The problem with Andrew Tate

I said it many times: I’m against censorship, “canceling,” or mass hysteria directed at certain individuals of influence.

“Of influence” is an important clause. Influence de facto. Influence is already in place. Maybe it’s an underground kind of influence. Maybe someone has conquered the hearts of tens of millions. The point is that we already got this point, one way or another. Oratory skills, charisma, a powerful message, manipulation, fear, creative talent — it doesn’t matter.

Once you’re at this point, not only is it useless to bitterly attack the influential individual and his or her supporters, it’s arrogant and achieves the opposite goal. You can’t assume you’re smart and virtuous and everyone else is evil and dumb. There will be many intelligent people with opposing views. And even if they are not “smart” by your measures, everyone has dignity. No one will change their views after being called dumb or deplorable.

But, of course, we should debate and criticize constructively. Criticize smartly to avoid being destroyed in a debate. If you say Tate is a misogynist, be prepared to point to the exact situation or quote where Tate discusses women. Otherwise, Tate will point you to these situations himself, where he says “I respect women and I’ve built my life to protect them; I am a family man; I respect traditions.” These are made-up quotes, but I’m predicting that Tate will destroy anyone unprepared in a real debate. Similarly, if you say Trump is racist, also point to the actual situations. Or you’ll…