls back into my consciousness how he had ever managed to convince himself and others that he's some kind of ubermensch..
You just have to be charismatic and pretend to have answers, then people will believe you anything eventually
So I see him pretending to have answers...charismatic? Not so much.
I don't think he would have had as many followers without having any form of charisma at all. We can hate him, but have to acknowledge he knows his way with words and how to influence and control certain people. Anything else would be dangerous imo.
Dude somehow parlayed a middling record as a kickboxer into a gig as a small-time heel on British reality TV, and from there captured the minds of a generation of budding dudebros with a mix of sociopathic grindset machismo and shocking amounts of misogyny. Some of that had to be charisma, but frankly I think a lot of it is the same thing that makes Trump so appearing to a certain demographic: he tells them it's okay to be a bad guy, because bad guys win at life and everybody else are just chumps.
Yep that's basically what I think about it as well, but it's an echochamber rant. And we saw with Trump what happens when you don't take these people serious and that's kinda what I'm scared of where this is leading. There's not much left to laugh about once they are in a position of power. We have to put in the work to explain (from a more understandable perspective) why this hurts us as society and members of society, and teach the ones who aren't aware of the underlying dynamics to become aware of them.
It's quite scary to see the volume of support for him under every YouTube video or Twitter post damning him. I convince myself it's a bot army rather than actual support for him so that I can sleep at night.
I understand his followers still do, somehow
Oh noooooooo. I am sure he will be able to quickly prove his innocence.
Most certainly. He's got the undeniable proof safely stored away in the same place as his chin.
I don't like Andrew Tate, but probably I would not like also a lot of women he is frequenting. There are possibilities that they are blackmailers and not victims. So, I hope that Andrew Tate will be convicted on the base of proved facts, and not because he was not able to disprove the words of his accusers. "Proving innocence" can be an hard things to do, if you are considered guilty until proven innocent.
Dude Andrew Tate is literally recorded on one of his accurser's voicemail not even trying to hide it. You can find that recording and listen to it (the behind the bastards podcast has a whole series on him that includes this clip, and others). He admits to strangling her, among other things. And that's just one of a bazillion other smash-dunk points against him.
From the verge article, it would seem there is also likely video evidence: "Tate and the other defendants are alleged to have recruited seven people by misleading them about an intent “to establish a marriage/cohabitation relationship,” according to the Romanian law enforcement agency Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT). They were later held against their will and, through “physical violence and mental pressure,” sexually exploited on video for distribution on social media, the agency wrote." (emphasis mine)
Meanwhile you're accusing a whole bunch of women you know nothing about of possibly being blackmailers, based on nothing, because you don't seem to have researched this at all. This is himpathy, not "innocent until proven guilty". Where's the "innocent until proven guilty" assumption for the women, vs the 1 man with a pile of evidence against him?
I agree on nearly all, and I admit of not being informed on the details. I disagree on this: I'm not accusing the women, because I'm in favor of a fair process against Andrew Tate, not against the women; the number of women against one man is not a proof, because despite the common sense, in many cases of false accusations, there were two or more women against a man, and they were lying.
There is a non-zero chance of virtually everything. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the amount of accusations against him is proof, and I'm sure he will not be indicted without proof.
You must see that "in many cases of false accusation, there were two or more women against a man, [and they were lying]¹“ is also not proof of anything.
What is your metric for "cases of false accusations"? Are we talking rape cases only? There is already a heavy bias towards women in that category, as more women are raped than men². Just because cases exist where women have made false accusations does not mean that every single accusation should not be taken seriously. If the accusation can't be proved, or is proved to be false, then that's the way it is, and the appropriate consequences, or lack of them, follow.
There are likely to be more cases of false accusations by women against men than vice versa, both because social norms and machismo make it less likely than a man will falsely accuse a woman of rape, and because raped women outweigh raped men at a ratio of around 6:1 (in the US, at least). What constitutes a "false accusation"? Exclusively that it was proven that the accusations were false? Or does that group also contain cases where rape couldn't be proved?
You prefaced your statement with "I would not like many of the women he frequents³". Is your personal opinion of "the women her frequents" an indicator of whether or not he was capable of raping or trafficking them? Is it in any way relevant at all?
¹ - If the accusations were false, they were implicitly lying. ² - https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence ³ - "Frequents". Yuck.
You must see that "in many cases of false accusation, there were two or more women against a man, [and they were lying]¹“ is also not proof of anything.
Yes I agree, but my original meaning is that there are many cases of false accusations with two or more false accusers. So saying that "many women reported ..." is not per se a good enough convincing argument, without analyzing in details these reports and the context. I said this, because intuitively one believe that if there are two or more accusers, then something must be true. Obviously as you said, the contrary is not true: one accuser is not more believable than two or more.
What is your metric for “cases of false accusations”? Are we talking rape cases only?
Sexual abuse in case of famous/important person, where money is involved, and domestic violence in case of conflicting divorces. In Italy, an official document signed by judges, psychologist and other legal operators, informs the Senate that the false accuse (strictly false or exagerated, not simply "unprovable") are presumably from 70% to 90% in case of conflicting divorces. This is the link to the document https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/commissioni/comm02/documenti_acquisiti/957%20FENBI%20-%20A.pdf
You prefaced your statement with “I would not like many of the women he frequents³”. Is your personal opinion of “the women her frequents” an indicator of whether or not he was capable of raping or trafficking them? Is it in any way relevant at all?
I don't know the women he frequents, but it can be a suspicious context, because there are many rapist, but sometime there are also false accuses. So a proper trial must be done. I didn't know the details, so after reading more, probably he is guilty. I wrote in general terms, because sometime there were cases against famous people like Johnny Depp or Woody Allen were the accusations were not true.
Is Romania harsher on rapist and human traffickers than the US, or is he going to end up a Romanian politician?
view more: next ›