Andrew Tate's Final Message - Destiny Gives His Honest Thoughts ►th-cam.com/video/pjzAiiX-YEE/w-d-xo.html "DO YOUR JOB!" - Andrew Tate Debates Sneako ►th-cam.com/video/S4W5Vlf7qM8/w-d-xo.html
Why does a homeless guy who plays WOW have a better and more unbiased analysis of this interview than the multiple decade long political streamer? kind of embarrassing destiny...
_"My girlfriend left me, that's why I got depressed"_ There's a difference between having something bad happen to you, and essentially having a problem with your brain. You could have the world at your feet, like Robin Williams for example, who was one of the most successful and well-loved people on the planet, and still be suffering from depression.
depression isnt just a brain thing. its a amalgamation of different factors that lead someone to it. anti-depressants dont help every depressed person.
Kinda - the problem is with how culturally synonymous depressed has become with clinical depression or major depressive disorder. People tend to be depressed when bad things happen - but that is not the same thing a depressive disorder. Key difference tends to be the duration. Not necessarily whether there is a reason for it or not. People can have life events that justifiably make them depressed - which can develops into a depressive disorder. It’s a semantic issue psychology would have benefited steering clear of. Also depressing being “something wrong with your brain” is kinda half true. But it implies determinism which isn’t that accurate for most. Depression is complicated and biopsychosocial in its causes. With varying degrees of directionality between those factors. For example it can be: Genetic factors -minimal psych or social factors = depression. It can also be: Minimal genetic factors - strong psycho social factors = depression. It can also be the case in neuropsychology or brain scans: Certain brain circuits/functions predispose depression. It is also the case certain patterns of thinking or life events can change circuit firing over time. Similar therapy without medication can lead to normalization of functional brain activity at a global level. So it would be arguable to whether it’s the brain function causing depression or the maladaptive thinking patterns. Likely a combination of both. Sorry if this is way to much info 🙂
I just wanted to pop in and say like: I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was a small child, and medicated young. I hated being medicated and spent all of my teen years and college years being told I wasn't going to amount to anything. As I got older I started feeling like there were things that weren't clicking in my life so I started seeing a therapist. She actively told me she believed I was misdiagnosed as a child and probably didn't have ADHD (this isn't going where you think it is.) A little over a year ago, I learned that I in fact, do have ADHD and also ASD. These two things sometimes appear to cancel one another out. I learned this because I hit this period of intense, dehabilitating burnout and needed to crawl out of it. So I started seeing a therapist who knows what the fuck these things are, and to the answer to my problems was to adjust my lifestyle. There's a lot of truth in what Andrew Tate and Destiny are saying here. But there are also clinical reasons for the way people feel. However, you absolutely HAVE to use that knowledge to make your life work for you, not sit around and say you can't do things because of x/y/z. Maybe some things are more difficult for you than the average human, but beating your head against a wall only results in a cracked skull. So why are you doing it?
plus you can always improve your mental health, working out sure but everything including working out seems harder when you have poor mental health, so meditating or doing things for your mental health will make it much easier to do the other physical activities to remain physically and mentally fit and well
Well said bro. I went through the same trials and tribulations with the ADHD as well. I’ve found that making a schedule and FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH IT is super important
I must agree that people who use mental illnesses as crutches or excuses for everything and claim nothing can be done to improve it are misguided and annoying. Clinical depression is real and horrible, but there absolutely are things you can do to get much better or at least lower the frequency of major depressive episodes
Unless you're like a severe schizophrenic or something, because sadly in that case you're basically fucked because you either live with a completely crippling illness, or you take a level of medication that will "fix" the problem but you cease to even resemble the person you were before because of its effects on your brain chemistry. John Nash was able to fix his issue to the point of being able to go back into teaching, but he was never quite the same person he was before. He also just miraculously got better after 1970 and didn't require medication anymore which is really atypical.
Facts, we run to doctors for pills first instead of fixing a diet, getting exercise, sleeping 8 hours, adopting different hobbies, going outside, and building social connections If all of that has been done and you still feel that way then shit bro that’s terrible and I wish them to seek medical help
@Maple Destiny didn't say "it's all in your control". He meant that there's some actions you can take to mitigate it. And it sounds like you've done a lot of those actions. And while you say that it hasn't been fixed because you still have depression and are still suicidal, I would say that "fixed" isn't a yes-no, black or white, 1 or 0 thing. I think there are probably people who are also depressed that haven't done all the things that you've listed and are probably in a worse off place because of it, despite both you and them still having depression. And there's probably people who had depression, did the things you did, and got better. That's the part you can't control. Depression takes away a lot of options, but it doesn't take away all of them. Some people use the excuse of having depression to take away the rest of the options that they're left with. That's something you can blame them for. But if there's someone who uses all the options that they're left with, and still ends up not succeeding, then they *can't* be blamed for that.
That's bullshit, so many people don't realize how hard it is to deal with. It's not as easy as "just work hard to get better" it's literally crippling. I've been in therapy and medicated since middleschool and a decade later I barely made progress. Things feel hopeless, people like you are plain stupid without realizing things like treatment resistant depression exists. Nobody wants to be or stay depressed
One point I think Destiny missed is regarding Tate constantly complaining about short clips and being taken out of context. The guy literally used these short clip algorithms like TH-cam shorts and tik Tok to hit this level of fame. He had his fans and hustler university subscribers to constantly repost his stuff and make quick viral clips. It’s the literal format that he capitalized on to monetize and gain popularity. So the fact that he’s complaining about people using quick sound bytes of him when that was one of his biggest money makers, intentionally, is hilarious
It's not hypocritical. A business can use advertisements to show their product works and that is normal, similarly another person can do the same to devalue the product and they are different things, propaganda. One is sharing viral clips, the other is used to show a bias without context to portray a negative perception
Yeah I agree with KKLH. Having people market your stuff, and being taken out of context maliciously are two different things. His annoyance is justified. I understand you only said its hilarious (because it is, its pretty ironic lol), but implying that its hypocritical or unjustified to be mad about it, isnt fair.
Tate didn’t say he didn’t benefit from short form videos. Tate explained why his comments are taken out of context so often (because people don’t listen to his long form content). Those are two totally different points. It’s mind blowing that both you and Peirs can’t grasp this concept.
not only did Tate use the very things he's complaining about... he also ends up admitting that he still holds the exact same position he just said he doesn't hold.
@@kklh7918 The viral clips that Tate had his university members disseminate were very short soundbytes that took his own longer form monologues out of context. That is a big contributor to how he skyrocketed to the level of fame he attained. This is objective fact. It worked, but it also meant that a lot of his "misogynistic" comments would be isolated and watched by millions without any broader context. If you're going to capitalize on Tik Tok and youtube shorts algorithms, be prepared to be taken out of context. It is part of the game. He's right to be upset about being taken out of context, but he also needs to understand that he brought it upon himself by engaging with the mediums that he did.
Piers can be a really obnoxious interviewer but Tate just got absolutely slapped here, and saying it was because Piers used underhanded debate tactics or something is pure cope. Tate lost this one all on his own.
"Peter. With massive fame comes massive responsibility. Don't take responsibility for the effects of your words on impressionable young people, Peter. Admit you'd maybe say them differently but also stand by everything you said. Confidence, Peter. You need to have so much confidence that people forget you're doing the exact opposite of taking responsibility." - Uncle Ben from Spider-man 1
Honestly I don't agree with everything Destiny says on a lot of things, however I find he is very important in situations like this. He's able to identify a lot of key issues and he understands social dynamics. Destiny would sharpen a lot of Andrews arguments. Regarding the property thing, I think Andrew used that word originally for the shock and controversial factor and now has to stick to his words so he doesn't look weak backtracking.
Hes also a christian, which makes use of that word more acceptable and normal. Additionally people like piers like to act as if words have single, very strict meanings which isnt the case. My computer chair is my property, but my dog is also my property. How can the definition be strict if those two completely unrelated things are labelled with the same word
@@callanc3925 I see what you're saying. The word they are having most the debate around is authority, Andrew is 100% right though no matter underlying belief he has. If you are to protect someone, you must have some authority over them. That doesn't mean you own them, or even that you have absolute control which Piers is acting like. My boss has control over me at work, because I give it to him. I can walk out of the job. He doesn't own me. This is essentially the point Andrew is making, but Piers is like nope, you're saying ownership because authority.
@@callanc3925 I feel like the word property is fine as long as we aren’t speaking about living breathing humans, in this case, we are speaking about living breathing humans. so the use of the word is unacceptable (at least to my standards, but then i’m biased as i’m a woman….)
Pier's purpose is to constantly manipulate language and drop constant strawmen in debate in order to get GOTCHA moment when the opponent misses one of them out. There is no one who can handle it without just ignoring and talking over him or having actual debate judge with them.
Andrew Tates easy out to this situation is saying, "He regrets that he said what he said (because it can be easily misinterpreted), but does not disagree with it." Maybe I'm just oversimplifying this though.
Thats basically what he said. He recognises that he has to be much more thoughtful and specific with his wordage due to his large platform, but that he doesnt live in regret and he isnt some loser who just changes his mind to avoid heat
Destiny is giving Piers way more credit than he deserves. By not even acknowledging most of the traps until they became blatantly obnoxious, Tate let Piers embarrass himself. There was a glaring IQ gap.
Tate is getting accused of being a violent misogynist who shouts at people. So I actually think it was smart of him not to be confrontational off the bat.
@honestrat03Are you going to answer your false aquastations. How would you feel someone calls you a pedo, but no evidence. You think a criminal would be invited to this show.
Funny about the Myron notepad thing is that he writes down everything you say so he can break it down and counter it, it's a very common thing to do for police interrogations and witness testimony, lawyers also use this for the exact same thing in a courtroom. It is a very good way to keep track of what the opposition is pointing out and saying.
I really like how this video veered toward the mental health aspect. I agree with Destiny about diagnoses. I remember receiving a diagnosis and I just started bawling. Everyone thought I was crying from sadness but they were tears of joy. For so long I struggled in life and didn't know why or how and to one day be able to identify what was going on and how to deal with it was so empowering.
@@JonezBBQ it is a lot harder to fix something when you can't identify what the problem is. Once I knew what my problem was, I was able to improve my life by understanding myself more and developing strategies to overcome my issues. It's like driving a car that gets horrible gas mileage. You know you should be getting more than 5 mpg but without a diagnosis any attempt to improve your car's gas mileage isn't going to be very helpful.
@@JonezBBQ Absolutely. Imagine kinda knowing that something is or may be wrong. Usually you would have this back and forth about doubting yourself as well. Finally getting a clear answer gives you the opportunity to finally work on it.
Cringe. It's just one loosely-trained person's opinion, who has no idea what it's like to be you, and you can never put it into words for them. So, cringe. At the fact that you just accepted it because it validated how you already felt. And you could be wrong.
In my experience, it’s pretty easy for me to tell the difference between depression brought about by a external event vs a internal depression (clinical). When you’re depressed externally, you can pin point what’s making you feel sad (that’s the key word). Clinical depression (internal) is where everything in your world feels very different and off just a bit. You can’t exactly figure out what’s causing it. It’s like your brain got highjacked and is filling it up with morbid and dark thoughts that keep getting injected into your mind that follows you none stop and it breaks you down after a while. Edit To be fair, I’m bipolar 2 so there are times where I’m hypo but a lot of the time I tend to fall into the depression side of the spectrum. The meds I’m on are lamotrigine, fluoxetine, and bupropion. Those do a decent job at greasing the wheels so it makes those life style changes like exercise and having a good diet easier for me. That and see my psychiatrist and therapist regularly and getting good sleep (that’s a big one for me). Meds don’t fix the problem, they just show you the door but it’s not going to carry you, you still gotta do the work yourself to walk through it.
Well said. It's also for me that people think it's about feeling "sad". Depression doesn't make me feel sad. Sad is like you said, I can point to a bad thing that happened or is happening and it upsets me. When I was severely depressed I didn't feel that, I just felt empty and low like nothing mattered or even could matter.
@@Altitudes thats the most insidious thing about depression. It doesnt make you sad, it makes you not care. Happiness and sadness become equal, pleasure and pain become equal. Why get out of bed, when staying in is equal to being productive.
Even Clinical depression can be helped by working on external factors. Get in shape, find purpose in life, do good by others. This would severely improve most peoples clinical depression. Problem is fixing your life like this is still pretty hard.
@@silversalmon9909 Exactly. And I think the other thing Tate doesn't get is that he's not entirely wrong that a "good" response to depression is to get out there and throw yourself into a bunch of activities to work on yourself and help raise your mood. What people like him miss entirely is that the basic things that might ease your depression can become absolutely the last thing you would ever want to do. It wasn't that easy when I was a chronically fatigued insomniac and walking to the shops to get a decent diet and some exercise brought about massive anxiety because I might have to talk to someone when I wanted to be alone. That's where medication comes in. The medication eased the symptoms enough that then I could start building up a healthy lifestyle. You can't always short cut that with "Nah, it ain't real bro, let's hit the gym".
The difference is between depressed feelings caused by present life conditions vs past life events. Neither are fixed in a person's DNA and can be overcome, though more easily with the former than the latter. And that doesn't include a life-long dependence on psycho-active drugs developed by companies that created these categories in the first place so they could sell more of their products, not that dissimilar to Hallmark creating Mother's Day. .
Ok something that bugged me with this piers vs Tate interview was how Tate gets stopped by Piers from going world view but then Piers near the end does the exact same thing to try and answer Tate's question on if men and women are for the most part equal under the law. That bugged me a bit.
Tate got to used to blaming everything on getting taken out of context and now when he's given the chance to put it in context he says the exact same thing and when Piers pushes back he just shifts the blame around and will lie to try and make it look like he won the conversation.
nah he just didnt know and he has a point piers been interrupting him the whole time, its a trap, if you've been neutral watching and know nothing about tate, you'd know
@@hallucy2215 nope. He had plenty of time to speak. The idea you can't clarify a five word sentence in under an essay is insane. This is some Richard Wolfe level "debate" lmao.
1:06:00 Tate: "I've gotten lots of emails from people who have told me I cured their clinical depression, and I've gotten almost no emails from people after they have committed suicide due to stopping their treatments because of my system, so therefore my system works." This is the definition of "survivorship bias." and Tate doesn't understand it.
I’m no Tate apologist but how is he supposed to explain his comments/thoughts when Piers constantly affords him roughly 3 seconds to respond to anything before interrupting, interjecting or changing the question/topic?
1:06:40 - I think diet/exercise/sleep can be effective preventatives for depression, but I don’t think they’re the solution. The key issue is that if a depressed person had the willpower to diet properly and exercise, they probably aren’t depressed to begin with. It’s sort of a paradoxical way of ‘solving’ depression. Speaking as someone who was actually depressed and required medication, the medicine was the ‘kick start’ my brain required, it reduced my depression to the point where I could start building these healthy habits; healthy habits which have stayed with me and help keep me straight now I’m off meds.
But that is only 1 type of depression. The type that comes and goes. You get depressive, then you get on meds, fix it...and you are good. Some people will never be off meds and not fall back into depression. Regardless of the amount of exercise and whatever else you think helps. Many others come out of it on thier own. The only issue is, they go to the OTHER extreme. This is manic depression. Also called bi-polar. It's like you guys are saying, "well, put a bandaid and some neosporin on your cut. Duh" Not understanding a cut can go from your toe to your scalp and go through your body. Neosporin and a bandaid won't do a damn thing for that. You need a surgeon, and a neuropathologist. (is this a real word? A neuropathy specialist.) The issue here is the wording. "Depression" is just as non-descript as "cut." There are different types, and what worked for YOU won't necessarily work for another.
Medication doesn’t make you less depressed it makes you less yourself. That is my experience anyways. Not trying to put you down just giving my 2 cents
You could just as easily say that to a large percentage of people, depression is the cure to an unfulfilling life. Depression forces introspection and often results in a person developing a sense of will power and discipline- anything to avoid hitting the lowest of lows. Some people use depression as a motivational tool, as the enemy they have to overpower in pursuit of their goals. Depression is a nebulous term and is actually as malleable as people claim gender is. There is no one size fits all description and no single solution to any of them. The only sure-fire thing is that there IS a solution and it would be a damn shame to give up before you've tried all of them.
@@sit-insforsithis1568 your analogy vs mine. Antidepressants don’t work for everyone; for me I certainly felt different, but I also felt less depressed. For me that trade off was worth it considering I wasn’t able to live a happy life as my ‘normal’ self. Plus, personally I don’t view a depressed person as their ‘normal’ self; I would expect you to feel unusual on antidepressants because suddenly you’re less depressed and the lack of that depression will feel extremely strange. To the other commenter who suggested I’m saying diet an exercise solves depression for everyone, I am not; I’m saying even if you do need to stay on antidepressants, diet and exercise will improve your mental health from that point onwards. depression, anxiety and many other mental illnesses are fixable but the afflicted needs to want to fix it, personally I think that can be an incredibly difficult hurdle for people who are depressed; it took me years to even accept I was mentally ill, let alone to actually do something about it.
There could be no evidence that a 26 year old woman would have had more sex then a 18 or 19 year old woman... well the fact that they had more years sexually active would probably be a good metric to assume that by.
@@davidsparrow-m3p Do you think that's an inaccurate assumption ? If you looked at stats of 1000 19 year old woman and 1000 25 year old woman, you think the assumption would be inaccurate?
In the very beginning Tate mentions something along the lines of "If I am burdened with the responsibility of my wife's safety...". Is something that I don't quite agree with. Taking care of or wanting to keep somebody safe especially in the case of a marriage should not be a burden. You don't actually have to run into a burning building if your wife is in there, and there shouldn't be any moral issues if you don't either. Such a behaviour of trying to save someone at the expense of your own life comes from the heart if you really love your partner, it's just something that you do, not some type of marragie checklist that you are now burdened with, nor should you have to having authority over her actions.
You're right YET marriage isn't that clear cut some people are burdened. Like how some women feel overwhelmed with house upkeep and the kid(s). Where they removed themselves from friends and family. Even if they burned that bridge themselves. Or you have those women that isolate men from such and even hassle him about how much he works. There's a lot in relationships that modern people see as burdens. Personally Tate's take that "he has to protect her no matter what" reminds me of somebody whom don't want to be #1 suspect when something bad happens. He's stricken by that ideal of a woman he's supposed to take care of ending up in a ditch and he has no alibi because "I was at home" isn't enough.
Yeah well thats where you differ in opinion with what a marriage is. In his eyes a man is wholely responsible for his womans safety. He thinks relationships have roles, theres nothing wrong with that
Either Andrew Tate does not know the definition of some of the words he uses, or he is trying to have his cake and eat it too. When has calling someone property ever meant a person with their own sovereignty?
In his world view, a woman can choose to be with him. But that choice means that she has to follow what he tells her to. If she doesn't want to, she can leave.
@@daizenmarcurio He is not, but just because other people use words that have little correlation with the actual meaning does not make him any more correct in using them.
@@amitklain4199 It's not about thinking as if I'm above anything, it's about doing what needs to be done regardless of how I feel... What's the benefit in believing "I have depression", other than using it as an excuse to not work as hard. Now of course there are exceptions, some people are born without arms and legs, some people have physical problems with their brain, I'm talking in general, in general most people are born with arms and legs, and don't have physical problems with their brain.
@@lancevance6346 Pierce moved on because he wanted to make it look like depression is an actual serious disorder, instead of a feeling that can be overcome.
Destiny says that Piers is like the opposite of that guy who will move onto a topic so you don’t realize you’ve scored a point. I think Piers has done this thing where he goes down a line of questioning that is either immediately deemed irrelevant or losing, and quickly interrupts tate before he can show this
No not really, tate dances around and in his own way tries to pry out his answer from a different angle to make the answer seem different from what piers is actually asking. Tate re-iterates the same answer almost every time almost dismissing every question usually along the lines “taken out of context” “my fame has responsibility” so on and so on…like no…that’s not part of the conversation we are not here to talk about that. I personally believe destiny is right in point on what the piers analogy because it’s true, tate was not really doing much in his own defense yet piers keeps asking him repeatedly because he doesn’t actually answer in a straight way (either because maybe he knows his answer will anger more people or he just doesn’t know what to say). With that being said, even though in some parts where piers is wrong like insinuating to Tate that he is somewhat “forcing women into relationships” yea…it’s annoying when he keeps bringing up points like that but then again Tate still doesn’t do a great job at providing actual good points at all. All this in combination makes both parties look like they are losing
To add onto my comment, at 35:20 Destiny actually give s a very good example on what I am saying. The goal for Piers and Tate are simple. Piers is trying to pry out an answer from Tate to hopefully prove his own point and Tate is SUPPOSED to say what he actually thinks…which he half-asses because he is either too strung on the conversation or is too afraid too say what he thinks…and I think it’s safe to assume that we all know how he thinks because we have all heard it from him and if you studied these political beliefs before you would know the red pill overview of the world. Which is fine, but Andrew fails to actually say what he thinks for whatever reason
@@recordstraight556 I don’t got the time stamp, but at some point Piers asks Tate about his view on trans women. It’s the one example that came to mind when writing my original comment. Tate gave a full response, and didn’t really dance or deflect. Soon as Piers realizes that, he jumps into a different question. Piers’ win condition is just to make Tate look bad. He doesn’t need to actually prove him wrong on anything, just scold him for what he’s said in the past. Tate still makes HIMSELF look bad bc he clearly isn’t a good debater, but that’s a different point. I’m just saying Piers isn’t afraid to cut a line of questioning as soon as it isn’t going his way
@@recordstraight556 I don’t got the time stamp, but at some point Piers asks Tate about his view on trans women. It’s the one example that came to mind when writing my original comment. Tate gave a full response, and didn’t really dance or deflect. Soon as Piers realizes that, he jumps into a different question. Piers’ win condition is just to make Tate look bad. He doesn’t need to actually prove him wrong on anything, just scold him for what he’s said in the past. Tate still makes HIMSELF look bad bc he clearly isn’t a good debater, but that’s a different point. I’m just saying Piers isn’t afraid to cut a line of questioning as soon as it isn’t going his way
I've had notable mental problems since before kindergarten, and I have actively tried to improve. Whenever I can't handle something and try to find any type of middleground, no one even makes an attempt. I can't blame them when I see so many people online and in real life whining and demanding change over every tiny detail. I love you all, fuck you.
if you're having to physically enforce obedience - you probably shouldn't be in that relationship because you're no longer a team the qualifier moral in moral authority also counteracts what enforce obedience would typically be interpreted as. Moral authority means that someone has the power or right to give orders and make decisions on a position of moral authority Tate got about 60% there with piecing together his argument - since the expectation is on the man to provide for the security of their partner, they must be imbued with authority to be able to make decisions regarding security matters, not only because that is the only effective way they can perform that task, but also because they are the person who will take the brunt of the damage, giving them moral authority. That does not mean they can or should physically stop their partner from doing what they want, but it does mean that their suggestion should carry hefty weight. Of course, any relationship can devolve to be abusive, but if we are making the assumption that a relationship is broadly healthy, then it must be kept in mind that both partners want what is best for the other, and that they need to respect one another. I find in general this kind of content to be quite useless though and just pits the genders together, its good for clicks but not healthy for society. The key thing to remember is that we should respect people of all backgrounds as human individuals with agency, and interact with them based on how they present themselves to us.
I think the problem is Andrew Tate has huge semantics issues, be it his education level, failure to understand English words properly, or falsely educated the words to mean something else.
Any intelligent and reasonable person wouldn't get hung up on semantics if you understand the point someone is trying to make. Tate isn't speaking incoherently and with the proper context and an adequate understanding of the language, you can fill in for any semantic or syntactical errors with just the slightest application of basic logical reasoning. This is nothing more than a "I'm unable (or unwilling) to challenge the merit of your argument, but you're a doodey head, nanna nanna boo boo" nothing-burger complaint.
Piers is doing the exact same thing. Did you not hear him say "authority means one strict and exact thing" then 5 seconds later say "no I have LEGAL authority over my children." If authority has one strict meaning then saying legal with such emphasis is meaningless. He also claimed voluntary authority isnt a thing but all authority is voluntary. When a group of people elect a leader they are voluntarily giving that person authority. When we let police enforce the law, we are voluntarily giving them authority. When we elect a government, we are voluntarily giving them authority to create legislation and control how the country is run.
@@callanc3925 Exactly. And Piers claims that you don't have authority if the person disobeys or doesn't follow the order. His children can disobey him. So what now Piers. Do you no longer have authority over your children when they disobey? I think Piers confused legal authority with legal responsibility of taking care of his children. He can get in trouble for not taking care of them, but not when they disobey his orders or suggestions.
@@alexl8445 And to take that even further, if they disobey him and he gets violent with them, hes the one that goes to jail. Meanwhile if you disobey the authority of the state, they will get violent with you and you will go to jail
Idk i think Piers did poorly here. While Tate didn’t deliver the perfect responses, he did keep his cool when he could have easily clapped Piers’ line of reasoning and nagging mannerisms. Note: I’m not familiar with Tate’s content prior to this
Are you insane? Tate was dodging questions like a madman. Everytime piers asked do you think X, Tate would respond with a different awnser then the question was and then end it with so we agree. Destiny is being so incredibly charitable with Tate its insane. If fuentes or vaush was responding in this way or making simmular arguments he would have destroyed them.
16:20, tate should respond with "Do you think your boss has authority over you within the confines of your job?" and then when he answers yes, "Does your boss own you?". Would completely annihilate his point. That authority = ownership. He would have to concede that either a boss owns you, or a part of you, and that it's normal and acceptable or they don't own you and tate can make the point that marriage is the same, and that it is a transaction of value. You do what your boss asks, for money. Your wife obeys you for security and stability. I would never run my relationships like that myself, but it's not the big stretch they make it out to be if you remove all the moralization, or you compare to other accepted social structures and hierarchies within your culture. Still, Tate needs to bite the bullet on the 'property' part because it's hella cringe, and it was clearly just said to act edgy.
Two things: First: Tate DID say, that a husband owns his wife. Thats literally what the word property means. He backs off and doubles down at the same time, which is really weird. Second: Yes, a boss has authority over you. But he pays you. You are not equal partners. Thats kind of the point. Tate acts like he is just providing his expertise, but in reality he want's the authority over a woman, being able to tell her what to do.
I would say that myself in response to Morgan talking about how "voluntary authority" doesn't exist, but Tate also literally said a wife is a husbands property and did not back down from that at all. Obviously you have authority over your own property, but then it isn't voluntary. I don't have to try to talk my PlayStation into running a game, or ask anyone else's permission to use it however I want, because it's my property. I do need to get consent from my wife for her to do something, because she's not my property. I also would not say I have authority over her, because we're equal partners. I do have authority over my dog, who is unquestionably beneath me socially.
@@krombopulos_michael you guys are missing the nuance. The definition of property is that something belongs to someone. Tate has affirmed this by saying the woman takes the last name, and is handed over to the man. He has also said that he believes all people are sovereign. The only way he can believe all these things is if he believes that the wife belongs to the man in a voluntary state of authority. Therefore her belonging to him is more like she is his responsibility and she should be loyal to him. Most people have a very narrow definition of the word “property” where it only applies to objects so the implication is that it’s no consensual control. The boss employee argument is very good. The boss has authority over the employee not because they pay the employee but because they have more responsibility in the company. If the employee doesn’t want to voluntarily submit to the boss’s authority they are free to leave but lose the money that the job provides. It’s the same thing with Tate’s views on relationships where if the woman doesn’t want to voluntarily submit to the man’s authority then she can leave but she loses his financial security and physical protection.
At the end of the day, Tate wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to be inflammatory and provocative bc its what drives engagement, but he also wants to remain in the good graces of the mainstream to some degree, bc he realizes he’s not big enough to make it without access to larger platforms. He can either backtrack on his more extreme statements, or he can die on the hill of “wives are their husband’s property” and keep letting people like Piers bash him over the head with it. He keeps saying that people are “weaponizing” his words against him-my brother in christ, YOU gave them the ammo.
@John Haney this is the second time you commented the same dumbshit. There is no amount of interpersonal relationship context where saying someone is property makes sense-unless youre being provacative for views (ding ding ding). Common sense doesn’t mean you try and be as charitable as possible when someone uses a term incorrectly to insinuate something else. Everyone and their mother understood why he used the word “property” and its bc he literally sells an image of authority over another independent being. When I say “thats MY girlfriend” my implication is that this is an interdependent relationship-Tate’s understanding of how relationships work is paternalistic as hell, talking like he’s his girl’s dad lmao
@John Haney Yeah then use the right term lmao. It's like saying "i'm gonna kill the this person" then claim "oh no when I said kill I meant that I was gonna roast him so hard that he would die" Like wtf? You have to clear with your message and the words you use. The fact that Tate refuses reword his statement to better fit his "actual" views on women is kind of suspicious.
@John Haney Just saying, if you use a term with a proper definition, improperly, you wont be able to convince anyone of anything. Thats on Tate to make that distinction, not on the people listening to him to assume he meant something else.
@John Haney Ironic because people with common sense would know that the term "property" only has one meaning in relation to human beings and that is quite literally synonymous with "owning" someone. What you're trying to do is pull the "taken out of context" card when the context is very clear to everyone who isn't meatriding Tate.
1:21:50 Destiny: to me, having a cordial sit down with someone like nick is the same thing as Andrew Tate being on Alex Jones’ show. Do you agree with Tate that he’s not crossing any moral lines to be on Alex Jones’ show and if not, where do you draw the line?
Andrew Tate used the word "Property" because he wanted to get people's attention and now that he's being called on it he's trying to weasel his way out. As Morgan said "You need to take responsibility for the things you've said."
Historically, marriage has exclusively been tied to filial piety or concepts that resemble it. The entire purpose of marriage has been to share communal or prospective wealth with another family, using that marriage as the bridge between them. Modern marriages rely less on this as things become less scarce, so for the last 200-300 years they've been romanticized and marketed as the modern ideal. This is an incredibly modern, incredibly western concept that has only become globalized in the last ~100 years. Most modern marriages still symbollicly present women as property that is being transferred from family to family. In about half of Asian and a few African countries, this isn't even symbollic. It's just the reality of the situation. Are people just unaware of this fact, or are they being intentionally dense because it's fun to shit on Andrew Tate?
@@undeadman7676 That's one way to say "Other parts of the world still practice filial piety" and I agree with you ... But the reality is that words like "property" aren't viewed as a "modern ideal" anymore, especially in the west which is where most of the blow back has come from. Tate was the one being "dense" here because of his reluctance to concede that.
@@undeadman7676 300 hundred years ago, I could have caved your skull in with a large stone for stealing strawberries from my garden, should I be able to do that even now because it’s “tradition”?
I feel like Andrew Tate could have slam dunked Piers Morgan so hard on the respect point, if he'd just said "I respect you, and you hacked a dead girls phone for a story" It is really ironic for Piers to talk about causing misery in the world after everything he did as a journalist in the early 00s
@@user-ko9tc1go3h How is it a tu quoque? The subject of the criticism isn't Pierce or Andrew Tate. Pierce is making a point that you should be unable to show respect to people who cause misery/negative impact in the world. It's a contradictory statement to say that and be juxtaposed by saying "we all have skeletons in our closet". Going even further Piers Morgan is showing Andrew Tate respect during the conversation, while arguing that he has a negative impact on children, how is that not contradictory.
"You haven't been taken out of context because I read the entire sentence." I don't know if Tate was taken out of context here, but this is so dishonest. It would be great if someone clip chimped Piers and made a compilation. "No Context Needed"
You don't even need to clip chimp Piers, when he gets emboldened he starts becoming more brazen with what he says, and often ends up with his foot in his mouth due to it. The reason why he "gets away with it" is he simply does not care when this happens and rarely references them.
Yeah it is true that an entire sentence can alsl be out of context, but Tate also never really provides any illuminating context that would make people see it differently. The occasional times he does give some, it seems basically irrelevant. Instead of giving some clarification and saying "I know when you hear that, it sounds like X, but what it actually means is Y", he basically just repeatedly says that it was taken out of context, but then also says that he does believe what he's accused of saying and that he isn't sorry and doesn't have any regrets.
@@krombopulos_michael Tate almost ALWAYS gives greater context. Destiny in this video is complaining about the depths of his thought process he explain in this fucking video. Why are you lying for no reason?
The point is this is a long-form interview so if Tate wants to claim his quote is out of context, this is the forum where he has the time to put it in context. But he can’t bc the context is actually damning. That’s why he never explains the “missing” context.
Piers Morgan is the most annoying interviewer that ever existed. He isn't interested in the answers a guest will answer. He wants them to answer based on his prior judgments and hammer it down until he thinks he gets it. Andrew tried to start his answer a gazillion times and then Piers says a qualifier and asks another question. He's manipulative and I will never see him as anything but tabloid
Tate seems to just not understand what the words he is using mean. "I can't be transphobic, i'm not afraid of anything" "I can't be racist, i'm mixed race" "I can't be mysoginistic, i don't hate women, I love women"
destiny, what you're missing is the fact that so many people are familiar with this kind of interview, especially after cathy newman, and probably results in more support for the person being interviewed just because the interviewer comes off as so slimy.
@@leonodonoghueburke4276 I did and she was slimy. This is the problem when people don't know how to interview their guest. They instead insists on arguing and strawmaning instead of just asking about someone's opinions and stances in neutral manner.
I don't understand why Tate keeps saying that it's unfortunate that young boys misunderstand him... But when Tate is pressed on what he actually means by what he says, he ultimately just doubles down on what he said (albeit in a very weasly and whiny way). So what exactly is it that these young boys are "misunderstanding"? Aren't these young boys picking up EXACTLY what Tate is in fact putting down?
This is why I think Tate is right and this is pointless. If someone is misunderstanding you then your delivery was not good. Tate is saying his delivery could have been better. That doesn't mean he believes his points were wrong. This 2+2=4 level logic and you're either to dishonest or stupid to put it together. Why would someone even bother to have a good delivery when something so simple is misconstrued almost maliciously.
Tate's achilles heal is that he wants to be loved (and mainstream), and that’s why he appears to be on the back foot in this exchange. Honestly, the simple responses should’ve been: 1. I meant “she’s his property” in the same way people say “we belong to each other”. 2. I meant “I have authority over her” in the same way an employer has authority over an employee, or else they cease to be an employee. 3. I meant “18 y/o are better than 25 y/o” because in general men still prefer youth, beauty, and chastity.
Ok so you understand his positions and why they’re reasonable. So what’s the problem here? Piers tried to frame him as a terrible person when he isn’t. Tate is being attacked so why wouldn’t he be on the back foot? He’s there to answer questions not interrogate Piers.
@@ThomasFoolery8 the problem is that Tate needs to articulate himself better or else all the young boys watching him will get the wrong message and that’s dangerous.
Piers Morgan said he's not arguing semantics but I feel like the majority of this interview is entirely semantics lol. Semantics is about the meaning of words and for most of the stuff Andrew is saying it means one thing and Piers is saying it means another - it is entirely semantics and just because Piers says "no it's not" doesn't make it so.
What Piers is arguing is that because of the way he's wording things he's casting a damaging message out to the public. It's not semantics for instance when Tate uses "authority" but then describes a situation where him and his significant other are working together as a team, and blah blah blah. Authority is not interpreted in this way by anyone. Literally anyone. Authority by definition ALWAYS has to do with power over someone, their decisions, and command. Tate is either A) completely wrong and doesn't understand the word (unlikely), or B) trying to save face by portraying his actual view in a better light than it actually is. Has nothing to do with semantics in some if not most of these cases.
@@randomyoutubecommenterr The authority argument was absolutely semantics lmao. Piers claimed that authority can only mean one thing, then went on to say "no i have LEGAL authority over my children." If authority only means one thing then why is he going to the effort to add the word legal, and emphasising it so hard. Not to mention him saying theres no such thing as voluntary authority. Damn near all authority is voluntary lmao.
@@randomyoutubecommenterr Andrew "I'm not mysoginistic i just think that a woman's value is based on how much dick she's had and that i should have authority over my wife" Tate the man seems to be working with his own personal set of definitions
@@randomyoutubecommenterr But to enact your responsibility over something or someone it requires a level of authority innately so how is Tate wrong? Piers goes on to say Tate has no idea what authority means while defining it under some pure legal form, so you're telling me without law you have no authority over your children? If the state takes them away your authority in reality is voided? Plus he states authority cannot be voluntary which was absolute horseshit XD
the "authority" argument was a semantics issue because he made it clear he was talking about a suggestion to stay home rather than an order to stay home. But even still he massively fucked up by comparing his wife to a child, makes it seem like he's talking about actual authority and not moral authority. He also says somewhere around the 22:15 mark "if I have responsibility etc then I have to make the decisions" so he IS objectively talking about actual authority and not moral authority, it is consensual though. No idea what Piers was trying to talk about that authority can't be consensual because it obviously can and that's obviously what he was talking about. I assume he was just trying to make Andrew Tate look worse which is asinine because Andrew Tate does that perfectly all by himself. the "property" argument was not at all a semantics issue, he doubled down on believing that a woman is his property and was desperately trying (and failing) to come up with flowery ways to phrase it so as to make it sound less bad. He well and truly believes that his wife is his property. It became impossible for him to defend this argument the second he said it was because he was religious. The religious belief that a woman is her man's property is VERY clearly defined and set about as meaning literal property, and he already made it clear he fully and truly agrees with that religious argument lol.
Destiny fails to realize that these two are playing a game. Tate is taking the Trump approach: never back down, never admit you misspoke, don't apologize. Piers comes from Boomer media, where the most important thing in a debate is power, not logic. Piers spent 40 minutes playing the game, trying to get Tate to admit he misspoke, until Piers finally gave up, and they moved on to an actual conversation. After that it was all over. Tate won.
Obviously you were not watching Piers Morgan interview with Tate, where he had to admit he said things he wouldn't say now coz he has more followers and many fanboys like Sneako and you. Guy called Destiny with 552k subs analise it and Tate could've done better explaning himself to Tate.
it's easy to label things as "boomer media" when you can't articulate yourself. To go head on with piers, you have to be extremely clear and not let the snake wiggle within your own words and tate is unable to do that. Piers thrives in wiggling in the words you say. Tate is not prepared at all for him to play with his words. Tate lost here because he's being man handled by Piers.
@@unyieldingmonotony4453 He would “say the same thing but differently” aka he would not say the same thing. Not to mention, Tate originally refused to even admit that he should have changed his wording at all. Only after over an hour of getting beatdown by Piers did he finally admit that his wording was off in many scenarios.
Just wanted to put this out there I haven’t talked or emailed Andrew about my “diagnosed” medical condition, which was clinical depression, I don’t want to get too into it but I thought I was gonna feel like shit everyday for the rest of my life, this lasted 3 years. I was on every medication you can think of, when I was introduced to andrews content after it completely takes over your social feed and nails his opinions and views into your head even if you don’t agree with them. His take on depression really stuck in my head, I was willing to try anything to stop feeling the way I used to feel. So I started self analyzing myself and wanted to change my habits good or bad, started working out not staying up late even on weekends and waking up early almost consistently, and I can honestly say I feel 3000x better than any advice or shit meds those fucking self proclaimed doctors have given or “helped” me with. Now I’m still on a journey and I haven’t gotten the hard work part completely right but I’m on my way, and I’m with Andrew on this a 100% Clinical depression is for 99% of people self curable. Do not self limit yourself.
Also forgot to say I went from 55kg to 62 kg in 6 months , I started working out like crazy. It’s really the best form of therapy there is, physical self confidence
When Tate says depressed people need to work out and change their lifestyle that is completely true. When Tate says that depression doesn't exist and is a fake disease that is hogwash.
@31:28 he was explaining the context of that conversation over and over Destiny. He kept saying that it was a Woman who SPECIFICALLY asked about the scenario of him being a protector if she was married to him. He then explained he would get married to only someone who would accept that so it would be consensual. Bruh.
I genuinely agree here with destiny my anti anxiety/ depression mess seriously help me be able to maintain control. But that said it it wasn't for my goals ambition and motivation to achieve them I'd ve very very depressed and living am incredibly different life. Additionally: further validating destiny's stamens about depression not being a settled science. I know I suffer from depression and a lot of tome ot seemed like nothing I did would make it better. I never really suffered from ambition and aspirations. But I still just couldn't be happy no matter how good my life was. I took multiple ssri's. This ended up with me leaving them completely because they only seemed to make things worse and eventually a year or two later about to breakdown crying in my doctor's office about how I just didn't know what to do and was prepared to give up. That I wasn't suicidal but like I hate life. But have huge aspirations and goals. Anyway she ended up prescribing an snri and I can't explain the night and day difference between how I feel now. As someone who from a placebo standpoint had no faith it would help at all!
On the authority thing, rather than Tate using a comparison with the child/parent dynamic, he should have used the Employer/Employee Dynamic. You voluntarily go into that relationship, but you give authority to your employer to choose your hours, your job description, your pay, and even some stuff you do outside the workplace. They cannot technically ENFORCE that authority, but you still voluntarily comply with the rules to maintain the relationship. That is the same kind of authority that a man in traditional relationships have over their woman's activities outside of the household.
Definitely a better example. And if they could get past the example of how this “authority” works, they could talk about wether or not this traditional set up is actually a good thing or not. Or wether or not that authority is mutual.
You actually do have rights over your wife and vice versa. one example is medical power of attorney. The thing is wife or husband has the right to with draw the rights, unless that's changed in recent years.
Tate really got handled for most of this debate by Piers. That said, there were a number of times where it was patently obvious Piers was intentionally twisting things, and a time or two used as much deflection as he accused Tate of using in order to avoid answering a clarifying question from Tate or just ignoring a clarifying statement that was being made. He used a lot of dirty internet debate tactics like interrupting Tate during explanations to keep him off any rythm, and was being obtuse when Tate was telling him very clearly that Destiny is a women's name.
Tate got handled?? Did we watch 2 different interviews? I saw the entire thing and don't recall one time where he got "handled." He's a little toned down from his usual self but I'd attribute that to the platform he's on. If anything he stood his ground.
I think the best argument agaisnt tate is that you don't need to have authority over a woman to protect her. You can protect her and respect her as an individual who has authority over themselves
i would argue you're still exercising a form of authority by basically explicitly establishing that you are needed to provide or protect for her. To be clear my belief is that in any kind of monogamous relationship each partner belongs to one another and I think what Tate is actually trying to get across is about traditional societal roles. The language is fucking terrible and too hard-line to really understand though
what you are saying makes no sense, in a relationship you need to have some authority over your partner, that is why you don't sleep with other people, because you both agree that you don't have sex with other people.
Your wording of you “can” protect her is the difference. You “can” do anything. But if a woman is mine, I “have” to protect her as its my duty and whats expected from me.
The younger girls have less dick through them as his reasoning is hilarious because it might not even be true. One of my friends at 18 years old (10 years ago for us) had already slept with more than double the amount of men I've slept with at 28 years old. It depends on thr person not the age lol
Piers Morgan is actually amazing, listening to him constantly cut off Tate actually made me empathize towards Tate, which is something I though previously impossible.
Kinda like how Tate, Fresh and Fit, and the rest of the red pill community do to all the women they have come on their show. If they’re cool with verbally slapping around women who obviously aren’t ready for a debate, i think Piers can have his fun with Tate.
My girlfriend asks me to help her with updating her mobile phone, updating her laptop, cleaning stuff, dealing with potential viruses on her computer, etc. She expects me to deal with this as if this is my expertise in our relationship. And I accept to do this for her. If I tell her - subsequently - don't download anything from internet without asking me first, then I have AUTHORITY over her decision what to download. She cannot download anything prior to asking me if that is OK. This stems from our mutual understanding that my duty is to deal with the shit on the internet. If she expects me to deal with the virus shit, she has to listen to what I say regarding this issue. If she does not listen, then she has no right to expect me to waste my time in helping her with digital technology. That's what AUTHORITY means. My authority over her decisions in the certain matters comes from her expectations (and our understanding) of me being responsible to deal with those matters. If she's not going to listen, she cannot expect me to deal with this for her. It would be really morrrronic to constantly correct other people's mistakes and when you tell them not to do something in order to avoid those mistakes, they don't listen, but still expect you to deal with their mistakes. It's really promoting narcissistic idiotism and infantilism. The same works in other situations: if my girlfriend and I have an understanding that I will protect her if attacked or in any dangerous situations, then I have the AUTHORITY to decide, for example, which road we will take, or which club we'll go out. If I consider some club to be dangerous or in a dangerous neighborhood, then I have the AUTHORITY to tell her not to go there. This is what it means to have AUTHORITY. And there are some other fields in life where my girlfriend has AUTHORITY over me. And, Piers Morgan is a morrrron, he was licking balls to Jordan Peterson a week before this interview, and did all Cathy Newman's mistakes from her Peterson interview on Andrew Tate.
19:05 “Voluntary authority is not authority” Not sure if this is a statist talking point or an anarchist talking point but it certainly isn’t the dunk that piers thinks it is.
@@testcase6997 Yes, but most modern countries have governments that operate under the pretense that they wield authority “with the consent of the governed”.
@@testcase6997 Oh shit, that’s not a refutation of my argument. Thanks for playing. Piers comes from the UK. The same UK that birthed Robert Peel, who gave the world the Peelian principles for policing. The main principle being that policing can only be done with the approval of the public. What Piers just said flies in the face of a topic that would have been on his GCSE’s.
@@testcase6997 So your boss doesnt have authority over you? What about the coach or captain of your soccer team? What about the police? The government? Your landlord?
The reason why doctors push medication so much is because that is what the majority of patients want. Lifestyle modification as a form of treatment just goes in one ear and out the other. It’s like a dentist telling people to floss.
It's actually insane how hard tate got gaslighted by piers on the authority argument, he didn't even try to push back on piers straw house idea of authority lol.
@@soakupthenoise I'm aware, but it really doesn't matter in this context. The point is still communicated just fine, no one is thinking piers is an abuser or something lmao.
facts it’s funny too cause if you look up the definition of authority they are both right and piers was piggybacking off his argument that tate was completely wrong about the definition of authority
Well the definition of authority is: the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Tate was trying to use a small part of that by saying that he has the right to suggest that his wife not do something, but using the full word "authority" means that he has the right to suggest not to do something but also to force her to abide by those suggestions, aka obedience. Tate speaks as if he believes the second but responds to questions as if he believes the first, but never backs away from his use of the word authority which shows he believes the second. I also personally believe that he would use the full definition of authority in his relations with his wife.
Notice that Piers thinks it’s perfectly acceptable for Tate’s narrative that men are responsible for protecting and providing and putting their lives at risk for women. But when the script is flipped and Tate says that responsibility comes with authority over a woman, THEN traditional gender roles are a problem. Instead of looking at it as a fair exchange, ultimately as long as the roles benefit the woman, and her only, he is silent.
Which is why I don't like it when Tate doesn't say the whole quote. Paraphrasing it goes "If you're responsible for something that means you have some degree of authority to it. Why? Because responsibility WITHOUT authority is slavery"
“Tate getting handled” was destiny watching the same thing? Morgan was pathetic. Cheap ‘tactics’ answered his own questions and attacked his own answer. Tate was obfuscating a bit but mostly it was a common Morgan L
@@daizenmarcurio Morgan has always been cheap. It’s why he lost his role as The Mirror editor for knowingly publishing fake pictures of British soldiers abusing prisoners because he was anti Iraq war. Another low point was when recently divorced singer Peter André was on Morgan’s talk show… Morgan was trying to get Andre to say disgusting things about the mother of his children, who was a c-list celeb in the UK. Andre repeatedly said he wouldn’t and it’s disrespectful yet Morgan kept pushing for that tabloid BS. He’s always been a slime ball.
Why do these “influencers” go and try to make a living on the internet that the whole 9 billion of us have access to. Then get angry when a percentage of the population disagree with them. Then name call them because they disagree with them??!!
Tate fans if Tate Won this debate why are Him and his team putting out statements that this interview is heavily edited. If they thought he came out on top it wouldn’t matter.
Because the truth is the truth regardless of what happens. Just go and look at the comment sections of the interview, and all the people that cover the interview most people said Tate won and came out looking better only BETAs like destiny think otherwise
HE WASNT ABD AND ALSO BDW IT WASNT A DEBATE BUT AN INTERVIEWS TEHRE IS HUGE DIFFERENCE. DESTINY OCNSATNTLY DOES HIS MANIPULATION TACTICS FOR HIS YES MEN AUDIENCE AND COSNATNTLY LOOOKS AT THINGS AS DEBATE WHERE IN THIS SITUATION IT WAS NOT. BUT THAT INST THE POINT THEPOINT IS DESTINY WON (YOU AND MANY OTEHR ARE THE PROOF OF THAT) IS THAT DESTINY CRAFTLY MANIPULATES STUFF TO FIT HIS NARRATIVE AND YOU EATING IT LIEK CAKES.
Idk how it’s not obvious what Andrew is saying when he says he stands by what he says. He’s saying he stands by what he says in that, within the context of the conversation, what he said was conveying a specific message. He did not foresee it getting weaponized against him in the future. So when you’re asking him if he regrets what he said, he’s obviously going to say no. He understands what he was trying to say in the context of that conversation. I think what Andrew is saying is that the only thing he would change, is how he said it, to prevent it from being so weaponized against him. That’s not saying he regrets what he said or what he meant, he regrets not ensuring that it won’t be weaponized against him.
He was asked *several times* in this interview if he would change his wording and he said no. As Piers said, he didn't come to rectify or clear anything up, he came to double down on his positions...
@@halosaft he attempted to say that he WOULD several times. He was trying to lay out the premise that he wouldn’t say it that way now with his large following. Piers was asking if Tate disagreed with what he previously said. Tate’s saying no, because he believes in what he said. He actually was trying to say, again, many times that he would 100% change is phrasing, as he does agree that it sounds bad and is being weaponized against him.
@@AyoBurbs Yes, just like you said, he's saying no because he believes in what he said. He doubled down on his old comments. The only thing he said, several times mind you, is that he wouldn't say that today because he would be more careful with what he says. All he's saying is that what he said is what he still believe and today he would just keep his opinions like that to himself. How is that not doubling down on his own comments..?
Destiny you have absolute mind-rot. You've so concerned with the style of the debate, the rhetoric, that you have dissociated yourself from the actual content of the debate.
@@skoomaenjoyer9582 you'd think that they would stop that tactic after being called out on it so many times. I think it's just a sleazy way to tire your conversation partner
What's the point of getting married if you don't want to belong to each other? How is your wife/husband not your property? "Your", is the key word here.
@@usrnotfound1859 Why does that matter? He also said women can't drive, and then followed up saying "I'm speaking only about the women I personally saw myself, I know there are women that can drive, I'm not talking about every woman on earth"
@@its_herocast276 not sure if you are defending him but that dude is such a fucking weasel, my goodness. How can you be making a generalising statement and then say ‘oh this is from personal experience’ while you WANT people to take your personal experience as if it’s a general fact. Society is seriously regressing if this guy is considered intelligent.
Does an employer have authority over an employee? Yes. Does that mean employees MUST do everything their employer says? No, only if they want to be employed with that company. It's a voluntary submission. Done, just made Tate's argument.
I am an authority in the field of thermal dynamics. Strangely I have never been able to Control the laws of physics because of this as Piers is suggesting... What I have though, is a recognised knowledge and competence in my field that gives me the power to make decisions and statements that people trust and follow. And everyone with half a brain understands this... Piers apparently doesnt.
@@OmegaPuddle okay but that's a different meaning of the word authority and not at all what they're talking about. Tate isn't claiming to *be* an authority *in* women, he's talking about *having* authority *over* his woman.
Tate was trying to use semantics to try to get out of every dumb/misogynistic thing he has said, and a surprisingly cogent Piers was holding him accountable by pointing out what words actually mean
@@randombutspecific you do know there are levels of use to a word and when you don't have a better word to use you have to explain the way you mean it, and that is the definition of semantics.
@@randombutspecific Tate hiding behind semantics reminds me of Ann Coulter hiding behind misquotes. Incredibly frustrating in a debate and nothing ever gets accomplished.
As someone who suffers from depression, I think Destiny should be a bit more careful with his wording. I think Pierce/Pearse was trying to say that we don't have full autonomic control over our brain-states, and that you can't choose whether you're depressed, not that having depression means you're just omega fucked and you can never be happy again. I also take a bit of an issue with the crutch wording. Having depression (and ADHD, got that too) presents challenges in life that can be really difficult to overcome, so when people act like it's hopeless sometimes, I think it deserves a bit more empathy than just saying they're using it as a crutch, as I don't think it really helps anyone by characterizing it that way. Those people are absolutely responsible for their own self care, but its important to recognize the reality of struggling with these conditions.
Andrew Tate's Final Message - Destiny Gives His Honest Thoughts ►th-cam.com/video/pjzAiiX-YEE/w-d-xo.html
"DO YOUR JOB!" - Andrew Tate Debates Sneako ►th-cam.com/video/S4W5Vlf7qM8/w-d-xo.html
Why does a homeless guy who plays WOW have a better and more unbiased analysis of this interview than the multiple decade long political streamer? kind of embarrassing destiny...
the property comment is so easy to brush off...Piers thinks chattel and Tate thinks biker mama having "property of" on her jacket.
its so funny how you feel about allegations with no proof when sneako accused brandon buckinghame of r3pe with no evidence
Makes me rhetorically miffed that he keeps saying things didn't happen magically when we all know that but hes avoiding how it practically happens
@@davenunyabusiness4893 how does a property have sovereignty
Been waiting for this, it's always good to get a females pov on the matter.
Goated comment
This must remain top comment at all costs
Hahahahaha!!!!
he's not a female, he is a man with a girl's name...
we've reached peak destiny = girls name. wrap it up folks, it won't get better than this.
2 men fighting it out with words.
As a girl, I can see why this excites Destiny
You are maya higa
Do you really think Destiny is a girl? I thought there was a code of ethics for girls that didn't allow them to do this 15:06 :\
And if you weren't a girl you couldn't see why this excites Destiny?
It's a debate of course it excites him.
Morgan grilling a child for an hour to make him say what he’s actually trying to say.
@@filipsichrovsky Bruh she’s trolling
_"My girlfriend left me, that's why I got depressed"_
There's a difference between having something bad happen to you, and essentially having a problem with your brain. You could have the world at your feet, like Robin Williams for example, who was one of the most successful and well-loved people on the planet, and still be suffering from depression.
Keep telling people they can't be cured and that they shouldn't strive for happiness, maybe that'll help.
depression isnt just a brain thing. its a amalgamation of different factors that lead someone to it. anti-depressants dont help every depressed person.
@@theresnothinghereatall bruh he didnt say that and you know he didnt.
Kinda - the problem is with how culturally synonymous depressed has become with clinical depression or major depressive disorder.
People tend to be depressed when bad things happen - but that is not the same thing a depressive disorder.
Key difference tends to be the
duration. Not necessarily whether there is a reason for it or not. People can have life events that justifiably make them depressed - which can develops into a depressive disorder.
It’s a semantic issue psychology would have benefited steering clear of.
Also depressing being “something wrong with your brain” is kinda half true. But it implies determinism which isn’t that accurate for most.
Depression is complicated and biopsychosocial in its causes. With varying degrees of directionality between those factors.
For example it can be:
Genetic factors -minimal psych or social factors = depression.
It can also be:
Minimal genetic factors - strong psycho social factors = depression.
It can also be the case in neuropsychology or brain scans:
Certain brain circuits/functions predispose depression.
It is also the case certain patterns of thinking or life events can change circuit firing over time. Similar therapy without medication can lead to normalization of functional brain activity at a global level.
So it would be arguable to whether it’s the brain function causing depression or the maladaptive thinking patterns. Likely a combination of both.
Sorry if this is way to much info
🙂
@@addiction4062 its the insinuation behind the robin Williams example, isn't this "bad faith" in action?/
I just wanted to pop in and say like: I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was a small child, and medicated young. I hated being medicated and spent all of my teen years and college years being told I wasn't going to amount to anything. As I got older I started feeling like there were things that weren't clicking in my life so I started seeing a therapist. She actively told me she believed I was misdiagnosed as a child and probably didn't have ADHD (this isn't going where you think it is.)
A little over a year ago, I learned that I in fact, do have ADHD and also ASD. These two things sometimes appear to cancel one another out. I learned this because I hit this period of intense, dehabilitating burnout and needed to crawl out of it. So I started seeing a therapist who knows what the fuck these things are, and to the answer to my problems was to adjust my lifestyle.
There's a lot of truth in what Andrew Tate and Destiny are saying here. But there are also clinical reasons for the way people feel. However, you absolutely HAVE to use that knowledge to make your life work for you, not sit around and say you can't do things because of x/y/z. Maybe some things are more difficult for you than the average human, but beating your head against a wall only results in a cracked skull. So why are you doing it?
well said
plus you can always improve your mental health, working out sure but everything including working out seems harder when you have poor mental health, so meditating or doing things for your mental health will make it much easier to do the other physical activities to remain physically and mentally fit and well
I'm like 80% convinced that I too have ADD and ASD and because that's confusing I just get told I have depression or bipolar 2
How was ASD diagnosed?
Well said bro. I went through the same trials and tribulations with the ADHD as well. I’ve found that making a schedule and FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH IT is super important
I must agree that people who use mental illnesses as crutches or excuses for everything and claim nothing can be done to improve it are misguided and annoying. Clinical depression is real and horrible, but there absolutely are things you can do to get much better or at least lower the frequency of major depressive episodes
Unless you're like a severe schizophrenic or something, because sadly in that case you're basically fucked because you either live with a completely crippling illness, or you take a level of medication that will "fix" the problem but you cease to even resemble the person you were before because of its effects on your brain chemistry. John Nash was able to fix his issue to the point of being able to go back into teaching, but he was never quite the same person he was before. He also just miraculously got better after 1970 and didn't require medication anymore which is really atypical.
Facts, we run to doctors for pills first instead of fixing a diet, getting exercise, sleeping 8 hours, adopting different hobbies, going outside, and building social connections
If all of that has been done and you still feel that way then shit bro that’s terrible and I wish them to seek medical help
@Maple Destiny didn't say "it's all in your control". He meant that there's some actions you can take to mitigate it. And it sounds like you've done a lot of those actions.
And while you say that it hasn't been fixed because you still have depression and are still suicidal, I would say that "fixed" isn't a yes-no, black or white, 1 or 0 thing. I think there are probably people who are also depressed that haven't done all the things that you've listed and are probably in a worse off place because of it, despite both you and them still having depression.
And there's probably people who had depression, did the things you did, and got better. That's the part you can't control.
Depression takes away a lot of options, but it doesn't take away all of them. Some people use the excuse of having depression to take away the rest of the options that they're left with. That's something you can blame them for.
But if there's someone who uses all the options that they're left with, and still ends up not succeeding, then they *can't* be blamed for that.
Exactly man. Counselling and SSRIs changed my life.
That's bullshit, so many people don't realize how hard it is to deal with. It's not as easy as "just work hard to get better" it's literally crippling. I've been in therapy and medicated since middleschool and a decade later I barely made progress. Things feel hopeless, people like you are plain stupid without realizing things like treatment resistant depression exists. Nobody wants to be or stay depressed
One point I think Destiny missed is regarding Tate constantly complaining about short clips and being taken out of context. The guy literally used these short clip algorithms like TH-cam shorts and tik Tok to hit this level of fame. He had his fans and hustler university subscribers to constantly repost his stuff and make quick viral clips. It’s the literal format that he capitalized on to monetize and gain popularity. So the fact that he’s complaining about people using quick sound bytes of him when that was one of his biggest money makers, intentionally, is hilarious
It's not hypocritical. A business can use advertisements to show their product works and that is normal, similarly another person can do the same to devalue the product and they are different things, propaganda. One is sharing viral clips, the other is used to show a bias without context to portray a negative perception
Yeah I agree with KKLH. Having people market your stuff, and being taken out of context maliciously are two different things. His annoyance is justified. I understand you only said its hilarious (because it is, its pretty ironic lol), but implying that its hypocritical or unjustified to be mad about it, isnt fair.
Tate didn’t say he didn’t benefit from short form videos. Tate explained why his comments are taken out of context so often (because people don’t listen to his long form content).
Those are two totally different points. It’s mind blowing that both you and Peirs can’t grasp this concept.
not only did Tate use the very things he's complaining about... he also ends up admitting that he still holds the exact same position he just said he doesn't hold.
@@kklh7918 The viral clips that Tate had his university members disseminate were very short soundbytes that took his own longer form monologues out of context. That is a big contributor to how he skyrocketed to the level of fame he attained. This is objective fact. It worked, but it also meant that a lot of his "misogynistic" comments would be isolated and watched by millions without any broader context. If you're going to capitalize on Tik Tok and youtube shorts algorithms, be prepared to be taken out of context. It is part of the game. He's right to be upset about being taken out of context, but he also needs to understand that he brought it upon himself by engaging with the mediums that he did.
Piers can be a really obnoxious interviewer but Tate just got absolutely slapped here, and saying it was because Piers used underhanded debate tactics or something is pure cope. Tate lost this one all on his own.
Uncle Ben was the only person who prepped Tate for this interview
the guy who makes rice or spiderman guy?
"Peter. With massive fame comes massive responsibility. Don't take responsibility for the effects of your words on impressionable young people, Peter. Admit you'd maybe say them differently but also stand by everything you said. Confidence, Peter. You need to have so much confidence that people forget you're doing the exact opposite of taking responsibility." - Uncle Ben from Spider-man 1
This should honestly be top comment
Lmao. It was so fking cringe everytime he repeated that line. I was dying everytime.
@@YumYumYuki LOL
Honestly I don't agree with everything Destiny says on a lot of things, however I find he is very important in situations like this. He's able to identify a lot of key issues and he understands social dynamics. Destiny would sharpen a lot of Andrews arguments.
Regarding the property thing, I think Andrew used that word originally for the shock and controversial factor and now has to stick to his words so he doesn't look weak backtracking.
Cope
Hes also a christian, which makes use of that word more acceptable and normal. Additionally people like piers like to act as if words have single, very strict meanings which isnt the case. My computer chair is my property, but my dog is also my property. How can the definition be strict if those two completely unrelated things are labelled with the same word
@@callanc3925 I see what you're saying. The word they are having most the debate around is authority, Andrew is 100% right though no matter underlying belief he has. If you are to protect someone, you must have some authority over them. That doesn't mean you own them, or even that you have absolute control which Piers is acting like. My boss has control over me at work, because I give it to him. I can walk out of the job. He doesn't own me. This is essentially the point Andrew is making, but Piers is like nope, you're saying ownership because authority.
@@callanc3925 I feel like the word property is fine as long as we aren’t speaking about living breathing humans, in this case, we are speaking about living breathing humans. so the use of the word is unacceptable (at least to my standards, but then i’m biased as i’m a woman….)
@@callanc3925 sure but a dog still isn’t a human. It’s never going to look reasonable to say a human is property and imply ownership of someone
How is Tate supposed to take any advice from Destiny seriously when Destiny is a girl's name?
what a fresh and original joke
All jokes aside I’m pretty sure believes in that non binary bullshit so that’s like a massive schtick
@@xProtobro Thank you, I'd like to think I'm somewhat of a comedy savant with how original my material is.
@Jack not when a person takes the word as his name.
Or when you let other dudes bang your wife
Destiny is ideal guy to discuss redpill topics without being a raging misogynist. Piers should absolutely bring him to his show.
that'll be in 2032
He lets his wife bang 50 dudes bro. Thats blue pill
Pier's purpose is to constantly manipulate language and drop constant strawmen in debate in order to get GOTCHA moment when the opponent misses one of them out. There is no one who can handle it without just ignoring and talking over him or having actual debate judge with them.
Tate already does that
LMFAO @ raging misogynist
Andrew Tates easy out to this situation is saying, "He regrets that he said what he said (because it can be easily misinterpreted), but does not disagree with it."
Maybe I'm just oversimplifying this though.
@@joaor3357 saying you "regret" is a no go for tate ye
Thats basically what he said. He recognises that he has to be much more thoughtful and specific with his wordage due to his large platform, but that he doesnt live in regret and he isnt some loser who just changes his mind to avoid heat
Destiny is giving Piers way more credit than he deserves. By not even acknowledging most of the traps until they became blatantly obnoxious, Tate let Piers embarrass himself. There was a glaring IQ gap.
nah, tate was shit at debating and piers actually had some good points during the interview.
@@spitbukket6862 did it on purpose. This is a clasic examppe of not being dropped down to a fools level
@@suecli8131 you think tate was being stupid on purpose?
@@bradleynugent9123 obviously. You know the guy. He would have won the debate, but whats the point when he was interupted a ton.
@@suecli8131 I do kinda know the guy (from videos obviously) and he is generally pretty stupid and cocky imo lol.
Tate is getting accused of being a violent misogynist who shouts at people.
So I actually think it was smart of him not to be confrontational off the bat.
@honestrat03 wait, what has he done that's violent?
@honestrat03Are you going to answer your false aquastations. How would you feel someone calls you a pedo, but no evidence. You think a criminal would be invited to this show.
@honestrat03 Everyone is sexist, but how is he violent?
@honestrat03 violent towards whom?
@honestrat03 youre so delusional
Funny about the Myron notepad thing is that he writes down everything you say so he can break it down and counter it, it's a very common thing to do for police interrogations and witness testimony, lawyers also use this for the exact same thing in a courtroom. It is a very good way to keep track of what the opposition is pointing out and saying.
I really like how this video veered toward the mental health aspect. I agree with Destiny about diagnoses. I remember receiving a diagnosis and I just started bawling. Everyone thought I was crying from sadness but they were tears of joy. For so long I struggled in life and didn't know why or how and to one day be able to identify what was going on and how to deal with it was so empowering.
It was empowering to be told you have something wrong with you?
@@JonezBBQ it is a lot harder to fix something when you can't identify what the problem is. Once I knew what my problem was, I was able to improve my life by understanding myself more and developing strategies to overcome my issues.
It's like driving a car that gets horrible gas mileage. You know you should be getting more than 5 mpg but without a diagnosis any attempt to improve your car's gas mileage isn't going to be very helpful.
@@JonezBBQ Absolutely. Imagine kinda knowing that something is or may be wrong. Usually you would have this back and forth about doubting yourself as well. Finally getting a clear answer gives you the opportunity to finally work on it.
@@JonezBBQ oh definetely
Cringe. It's just one loosely-trained person's opinion, who has no idea what it's like to be you, and you can never put it into words for them. So, cringe. At the fact that you just accepted it because it validated how you already felt. And you could be wrong.
In my experience, it’s pretty easy for me to tell the difference between depression brought about by a external event vs a internal depression (clinical). When you’re depressed externally, you can pin point what’s making you feel sad (that’s the key word). Clinical depression (internal) is where everything in your world feels very different and off just a bit. You can’t exactly figure out what’s causing it. It’s like your brain got highjacked and is filling it up with morbid and dark thoughts that keep getting injected into your mind that follows you none stop and it breaks you down after a while.
Edit
To be fair, I’m bipolar 2 so there are times where I’m hypo but a lot of the time I tend to fall into the depression side of the spectrum. The meds I’m on are lamotrigine, fluoxetine, and bupropion. Those do a decent job at greasing the wheels so it makes those life style changes like exercise and having a good diet easier for me. That and see my psychiatrist and therapist regularly and getting good sleep (that’s a big one for me). Meds don’t fix the problem, they just show you the door but it’s not going to carry you, you still gotta do the work yourself to walk through it.
Well said. It's also for me that people think it's about feeling "sad". Depression doesn't make me feel sad. Sad is like you said, I can point to a bad thing that happened or is happening and it upsets me. When I was severely depressed I didn't feel that, I just felt empty and low like nothing mattered or even could matter.
@@Altitudes thats the most insidious thing about depression. It doesnt make you sad, it makes you not care. Happiness and sadness become equal, pleasure and pain become equal. Why get out of bed, when staying in is equal to being productive.
Even Clinical depression can be helped by working on external factors. Get in shape, find purpose in life, do good by others. This would severely improve most peoples clinical depression. Problem is fixing your life like this is still pretty hard.
@@silversalmon9909 Exactly. And I think the other thing Tate doesn't get is that he's not entirely wrong that a "good" response to depression is to get out there and throw yourself into a bunch of activities to work on yourself and help raise your mood.
What people like him miss entirely is that the basic things that might ease your depression can become absolutely the last thing you would ever want to do. It wasn't that easy when I was a chronically fatigued insomniac and walking to the shops to get a decent diet and some exercise brought about massive anxiety because I might have to talk to someone when I wanted to be alone.
That's where medication comes in. The medication eased the symptoms enough that then I could start building up a healthy lifestyle. You can't always short cut that with "Nah, it ain't real bro, let's hit the gym".
The difference is between depressed feelings caused by present life conditions vs past life events. Neither are fixed in a person's DNA and can be overcome, though more easily with the former than the latter. And that doesn't include a life-long dependence on psycho-active drugs developed by companies that created these categories in the first place so they could sell more of their products, not that dissimilar to Hallmark creating Mother's Day. .
15:07 ?
lmao u got me and no? needed i solved ur mystery ;p
Ok something that bugged me with this piers vs Tate interview was how Tate gets stopped by Piers from going world view but then Piers near the end does the exact same thing to try and answer Tate's question on if men and women are for the most part equal under the law. That bugged me a bit.
Tate got to used to blaming everything on getting taken out of context and now when he's given the chance to put it in context he says the exact same thing and when Piers pushes back he just shifts the blame around and will lie to try and make it look like he won the conversation.
nah he just didnt know and he has a point piers been interrupting him the whole time, its a trap, if you've been neutral watching and know nothing about tate, you'd know
@@hallucy2215 nope. He had plenty of time to speak. The idea you can't clarify a five word sentence in under an essay is insane. This is some Richard Wolfe level "debate" lmao.
@@nafaidni No, kid
@@hallucy2215 sorry, son. It do be like that.
He’s being interrupted when he tries to provide the context. How are you not able to follow this?
It would be genuinely hilarious to see Destiny coach Tate in advance of these interviews
1:06:00 Tate: "I've gotten lots of emails from people who have told me I cured their clinical depression, and I've gotten almost no emails from people after they have committed suicide due to stopping their treatments because of my system, so therefore my system works."
This is the definition of "survivorship bias." and Tate doesn't understand it.
I’m no Tate apologist but how is he supposed to explain his comments/thoughts when Piers constantly affords him roughly 3 seconds to respond to anything before interrupting, interjecting or changing the question/topic?
By answering the question rather than going off on a tangent ?
@You’re Fat that’s a Biological Phact fr
@You’re Fat that’s a Biological Phact how so?
@You’re Fat that’s a Biological Phact Tbf, anything related to Tate is pretty goofy
@@cp3190 have you told your parents youre gay? You can only say yes or no or youre going on a tangent
1:06:40 - I think diet/exercise/sleep can be effective preventatives for depression, but I don’t think they’re the solution. The key issue is that if a depressed person had the willpower to diet properly and exercise, they probably aren’t depressed to begin with. It’s sort of a paradoxical way of ‘solving’ depression.
Speaking as someone who was actually depressed and required medication, the medicine was the ‘kick start’ my brain required, it reduced my depression to the point where I could start building these healthy habits; healthy habits which have stayed with me and help keep me straight now I’m off meds.
But that is only 1 type of depression. The type that comes and goes.
You get depressive, then you get on meds, fix it...and you are good.
Some people will never be off meds and not fall back into depression. Regardless of the amount of exercise and whatever else you think helps.
Many others come out of it on thier own. The only issue is, they go to the OTHER extreme. This is manic depression. Also called bi-polar.
It's like you guys are saying, "well, put a bandaid and some neosporin on your cut. Duh"
Not understanding a cut can go from your toe to your scalp and go through your body. Neosporin and a bandaid won't do a damn thing for that. You need a surgeon, and a neuropathologist. (is this a real word? A neuropathy specialist.)
The issue here is the wording. "Depression" is just as non-descript as "cut."
There are different types, and what worked for YOU won't necessarily work for another.
Medication doesn’t make you less depressed it makes you less yourself. That is my experience anyways. Not trying to put you down just giving my 2 cents
You could just as easily say that to a large percentage of people, depression is the cure to an unfulfilling life. Depression forces introspection and often results in a person developing a sense of will power and discipline- anything to avoid hitting the lowest of lows. Some people use depression as a motivational tool, as the enemy they have to overpower in pursuit of their goals.
Depression is a nebulous term and is actually as malleable as people claim gender is. There is no one size fits all description and no single solution to any of them. The only sure-fire thing is that there IS a solution and it would be a damn shame to give up before you've tried all of them.
@@sit-insforsithis1568 your analogy vs mine. Antidepressants don’t work for everyone; for me I certainly felt different, but I also felt less depressed. For me that trade off was worth it considering I wasn’t able to live a happy life as my ‘normal’ self. Plus, personally I don’t view a depressed person as their ‘normal’ self; I would expect you to feel unusual on antidepressants because suddenly you’re less depressed and the lack of that depression will feel extremely strange.
To the other commenter who suggested I’m saying diet an exercise solves depression for everyone, I am not; I’m saying even if you do need to stay on antidepressants, diet and exercise will improve your mental health from that point onwards. depression, anxiety and many other mental illnesses are fixable but the afflicted needs to want to fix it, personally I think that can be an incredibly difficult hurdle for people who are depressed; it took me years to even accept I was mentally ill, let alone to actually do something about it.
Tate about to hire Destiny as his debate coach.
Nah. Too much pride. It would ruin his “Top G” persona.
There could be no evidence that a 26 year old woman would have had more sex then a 18 or 19 year old woman... well the fact that they had more years sexually active would probably be a good metric to assume that by.
"assume"
@@davidsparrow-m3p Do you think that's an inaccurate assumption ? If you looked at stats of 1000 19 year old woman and 1000 25 year old woman, you think the assumption would be inaccurate?
does he understand that "most googled guy on the internet for a week, doesn't equate to "most famous guy on the planet"?
Way longer than a week bud
He used the phrase “most googled guy on the planet,” which is true.
@@therainman7777 he used the phrase "most famous guy on the planet" Which isn't...
@@fergusdenoon1255 Well Google was true, and most famous was almost true.
@@oneshotman45 most famous wasn't anywhere close to being true, it was completely delusional.
In the very beginning Tate mentions something along the lines of "If I am burdened with the responsibility of my wife's safety...". Is something that I don't quite agree with. Taking care of or wanting to keep somebody safe especially in the case of a marriage should not be a burden. You don't actually have to run into a burning building if your wife is in there, and there shouldn't be any moral issues if you don't either. Such a behaviour of trying to save someone at the expense of your own life comes from the heart if you really love your partner, it's just something that you do, not some type of marragie checklist that you are now burdened with, nor should you have to having authority over her actions.
You're right YET marriage isn't that clear cut some people are burdened. Like how some women feel overwhelmed with house upkeep and the kid(s). Where they removed themselves from friends and family. Even if they burned that bridge themselves. Or you have those women that isolate men from such and even hassle him about how much he works. There's a lot in relationships that modern people see as burdens. Personally Tate's take that "he has to protect her no matter what" reminds me of somebody whom don't want to be #1 suspect when something bad happens. He's stricken by that ideal of a woman he's supposed to take care of ending up in a ditch and he has no alibi because "I was at home" isn't enough.
Yeah well thats where you differ in opinion with what a marriage is. In his eyes a man is wholely responsible for his womans safety. He thinks relationships have roles, theres nothing wrong with that
Damn I didn't know Piers Morgan was big enough to have Spiderman himself on his show
Either Andrew Tate does not know the definition of some of the words he uses, or he is trying to have his cake and eat it too. When has calling someone property ever meant a person with their own sovereignty?
In his world view, a woman can choose to be with him. But that choice means that she has to follow what he tells her to. If she doesn't want to, she can leave.
@@Pheonixess That still does not sound like what property means. If anything, that is an employee.
@@GO-GO_SO-SO well you can define property however you'd like, but the idea is ownership. Husbands own their wives, parents own their children, ect.
@@Pheonixess No, you can't define words however you like. We have definitions for a reason. The idea seems to be responsibility.
@@daizenmarcurio He is not, but just because other people use words that have little correlation with the actual meaning does not make him any more correct in using them.
"I can't become clinically depressed... because I don't believe in it"
I can’t get dementia cuz I don’t remember the end of this sentence.
All these toxic people really think they are above woe. As if mental illness is a subscription-based service.
@@amitklain4199 It's not about thinking as if I'm above anything, it's about doing what needs to be done regardless of how I feel... What's the benefit in believing "I have depression", other than using it as an excuse to not work as hard. Now of course there are exceptions, some people are born without arms and legs, some people have physical problems with their brain, I'm talking in general, in general most people are born with arms and legs, and don't have physical problems with their brain.
That's how I beat cancer
@@lancevance6346 Pierce moved on because he wanted to make it look like depression is an actual serious disorder, instead of a feeling that can be overcome.
Destiny says that Piers is like the opposite of that guy who will move onto a topic so you don’t realize you’ve scored a point. I think Piers has done this thing where he goes down a line of questioning that is either immediately deemed irrelevant or losing, and quickly interrupts tate before he can show this
No not really, tate dances around and in his own way tries to pry out his answer from a different angle to make the answer seem different from what piers is actually asking. Tate re-iterates the same answer almost every time almost dismissing every question usually along the lines “taken out of context” “my fame has responsibility” so on and so on…like no…that’s not part of the conversation we are not here to talk about that.
I personally believe destiny is right in point on what the piers analogy because it’s true, tate was not really doing much in his own defense yet piers keeps asking him repeatedly because he doesn’t actually answer in a straight way (either because maybe he knows his answer will anger more people or he just doesn’t know what to say). With that being said, even though in some parts where piers is wrong like insinuating to Tate that he is somewhat “forcing women into relationships” yea…it’s annoying when he keeps bringing up points like that but then again Tate still doesn’t do a great job at providing actual good points at all. All this in combination makes both parties look like they are losing
To add onto my comment, at 35:20 Destiny actually give s a very good example on what I am saying. The goal for Piers and Tate are simple. Piers is trying to pry out an answer from Tate to hopefully prove his own point and Tate is SUPPOSED to say what he actually thinks…which he half-asses because he is either too strung on the conversation or is too afraid too say what he thinks…and I think it’s safe to assume that we all know how he thinks because we have all heard it from him and if you studied these political beliefs before you would know the red pill overview of the world. Which is fine, but Andrew fails to actually say what he thinks for whatever reason
@@recordstraight556 I don’t got the time stamp, but at some point Piers asks Tate about his view on trans women. It’s the one example that came to mind when writing my original comment. Tate gave a full response, and didn’t really dance or deflect. Soon as Piers realizes that, he jumps into a different question.
Piers’ win condition is just to make Tate look bad. He doesn’t need to actually prove him wrong on anything, just scold him for what he’s said in the past. Tate still makes HIMSELF look bad bc he clearly isn’t a good debater, but that’s a different point. I’m just saying Piers isn’t afraid to cut a line of questioning as soon as it isn’t going his way
@@recordstraight556 I don’t got the time stamp, but at some point Piers asks Tate about his view on trans women. It’s the one example that came to mind when writing my original comment. Tate gave a full response, and didn’t really dance or deflect. Soon as Piers realizes that, he jumps into a different question.
Piers’ win condition is just to make Tate look bad. He doesn’t need to actually prove him wrong on anything, just scold him for what he’s said in the past. Tate still makes HIMSELF look bad bc he clearly isn’t a good debater, but that’s a different point. I’m just saying Piers isn’t afraid to cut a line of questioning as soon as it isn’t going his way
@@recordstraight556 That's because Piers is intentionally asking a question that misrepresents Andrew's ideas in order to make him look bad
I've had notable mental problems since before kindergarten, and I have actively tried to improve. Whenever I can't handle something and try to find any type of middleground, no one even makes an attempt. I can't blame them when I see so many people online and in real life whining and demanding change over every tiny detail.
I love you all, fuck you.
This aged well
The literal definition of authority:
the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
if you're having to physically enforce obedience - you probably shouldn't be in that relationship because you're no longer a team
the qualifier moral in moral authority also counteracts what enforce obedience would typically be interpreted as. Moral authority means that someone has the power or right to give orders and make decisions on a position of moral authority
Tate got about 60% there with piecing together his argument - since the expectation is on the man to provide for the security of their partner, they must be imbued with authority to be able to make decisions regarding security matters, not only because that is the only effective way they can perform that task, but also because they are the person who will take the brunt of the damage, giving them moral authority.
That does not mean they can or should physically stop their partner from doing what they want, but it does mean that their suggestion should carry hefty weight. Of course, any relationship can devolve to be abusive, but if we are making the assumption that a relationship is broadly healthy, then it must be kept in mind that both partners want what is best for the other, and that they need to respect one another.
I find in general this kind of content to be quite useless though and just pits the genders together, its good for clicks but not healthy for society. The key thing to remember is that we should respect people of all backgrounds as human individuals with agency, and interact with them based on how they present themselves to us.
I think the problem is Andrew Tate has huge semantics issues, be it his education level, failure to understand English words properly, or falsely educated the words to mean something else.
Any intelligent and reasonable person wouldn't get hung up on semantics if you understand the point someone is trying to make. Tate isn't speaking incoherently and with the proper context and an adequate understanding of the language, you can fill in for any semantic or syntactical errors with just the slightest application of basic logical reasoning.
This is nothing more than a "I'm unable (or unwilling) to challenge the merit of your argument, but you're a doodey head, nanna nanna boo boo" nothing-burger complaint.
Nah i think its pretty clear that tate is an actual misogynist
Piers is doing the exact same thing. Did you not hear him say "authority means one strict and exact thing" then 5 seconds later say "no I have LEGAL authority over my children." If authority has one strict meaning then saying legal with such emphasis is meaningless. He also claimed voluntary authority isnt a thing but all authority is voluntary. When a group of people elect a leader they are voluntarily giving that person authority. When we let police enforce the law, we are voluntarily giving them authority. When we elect a government, we are voluntarily giving them authority to create legislation and control how the country is run.
@@callanc3925 Exactly. And Piers claims that you don't have authority if the person disobeys or doesn't follow the order. His children can disobey him. So what now Piers. Do you no longer have authority over your children when they disobey? I think Piers confused legal authority with legal responsibility of taking care of his children. He can get in trouble for not taking care of them, but not when they disobey his orders or suggestions.
@@alexl8445 And to take that even further, if they disobey him and he gets violent with them, hes the one that goes to jail. Meanwhile if you disobey the authority of the state, they will get violent with you and you will go to jail
destiny coaching Tate on debating would be incredibly entertaining
tate’s ego wont allow it
Destiny hasn't debated anyone worth a crap. What could he possibly teach tate
@@slappinsteve3852 he debated professor richard wolff
@@Daniel-rh7gw nobody knows who that is.
@@Daniel-rh7gw and hasan
Idk i think Piers did poorly here. While Tate didn’t deliver the perfect responses, he did keep his cool when he could have easily clapped Piers’ line of reasoning and nagging mannerisms.
Note: I’m not familiar with Tate’s content prior to this
Idk is the keyword here.
Go outside and socialize with the world you incel scrub. Stop searching the internet for answers and find them yourself.
Are you insane? Tate was dodging questions like a madman. Everytime piers asked do you think X, Tate would respond with a different awnser then the question was and then end it with so we agree.
Destiny is being so incredibly charitable with Tate its insane. If fuentes or vaush was responding in this way or making simmular arguments he would have destroyed them.
@@kingonmax Destiny is simping for an interview/debate with Andrew Tate, that's why he's being so uncharacteristically charitable. We all know it. :D
"He totally could have won if he wanted to."
Source & reason: Trust me.
My mind is so fried, I thought this was a set up for a Destiny is a girls name joke.
16:20, tate should respond with "Do you think your boss has authority over you within the confines of your job?" and then when he answers yes, "Does your boss own you?". Would completely annihilate his point. That authority = ownership. He would have to concede that either a boss owns you, or a part of you, and that it's normal and acceptable or they don't own you and tate can make the point that marriage is the same, and that it is a transaction of value. You do what your boss asks, for money. Your wife obeys you for security and stability.
I would never run my relationships like that myself, but it's not the big stretch they make it out to be if you remove all the moralization, or you compare to other accepted social structures and hierarchies within your culture. Still, Tate needs to bite the bullet on the 'property' part because it's hella cringe, and it was clearly just said to act edgy.
Two things:
First: Tate DID say, that a husband owns his wife. Thats literally what the word property means. He backs off and doubles down at the same time, which is really weird.
Second: Yes, a boss has authority over you. But he pays you. You are not equal partners. Thats kind of the point. Tate acts like he is just providing his expertise, but in reality he want's the authority over a woman, being able to tell her what to do.
I would say that myself in response to Morgan talking about how "voluntary authority" doesn't exist, but Tate also literally said a wife is a husbands property and did not back down from that at all. Obviously you have authority over your own property, but then it isn't voluntary.
I don't have to try to talk my PlayStation into running a game, or ask anyone else's permission to use it however I want, because it's my property. I do need to get consent from my wife for her to do something, because she's not my property. I also would not say I have authority over her, because we're equal partners. I do have authority over my dog, who is unquestionably beneath me socially.
@@maxwellsdemon10 any testosterone driven male wants a submissive wife theres no equal partners in anything especially in marriage
@@krombopulos_michael you guys are missing the nuance. The definition of property is that something belongs to someone. Tate has affirmed this by saying the woman takes the last name, and is handed over to the man. He has also said that he believes all people are sovereign.
The only way he can believe all these things is if he believes that the wife belongs to the man in a voluntary state of authority. Therefore her belonging to him is more like she is his responsibility and she should be loyal to him. Most people have a very narrow definition of the word “property” where it only applies to objects so the implication is that it’s no consensual control.
The boss employee argument is very good. The boss has authority over the employee not because they pay the employee but because they have more responsibility in the company. If the employee doesn’t want to voluntarily submit to the boss’s authority they are free to leave but lose the money that the job provides.
It’s the same thing with Tate’s views on relationships where if the woman doesn’t want to voluntarily submit to the man’s authority then she can leave but she loses his financial security and physical protection.
@@maxwellsdemon10 how does it feel being wrong? He literally says if she insists he would let her go. Bro didn't listen to the whole interview 😭😭
At the end of the day, Tate wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to be inflammatory and provocative bc its what drives engagement, but he also wants to remain in the good graces of the mainstream to some degree, bc he realizes he’s not big enough to make it without access to larger platforms. He can either backtrack on his more extreme statements, or he can die on the hill of “wives are their husband’s property” and keep letting people like Piers bash him over the head with it.
He keeps saying that people are “weaponizing” his words against him-my brother in christ, YOU gave them the ammo.
@John Haney this is the second time you commented the same dumbshit. There is no amount of interpersonal relationship context where saying someone is property makes sense-unless youre being provacative for views (ding ding ding). Common sense doesn’t mean you try and be as charitable as possible when someone uses a term incorrectly to insinuate something else. Everyone and their mother understood why he used the word “property” and its bc he literally sells an image of authority over another independent being. When I say “thats MY girlfriend” my implication is that this is an interdependent relationship-Tate’s understanding of how relationships work is paternalistic as hell, talking like he’s his girl’s dad lmao
@John Haney Yeah then use the right term lmao. It's like saying "i'm gonna kill the this person" then claim "oh no when I said kill I meant that I was gonna roast him so hard that he would die" Like wtf? You have to clear with your message and the words you use. The fact that Tate refuses reword his statement to better fit his "actual" views on women is kind of suspicious.
@John Haney Just saying, if you use a term with a proper definition, improperly, you wont be able to convince anyone of anything. Thats on Tate to make that distinction, not on the people listening to him to assume he meant something else.
