I don't really think they are the same but I think some of what JP says may encourage the Andrew tates of the world.

Just in regards to your comments about Joe Rogan calling him a wrestling baddie or whatever. I like Joe but I think it's very minimising of him to make a statement like that considering the things AT says, advising on how to traffic girls/women and now having been arrested for apparently doing that in Romania? Come on!

Tate is "Jordan Peterson For Dummies" - some of what he says is practically verbatim to things Peterson has said previously.

Andrew Tate HIMSELF described word-for-word on his own website at one point ... the act of coercive sex trafficking. That he'd date girls who weren't involved in the sex industry, wait for them to fall for him, and then "go into business together" selling sex content before moving on to the next. It seems like he genuinely believed this was not trafficking, because he shared the profits with the women involved. That it essentially had to be slavery to be trafficking. I'm hopeful (although... not very hopeful...) that he's going to find out that "paying them well" doesn't make it "not trafficking".

It's trafficking with a side of pimping.....

Well yeah, Joe was saying that if true, it's awful, and he was mocking some of the things Tate has said. Calling him out for some of the vile comments he makes towards women. And like Joe said, if this is true, then Tate is a piece of sh!t basically. But essentially Tate is/was playing a character.

Hmm, i dunno. Have you heard some of the revolting stuff Tate has said? Like women are property, and that he would happily cheat on "the love of his life" because "that's what men do" and that women should just "like it or lump it". He's always been sh!tting about saying if he had sons, that he wouldn't give them a thing, that they wouldn't be allowed to show emotion, how hard he'd be on them. Yet if he had a girl, he would treat her like a princess. The man is a joke.

Tate probably only echos some of what Peterson has said because he wants to seem caring towards struggling young men. And Peterson is right to argue that women do need men, just the same way men need women. And that the respect should be mutual. Tate on the other hand......

If they tidy their room and pet cats when they see them, it'll all fall into place :nono:

I've not read his book, nor heard him speak (outside of contextless clips) in years, but I think (hope!) both of those "rules" are shorthand for bigger concepts, not entirely literal? In the same way that people who say "don't smile until Christmas" don't literally mean keep a straight face for three months, and nothing else :joker: