CPT wrote:ontnut wrote:anj wrote:
Andrew Tate has been charged with rape, assault, human trafficking, controlling prostitution for gain, tax evasion and is suspected of trafficking minors, sex with a minor, money laundering and attempting to influence witnesses. He's hiding out in bloody Romania! The Tates have said and done some supremely heinous stuff. What "rational conversation" could you possibly have with anyone — let alone a woman — about Andrew Tate? Even Ron DeSantis has said the Tate brothers aren't welcome in Florida (Florida!). I hope these women ran the other way.
I know, Tate is a A-hole, nobody is excusing him. However, it's obvious the headline/hook for this tweet are founded on the mention of Tate, and not the subtext behind WHY MPJ did what he did. See how you automatically reacted so heavily to even the mention of Tate's name and ignored any possible reason why someone might do what MPJ did? I think that's exactly what MPJ is trying to elicit from those around him.
You CAN separate the message from the person. We do it all the time. I don't want this to become a conversation about that guy, but rather it should be a focus on what MPJ was trying to achieve by opening dialogue and debate about sensitive topics. Don't you think that a healthy relationship, or indeed a future marriage, should be built upon an ability to have discourse or even disagreements about certain topics without resorting simply to ultimatums or hyperbole? Shutting down a discussion simply because you don't like the guy, as opposed to the premise, is not the path to healthy communication.
Have you never had a rational discussion or debate about any person of moral or ethical defect? There's plenty of them around in the news, or indeed throughout history...
The path to healthy communication doesn’t involve testing someone (I could actually stop there) by showing them YouTube videos of one of the most despicable public figures in the world.
The act itself is borderline abusive behaviour.
I get that he’s trying to filter through women who might be pretty scummy in their own right, but how about… introducing the topic (I’m still not sure which “topic” requires an Andrew Tate video to be a conversation starter) yourself?
You may be right. But these kinds of discussions come up in every relationship, every so often. If/When the news about certain despicable people come up, would you not have a discussion about it with your SO? I know I would, especially if it's in the news cycle. MPJ is expediting it.
I may or may not agree with HOW he's doing it, maybe that wouldn't be my approach. But he's gotta filter people very, very quickly, and the stakes for him are higher than for most.
It would indeed be very difficult to introduce such a contentious subject "on your own", without context. Your conversation partner might then think it's actually YOUR opinion, as opposed to a topic you scraped off of social media/news. Discussions about political, sexual, religious etc. views are always difficult. Using a cue like a social media clip, to start the conversation, is typically easier and allows you to maintain a neutral stance at the outset.
It's like if you were to take your date to a stand-up comedy show with Bill Burr, or someone who does take a stance/angle on certain issues. Is it "abusive" to your partner if the comedian says things that are disagreeble to his/her views? Would you not be able to have a conversation about what he/she disagreed with?