@John Haney Ironic because people with common sense would know that the term "property" only has one meaning in relation to human beings and that is quite literally synonymous with "owning" someone. What you're trying to do is pull the "taken out of context" card when the context is very clear to everyone who isn't meatriding Tate.
this
"If you think i am gonna lock somebody in their room" that aged well
1:21:50 Destiny: to me, having a cordial sit down with someone like nick is the same thing as Andrew Tate being on Alex Jones’ show. Do you agree with Tate that he’s not crossing any moral lines to be on Alex Jones’ show and if not, where do you draw the line?
Andrew Tate used the word "Property" because he wanted to get people's attention and now that he's being called on it he's trying to weasel his way out. As Morgan said "You need to take responsibility for the things you've said."
Historically, marriage has exclusively been tied to filial piety or concepts that resemble it.
The entire purpose of marriage has been to share communal or prospective wealth with another family, using that marriage as the bridge between them.
Modern marriages rely less on this as things become less scarce, so for the last 200-300 years they've been romanticized and marketed as the modern ideal.
This is an incredibly modern, incredibly western concept that has only become globalized in the last ~100 years.
Most modern marriages still symbollicly present women as property that is being transferred from family to family.
In about half of Asian and a few African countries, this isn't even symbollic. It's just the reality of the situation.
Are people just unaware of this fact, or are they being intentionally dense because it's fun to shit on Andrew Tate?
@@undeadman7676 That's one way to say "Other parts of the world still practice filial piety" and I agree with you ...
But the reality is that words like "property" aren't viewed as a "modern ideal" anymore, especially in the west which is where most of the blow back has come from. Tate was the one being "dense" here because of his reluctance to concede that.
@@undeadman7676 300 hundred years ago, I could have caved your skull in with a large stone for stealing strawberries from my garden, should I be able to do that even now because it’s “tradition”?
Andrew Tate: You're a busy man. You're not going to watch hours and hours and hours of video
Piers: I have watched hours and hours and hours of video
I feel like Andrew Tate could have slam dunked Piers Morgan so hard on the respect point, if he'd just said "I respect you, and you hacked a dead girls phone for a story"
It is really ironic for Piers to talk about causing misery in the world after everything he did as a journalist in the early 00s
Tu quoque fallacy
@@user-ko9tc1go3h How is it a tu quoque? The subject of the criticism isn't Pierce or Andrew Tate. Pierce is making a point that you should be unable to show respect to people who cause misery/negative impact in the world. It's a contradictory statement to say that and be juxtaposed by saying "we all have skeletons in our closet".
Going even further Piers Morgan is showing Andrew Tate respect during the conversation, while arguing that he has a negative impact on children, how is that not contradictory.
@@TheJollyAlex Beautifully stated. 100% right!
"You haven't been taken out of context because I read the entire sentence."
I don't know if Tate was taken out of context here, but this is so dishonest. It would be great if someone clip chimped Piers and made a compilation. "No Context Needed"
You don't even need to clip chimp Piers, when he gets emboldened he starts becoming more brazen with what he says, and often ends up with his foot in his mouth due to it.
The reason why he "gets away with it" is he simply does not care when this happens and rarely references them.
Yeah it is true that an entire sentence can alsl be out of context, but Tate also never really provides any illuminating context that would make people see it differently. The occasional times he does give some, it seems basically irrelevant. Instead of giving some clarification and saying "I know when you hear that, it sounds like X, but what it actually means is Y", he basically just repeatedly says that it was taken out of context, but then also says that he does believe what he's accused of saying and that he isn't sorry and doesn't have any regrets.
@@krombopulos_michael Tate almost ALWAYS gives greater context. Destiny in this video is complaining about the depths of his thought process he explain in this fucking video. Why are you lying for no reason?
The point is this is a long-form interview so if Tate wants to claim his quote is out of context, this is the forum where he has the time to put it in context. But he can’t bc the context is actually damning. That’s why he never explains the “missing” context.
@North London 10
Piers Morgan is the most annoying interviewer that ever existed. He isn't interested in the answers a guest will answer. He wants them to answer based on his prior judgments and hammer it down until he thinks he gets it. Andrew tried to start his answer a gazillion times and then Piers says a qualifier and asks another question. He's manipulative and I will never see him as anything but tabloid
Tate seems to just not understand what the words he is using mean.
"I can't be transphobic, i'm not afraid of anything"
"I can't be racist, i'm mixed race"
"I can't be mysoginistic, i don't hate women, I love women"
I’ve seen around 45 destiny videos and could someone explain to me what this game is and how it’s played?
It's a game called factorio, it's a game about resource management and optimisation, perfect for someone as autistic as Destiny.
I think it’s factorio
destiny, what you're missing is the fact that so many people are familiar with this kind of interview, especially after cathy newman, and probably results in more support for the person being interviewed just because the interviewer comes off as so slimy.
Just out of interest, have you actually watched the entirety of her interview?
Piers actually seems the least slimey he ever has in this interview
@@leonodonoghueburke4276 yes
@@oz2362 naw
@@leonodonoghueburke4276 I did and she was slimy. This is the problem when people don't know how to interview their guest. They instead insists on arguing and strawmaning instead of just asking about someone's opinions and stances in neutral manner.
I don't understand why Tate keeps saying that it's unfortunate that young boys misunderstand him... But when Tate is pressed on what he actually means by what he says, he ultimately just doubles down on what he said (albeit in a very weasly and whiny way). So what exactly is it that these young boys are "misunderstanding"? Aren't these young boys picking up EXACTLY what Tate is in fact putting down?
Tate exaggerates alot and humors his content, half of the populace really are just dumb
This is why I think Tate is right and this is pointless. If someone is misunderstanding you then your delivery was not good. Tate is saying his delivery could have been better. That doesn't mean he believes his points were wrong. This 2+2=4 level logic and you're either to dishonest or stupid to put it together. Why would someone even bother to have a good delivery when something so simple is misconstrued almost maliciously.
Boys in my school say that girls are bad. Then when you ask them they bring up Andrew Tate.
Where do you think he doubled down (just give a timestamp or explanation of the gist of what he said)
Half of the populace are dumb, it's hard for Tate to reduce the intellect of his speech for these baboons
Tate's achilles heal is that he wants to be loved (and mainstream), and that’s why he appears to be on the back foot in this exchange.
Honestly, the simple responses should’ve been:
1. I meant “she’s his property” in the same way people say “we belong to each other”.
2. I meant “I have authority over her” in the same way an employer has authority over an employee, or else they cease to be an employee.
3. I meant “18 y/o are better than 25 y/o” because in general men still prefer youth, beauty, and chastity.
Ok so you understand his positions and why they’re reasonable. So what’s the problem here?
Piers tried to frame him as a terrible person when he isn’t. Tate is being attacked so why wouldn’t he be on the back foot? He’s there to answer questions not interrogate Piers.
@@ThomasFoolery8 the problem is that Tate needs to articulate himself better or else all the young boys watching him will get the wrong message and that’s dangerous.
good little throw back here with the criminal record thing
Piers Morgan said he's not arguing semantics but I feel like the majority of this interview is entirely semantics lol. Semantics is about the meaning of words and for most of the stuff Andrew is saying it means one thing and Piers is saying it means another - it is entirely semantics and just because Piers says "no it's not" doesn't make it so.
What Piers is arguing is that because of the way he's wording things he's casting a damaging message out to the public. It's not semantics for instance when Tate uses "authority" but then describes a situation where him and his significant other are working together as a team, and blah blah blah.
Authority is not interpreted in this way by anyone. Literally anyone. Authority by definition ALWAYS has to do with power over someone, their decisions, and command. Tate is either A) completely wrong and doesn't understand the word (unlikely), or B) trying to save face by portraying his actual view in a better light than it actually is.
Has nothing to do with semantics in some if not most of these cases.
@@randomyoutubecommenterr The authority argument was absolutely semantics lmao. Piers claimed that authority can only mean one thing, then went on to say "no i have LEGAL authority over my children." If authority only means one thing then why is he going to the effort to add the word legal, and emphasising it so hard. Not to mention him saying theres no such thing as voluntary authority. Damn near all authority is voluntary lmao.
@@randomyoutubecommenterr Andrew "I'm not mysoginistic i just think that a woman's value is based on how much dick she's had and that i should have authority over my wife" Tate
the man seems to be working with his own personal set of definitions
@@randomyoutubecommenterr But to enact your responsibility over something or someone it requires a level of authority innately so how is Tate wrong? Piers goes on to say Tate has no idea what authority means while defining it under some pure legal form, so you're telling me without law you have no authority over your children? If the state takes them away your authority in reality is voided? Plus he states authority cannot be voluntary which was absolute horseshit XD
the "authority" argument was a semantics issue because he made it clear he was talking about a suggestion to stay home rather than an order to stay home. But even still he massively fucked up by comparing his wife to a child, makes it seem like he's talking about actual authority and not moral authority. He also says somewhere around the 22:15 mark "if I have responsibility etc then I have to make the decisions" so he IS objectively talking about actual authority and not moral authority, it is consensual though. No idea what Piers was trying to talk about that authority can't be consensual because it obviously can and that's obviously what he was talking about. I assume he was just trying to make Andrew Tate look worse which is asinine because Andrew Tate does that perfectly all by himself.
the "property" argument was not at all a semantics issue, he doubled down on believing that a woman is his property and was desperately trying (and failing) to come up with flowery ways to phrase it so as to make it sound less bad. He well and truly believes that his wife is his property. It became impossible for him to defend this argument the second he said it was because he was religious. The religious belief that a woman is her man's property is VERY clearly defined and set about as meaning literal property, and he already made it clear he fully and truly agrees with that religious argument lol.
Destiny fails to realize that these two are playing a game. Tate is taking the Trump approach: never back down, never admit you misspoke, don't apologize.
Piers comes from Boomer media, where the most important thing in a debate is power, not logic.
Piers spent 40 minutes playing the game, trying to get Tate to admit he misspoke, until Piers finally gave up, and they moved on to an actual conversation. After that it was all over. Tate won.
Obviously you were not watching Piers Morgan interview with Tate, where he had to admit he said things he wouldn't say now coz he has more followers and many fanboys like Sneako and you. Guy called Destiny with 552k subs analise it and Tate could've done better explaning himself to Tate.
it's easy to label things as "boomer media" when you can't articulate yourself. To go head on with piers, you have to be extremely clear and not let the snake wiggle within your own words and tate is unable to do that. Piers thrives in wiggling in the words you say. Tate is not prepared at all for him to play with his words. Tate lost here because he's being man handled by Piers.
@@nigelxavier883 Thats not what he said. He said he would say the same things but say them differently.
@@unyieldingmonotony4453 He would “say the same thing but differently” aka he would not say the same thing. Not to mention, Tate originally refused to even admit that he should have changed his wording at all. Only after over an hour of getting beatdown by Piers did he finally admit that his wording was off in many scenarios.
@@tdem3232 Do you understand you can make the same point but in an inflammatory way? That doesn't change the point.
Just wanted to put this out there I haven’t talked or emailed Andrew about my “diagnosed” medical condition, which was clinical depression, I don’t want to get too into it but I thought I was gonna feel like shit everyday for the rest of my life, this lasted 3 years. I was on every medication you can think of, when I was introduced to andrews content after it completely takes over your social feed and nails his opinions and views into your head even if you don’t agree with them. His take on depression really stuck in my head, I was willing to try anything to stop feeling the way I used to feel. So I started self analyzing myself and wanted to change my habits good or bad, started working out not staying up late even on weekends and waking up early almost consistently, and I can honestly say I feel 3000x better than any advice or shit meds those fucking self proclaimed doctors have given or “helped” me with. Now I’m still on a journey and I haven’t gotten the hard work part completely right but I’m on my way, and I’m with Andrew on this a 100% Clinical depression is for 99% of people self curable. Do not self limit yourself.
Also forgot to say I went from 55kg to 62 kg in 6 months , I started working out like crazy. It’s really the best form of therapy there is, physical self confidence
Interesting
Then people ignore comments like this
When Tate says depressed people need to work out and change their lifestyle that is completely true. When Tate says that depression doesn't exist and is a fake disease that is hogwash.
@31:28 he was explaining the context of that conversation over and over Destiny. He kept saying that it was a Woman who SPECIFICALLY asked about the scenario of him being a protector if she was married to him. He then explained he would get married to only someone who would accept that so it would be consensual. Bruh.
i love your input
Piers had him in the first half. Damn that train fell off quick lmao
The thing that didn't help him in the debate was saying the word "decision" instead of "suggestion".
I genuinely agree here with destiny my anti anxiety/ depression mess seriously help me be able to maintain control. But that said it it wasn't for my goals ambition and motivation to achieve them I'd ve very very depressed and living am incredibly different life.
Additionally: further validating destiny's stamens about depression not being a settled science. I know I suffer from depression and a lot of tome ot seemed like nothing I did would make it better. I never really suffered from ambition and aspirations. But I still just couldn't be happy no matter how good my life was. I took multiple ssri's. This ended up with me leaving them completely because they only seemed to make things worse and eventually a year or two later about to breakdown crying in my doctor's office about how I just didn't know what to do and was prepared to give up. That I wasn't suicidal but like I hate life. But have huge aspirations and goals. Anyway she ended up prescribing an snri and I can't explain the night and day difference between how I feel now. As someone who from a placebo standpoint had no faith it would help at all!
40:00 “-or however you smell it.” 😂😂😂💀 that was the most epic Freudian slip I think I’ve ever heard.
Oh wow! Destiny saw the uncensored version. ❤
On the authority thing, rather than Tate using a comparison with the child/parent dynamic, he should have used the Employer/Employee Dynamic.
You voluntarily go into that relationship, but you give authority to your employer to choose your hours, your job description, your pay, and even some stuff you do outside the workplace. They cannot technically ENFORCE that authority, but you still voluntarily comply with the rules to maintain the relationship.
That is the same kind of authority that a man in traditional relationships have over their woman's activities outside of the household.
Well said
Definitely a better example. And if they could get past the example of how this “authority” works, they could talk about wether or not this traditional set up is actually a good thing or not. Or wether or not that authority is mutual.
Nah that’s just as gross.
@@Frankthegb You have exactly the kind of face I imagined
“women are employees to men” totally not sexist you guys
You actually do have rights over your wife and vice versa. one example is medical power of attorney. The thing is wife or husband has the right to with draw the rights, unless that's changed in recent years.
Tate really got handled for most of this debate by Piers. That said, there were a number of times where it was patently obvious Piers was intentionally twisting things, and a time or two used as much deflection as he accused Tate of using in order to avoid answering a clarifying question from Tate or just ignoring a clarifying statement that was being made. He used a lot of dirty internet debate tactics like interrupting Tate during explanations to keep him off any rythm, and was being obtuse when Tate was telling him very clearly that Destiny is a women's name.
Dirty internet tactics? Lmao those tactics came from people like Piers in the mainstream news.
you should watch the uneddited interview, cuz in the edited one they just cut out all of tate's good points
The most pathetic part was all the times he asked Tate to say sorry to the audience hahaha
@@rypsterhc8673 Considering how persistent he was with it, must have been a hard check mark on his agenda
Tate got handled??
Did we watch 2 different interviews? I saw the entire thing and don't recall one time where he got "handled." He's a little toned down from his usual self but I'd attribute that to the platform he's on. If anything he stood his ground.
Depression is ultimately a state of mind that 100% can be overcome by the power of one's mind.
It's kinda hilarious hearing Tate say "I... Think women reproduce". It almost sounded like he was unsure.
I think the best argument agaisnt tate is that you don't need to have authority over a woman to protect her.
You can protect her and respect her as an individual who has authority over themselves
@@daizenmarcurio why do you think what differentiates friendship from relationship is authority????
i would argue you're still exercising a form of authority by basically explicitly establishing that you are needed to provide or protect for her. To be clear my belief is that in any kind of monogamous relationship each partner belongs to one another and I think what Tate is actually trying to get across is about traditional societal roles. The language is fucking terrible and too hard-line to really understand though
what you are saying makes no sense, in a relationship you need to have some authority over your partner, that is why you don't sleep with other people, because you both agree that you don't have sex with other people.
Your wording of you “can” protect her is the difference. You “can” do anything. But if a woman is mine, I “have” to protect her as its my duty and whats expected from me.
@@daizenmarcurio Sounds like a 19th century argument.
Talented at cutting off. All his interviews are this way lmao
Tate wasn’t handled. Piers is trying to paint tate as a bad man. It shows
That’s his problem he should’ve prepared better for this
He was handled
The younger girls have less dick through them as his reasoning is hilarious because it might not even be true. One of my friends at 18 years old (10 years ago for us) had already slept with more than double the amount of men I've slept with at 28 years old. It depends on thr person not the age lol
TEXAS HYPE! Thanks for remembering us Destiny 😘
Piers Morgan is actually amazing, listening to him constantly cut off Tate actually made me empathize towards Tate, which is something I though previously impossible.
Kinda like how Tate, Fresh and Fit, and the rest of the red pill community do to all the women they have come on their show. If they’re cool with verbally slapping around women who obviously aren’t ready for a debate, i think Piers can have his fun with Tate.
@@francothesucc9701 I hope she sees this bro 🙏 😭 🤧 😔 😪 😢 🙏
@@averybuchanan2029 most sane tate fan
@@averybuchanan2029 no need for hope, i can just show it to your mom directly.
@@Mebble already established I'm not a fan, keep up bud.
My girlfriend asks me to help her with updating her mobile phone, updating her laptop, cleaning stuff, dealing with potential viruses on her computer, etc. She expects me to deal with this as if this is my expertise in our relationship. And I accept to do this for her. If I tell her - subsequently - don't download anything from internet without asking me first, then I have AUTHORITY over her decision what to download. She cannot download anything prior to asking me if that is OK. This stems from our mutual understanding that my duty is to deal with the shit on the internet. If she expects me to deal with the virus shit, she has to listen to what I say regarding this issue. If she does not listen, then she has no right to expect me to waste my time in helping her with digital technology. That's what AUTHORITY means. My authority over her decisions in the certain matters comes from her expectations (and our understanding) of me being responsible to deal with those matters. If she's not going to listen, she cannot expect me to deal with this for her. It would be really morrrronic to constantly correct other people's mistakes and when you tell them not to do something in order to avoid those mistakes, they don't listen, but still expect you to deal with their mistakes. It's really promoting narcissistic idiotism and infantilism. The same works in other situations: if my girlfriend and I have an understanding that I will protect her if attacked or in any dangerous situations, then I have the AUTHORITY to decide, for example, which road we will take, or which club we'll go out. If I consider some club to be dangerous or in a dangerous neighborhood, then I have the AUTHORITY to tell her not to go there. This is what it means to have AUTHORITY. And there are some other fields in life where my girlfriend has AUTHORITY over me. And, Piers Morgan is a morrrron, he was licking balls to Jordan Peterson a week before this interview, and did all Cathy Newman's mistakes from her Peterson interview on Andrew Tate.
19:05 “Voluntary authority is not authority”
Not sure if this is a statist talking point or an anarchist talking point but it certainly isn’t the dunk that piers thinks it is.
@@testcase6997 Yes, but most modern countries have governments that operate under the pretense that they wield authority “with the consent of the governed”.
@@testcase6997 Oh shit, that’s not a refutation of my argument. Thanks for playing. Piers comes from the UK. The same UK that birthed Robert Peel, who gave the world the Peelian principles for policing. The main principle being that policing can only be done with the approval of the public. What Piers just said flies in the face of a topic that would have been on his GCSE’s.
@@testcase6997 You agreed to the authority when you stay
@@testcase6997 Why aren’t you?
@@testcase6997 So your boss doesnt have authority over you? What about the coach or captain of your soccer team? What about the police? The government? Your landlord?
Destiny does seem to be unbiased at times but Piers Morgan “handling” Tate… bro come on now that’s gotta be a troll😭
1:25:00 isn't it the same exact thing as an interviewer from the BBC interviewing like Kim Jong or something? Which they would 100% do if they could.
The reason why doctors push medication so much is because that is what the majority of patients want. Lifestyle modification as a form of treatment just goes in one ear and out the other. It’s like a dentist telling people to floss.
It's actually insane how hard tate got gaslighted by piers on the authority argument, he didn't even try to push back on piers straw house idea of authority lol.
Piers used so many fallacies.
that's not what gaslighting is
@@soakupthenoise I'm aware, but it really doesn't matter in this context. The point is still communicated just fine, no one is thinking piers is an abuser or something lmao.
facts it’s funny too cause if you look up the definition of authority they are both right and piers was piggybacking off his argument that tate was completely wrong about the definition of authority
Well the definition of authority is: the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Tate was trying to use a small part of that by saying that he has the right to suggest that his wife not do something, but using the full word "authority" means that he has the right to suggest not to do something but also to force her to abide by those suggestions, aka obedience. Tate speaks as if he believes the second but responds to questions as if he believes the first, but never backs away from his use of the word authority which shows he believes the second. I also personally believe that he would use the full definition of authority in his relations with his wife.
Notice that Piers thinks it’s perfectly acceptable for Tate’s narrative that men are responsible for protecting and providing and putting their lives at risk for women. But when the script is flipped and Tate says that responsibility comes with authority over a woman, THEN traditional gender roles are a problem. Instead of looking at it as a fair exchange, ultimately as long as the roles benefit the woman, and her only, he is silent.
Benefits should always come with responsibilities.
Which is why I don't like it when Tate doesn't say the whole quote. Paraphrasing it goes "If you're responsible for something that means you have some degree of authority to it. Why? Because responsibility WITHOUT authority is slavery"
“Tate getting handled”
was destiny watching the same thing? Morgan was pathetic. Cheap ‘tactics’ answered his own questions and attacked his own answer.
Tate was obfuscating a bit but mostly it was a common Morgan L
Piers argues like Destiny and tries to do gotcha's.
@@mkzzzzzzzzzz1 Stop the bullshit.
@@mkzzzzzzzzzz1 lol I don’t think Destiny is that bad even if he’s got a girl’s name
@@famalam943 5/10 not bad
@@daizenmarcurio Morgan has always been cheap.
It’s why he lost his role as The Mirror editor for knowingly publishing fake pictures of British soldiers abusing prisoners because he was anti Iraq war.
Another low point was when recently divorced singer Peter André was on Morgan’s talk show… Morgan was trying to get Andre to say disgusting things about the mother of his children, who was a c-list celeb in the UK. Andre repeatedly said he wouldn’t and it’s disrespectful yet Morgan kept pushing for that tabloid BS.
He’s always been a slime ball.
"I think Tate is an okay guy"
Whew, that didn't age well..
Why do these “influencers” go and try to make a living on the internet that the whole 9 billion of us have access to. Then get angry when a percentage of the population disagree with them. Then name call them because they disagree with them??!!
The best part about this one is Tate fans complaining in the comment section.
holy shit hank you for this comment, it's hilarious out there
Tate fans if Tate Won this debate why are Him and his team putting out statements that this interview is heavily edited. If they thought he came out on top it wouldn’t matter.
Because the truth is the truth regardless of what happens. Just go and look at the comment sections of the interview, and all the people that cover the interview most people said Tate won and came out looking better only BETAs like destiny think otherwise
Maybe because "Win or lose"... the debate was heavily fuckin edited lmao
@@Fandium that’s because of bias Tate only won that debate to RedPill guys on TH-cam. The rest of the world see him Melt.
@@scottowldn8239 it wasnt even a debate lmao. How can you debate personal opinions?
Damn I thought Andrew won the debate at first. Destiny is too smart. Made me realize how bad he actualy was on therw
bruh you don't need destiny to realise how bad andrew handled the debate 💀💀
HE WASNT ABD AND ALSO BDW IT WASNT A DEBATE BUT AN INTERVIEWS TEHRE IS HUGE DIFFERENCE. DESTINY OCNSATNTLY DOES HIS MANIPULATION TACTICS FOR HIS YES MEN AUDIENCE AND COSNATNTLY LOOOKS AT THINGS AS DEBATE WHERE IN THIS SITUATION IT WAS NOT.
BUT THAT INST THE POINT THEPOINT IS DESTINY WON (YOU AND MANY OTEHR ARE THE PROOF OF THAT) IS THAT DESTINY CRAFTLY MANIPULATES STUFF TO FIT HIS NARRATIVE AND YOU EATING IT LIEK CAKES.
Idk how it’s not obvious what Andrew is saying when he says he stands by what he says.
He’s saying he stands by what he says in that, within the context of the conversation, what he said was conveying a specific message. He did not foresee it getting weaponized against him in the future.
So when you’re asking him if he regrets what he said, he’s obviously going to say no. He understands what he was trying to say in the context of that conversation.
I think what Andrew is saying is that the only thing he would change, is how he said it, to prevent it from being so weaponized against him.
That’s not saying he regrets what he said or what he meant, he regrets not ensuring that it won’t be weaponized against him.
He was asked *several times* in this interview if he would change his wording and he said no. As Piers said, he didn't come to rectify or clear anything up, he came to double down on his positions...
@@halosaft he attempted to say that he WOULD several times.
He was trying to lay out the premise that he wouldn’t say it that way now with his large following.
Piers was asking if Tate disagreed with what he previously said. Tate’s saying no, because he believes in what he said.
He actually was trying to say, again, many times that he would 100% change is phrasing, as he does agree that it sounds bad and is being weaponized against him.
@@AyoBurbs Yes, just like you said, he's saying no because he believes in what he said. He doubled down on his old comments.
The only thing he said, several times mind you, is that he wouldn't say that today because he would be more careful with what he says.
All he's saying is that what he said is what he still believe and today he would just keep his opinions like that to himself.
How is that not doubling down on his own comments..?
what game has destiny been playing?
Factorio
With great power comes great responsibility 😭😭😭
Destiny you have absolute mind-rot. You've so concerned with the style of the debate, the rhetoric, that you have dissociated yourself from the actual content of the debate.
Ah, so that's where sneako gets his entire "let me misquote you and then say we both agree on this" thing from ... Andrew Tate...
gotta be the most painful thing in debate, "tf no i never agreed with you dude..."
@@skoomaenjoyer9582 you'd think that they would stop that tactic after being called out on it so many times. I think it's just a sleazy way to tire your conversation partner
@@Ruchikun Well Piers would say that he agrees with what he's saying, and Andrew would point that out and then Piers would say that he doesn't agree.
What's the point of getting married if you don't want to belong to each other? How is your wife/husband not your property? "Your", is the key word here.
1:35:16 - Have you ever danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight, Andrew?
Tate: A father hands his daughter to a man in marriage
Morgan: So you think Destiny is property?
Goddamn, I thought this joke would get old, but you motherfuckers keep pullin me back in with these clever quips
my man, there is a clipo of him leteraly saying that women are their husbands property
@@usrnotfound1859 Why does that matter? He also said women can't drive, and then followed up saying "I'm speaking only about the women I personally saw myself, I know there are women that can drive, I'm not talking about every woman on earth"
@@its_herocast276 not sure if you are defending him but that dude is such a fucking weasel, my goodness.
How can you be making a generalising statement and then say ‘oh this is from personal experience’ while you WANT people to take your personal experience as if it’s a general fact.
Society is seriously regressing if this guy is considered intelligent.
@@its_herocast276 He thinks woman are property and you are asking why does that matter? I'm so confused.
Does an employer have authority over an employee? Yes. Does that mean employees MUST do everything their employer says? No, only if they want to be employed with that company. It's a voluntary submission. Done, just made Tate's argument.
actually valid example
I am an authority in the field of thermal dynamics. Strangely I have never been able to Control the laws of physics because of this as Piers is suggesting...
What I have though, is a recognised knowledge and competence in my field that gives me the power to make decisions and statements that people trust and follow.
And everyone with half a brain understands this... Piers apparently doesnt.
The employer has all the power.
It's a one sided affair while relationships are not. Go outside and socialize with people, incel.
You need it.
The only follow up I would have would be "Does that go equally both ways?"
@@OmegaPuddle okay but that's a different meaning of the word authority and not at all what they're talking about. Tate isn't claiming to *be* an authority *in* women, he's talking about *having* authority *over* his woman.
This debate was a definition of semantics but as you said Andrew was terribly prepared hahaha
Tate was trying to use semantics to try to get out of every dumb/misogynistic thing he has said, and a surprisingly cogent Piers was holding him accountable by pointing out what words actually mean
@@randombutspecific you do know there are levels of use to a word and when you don't have a better word to use you have to explain the way you mean it, and that is the definition of semantics.
@@randombutspecific Tate hiding behind semantics reminds me of Ann Coulter hiding behind misquotes. Incredibly frustrating in a debate and nothing ever gets accomplished.
As someone who suffers from depression, I think Destiny should be a bit more careful with his wording. I think Pierce/Pearse was trying to say that we don't have full autonomic control over our brain-states, and that you can't choose whether you're depressed, not that having depression means you're just omega fucked and you can never be happy again. I also take a bit of an issue with the crutch wording. Having depression (and ADHD, got that too) presents challenges in life that can be really difficult to overcome, so when people act like it's hopeless sometimes, I think it deserves a bit more empathy than just saying they're using it as a crutch, as I don't think it really helps anyone by characterizing it that way. Those people are absolutely responsible for their own self care, but its important to recognize the reality of struggling with these conditions.
I love how Destiny got lost in the debate and spent 10-20 minutes quietly listening to them.