Irlmartin

@Dplanet I’d actually put money into you, the amount of emotional investment you have in him is insane. You should be a stock price

Tate: What do you call a man who wins?" NPC: A winner. Tate: What do you call a man who always wins at gambling? NPC: A gambling winner? Tate: Andrew Tate*. *Correct answer: Aura death cringe.

@TateTheTalisman I work for diicot

I’m hiring. Won’t give the job description. Post underneath why you think you’re qualified to work for me. 2 positions available.

@AutismCapital Equal rights equal fights

🚨NEW: Clavicular gets hit with the most telegraphed slap of all time. Ray Charles could have seen that slap coming. He decides to press charges on the girl who he allowed to slap him for whatever reason.

@EliXPampa I don’t think he cares what others say online.. I see a lot of his tweets are deliberately done just to provoke people

Tate losing to Chase DeMoor was the most predictable outcome in the world and I would've told him not to take the fight if I was still there. Every person who was surprised by the result doesn't understand the one concept that protects or destroys everything you build… If Tate wins: "Of course he won. He's a 4x world champion fighting a Love Island celebrity." Zero gained If Tate loses: Catastrophic brand destruction Upside = nothing. Downside = everything. No smart operator takes that bet. Ego overrode strategy and it cost him more than any single business decision in his career… But the loss didn't happen in a vacuum. It was the last domino in a chain that had been building for 2+ years. Each hit compounded on the last. Like debt with interest. Negative momentum accumulated until the brand couldn't absorb another blow: 1. Arrested on trafficking charges. True or false doesn't matter for this analysis. What matters is that doubt entered the audience for the first time. The "invincible" frame cracked 2. Revenue tanked. The Real World was built entirely on Tate's personal brand, not a unique mechanism. Brand takes a hit, revenue takes a direct proportional hit. I watched the numbers daily. Correlation was 1:1… 3. Launched crypto coins after publicly swearing multiple times he'd "never launch a crypto." $DADDY. $RNT. Both went to zero. The man who built his entire brand on "being a man of your word" went back on that word in front of millions. Every person who trusted him felt something shift even if they couldn't articulate it 4. Converted to Islam publicly. Photographed drinking, smoking, gambling, going out with women. All haram. Every young Muslim who looked up to him and converted because of him felt personally betrayed. I know because they told me in DMs for months after 5. Content got sanitised. The raw unfiltered version that made him famous disappeared. Replaced with generic motivation and safe takes. Audience could FEEL conviction draining from every video. Engagement dropped. Watch time dropped. Everything that made the content work was gone… By the time he stepped in the ring he was at his lowest point across every dimension. Cortisol through the roof from legal stress. Physically in shape. Mentally and energetically running on fumes. Chase landed uppercuts that prime Tate would've slipped in his sleep The lesson for anyone building a personal brand: Before you take ANY public action, run it through one filter: does this increase or decrease how people perceive my value? If decrease, even slightly, don't do it. Doesn't matter how tempting. Protect brand equity like it's your most valuable asset because it literally is. Worth more than your bank account, more than your following, more than any single deal… Every decision Tate made from January 2023 forward eroded brand equity. Crypto eroded it. Content sanitisation eroded it. The fight was just the final withdrawal from an account that was already overdrawn Learn from it or repeat it at whatever your scale is How to build brand equity that compounds, how to protect it when attacks come, and the decision framework that keeps you from making expensive ego-driven mistakes. All of it. April 4th. Warsaw Last time I'll mention it. You either saw this or you didn't. Profile link if you're ready

@C_S_Skeptic Why do you care about minor issues?

This is what your subscriptions to Tate enterprises buy them - self indulgence. Guess what - if you hadn’t paid your monthly dues, YOU would be eating the steak instead of him.

@Dplanet One page said something bad, oh no… Show me a min 100

🚨🇭🇰 The Tate brothers are not going down well with women in Hong Kong...

@LinettePaille If a women is going to put herself in a position of easy access knowing most men are desperate. Who’s the blame? “Ah fuck men” Women just never know how to take accountability

When you realize that most men will fuck both of these women, you’ll begin to understand the problem. Men have zero standards and will fuck a goat, a pig, a lizard, a donkey, a dead corpse and film it and post it to the internet

Hahaha typical delusional women ( call me a misogynist) His online content is designed to be controversial as possible. It ain’t his fault that a retarded 16 year old boy soaks his content and then treats women bad. It’s a parent issue.. I have a 4 year old in a 10 year old relationship.. If my son consumed his content, and then spoke shit to my wife or I seen him treat girls bad, that’s that’s my problem and responsibility to educate him (hey buddy, most content you see by Andrew is designed to annoy people, you gotta separate the controversy and extract what’s valuable, women are wonderful people and don’t belong in the kitchen” My wife even likes him and understands he talks shit to annoy people. Anyone who actually believes what he says is true and cannot the the entertainment purposes of it then is just autistic

Look at Andrew Tate. Men listen to him not because of the merits of what he says but because he signals status and that he has things that they want. So you need basically a tall, good looking man with a hot wife and lots of money he has earned building something productive to lecture men on how to be good men.

Your tax money it literally funding immigrants coming into our country and raping women.. To have the ability to speak, you must risk being offensive. If you’ve a kid who consumes their “misogynistic” content online and they don’t understand entertainment then it’s a parents problem to educate them on what they believe is right, not the influencers. Free Speech 👍 instagram.com/reel/DV6livkCP…

I'm watching Into The Manosphere with my teen son (perfect Mother's Day viewing!) and all of the men in it are the weakest, most pathetic, low-IQ losers I've ever seen. These are all the boys who were bullied and rejected when Gen X were kids and we were fucking right to do so.

@Dplanet So calling a whore a whore is misogynistic?

You keep pretending this is 'free speech vs censorship' because you can’t defend the substance. Yes, people have agency. Yes, parents matter. And yes, men with huge platforms who market misogyny to boys still bear responsibility for the culture they help create. That isn’t 'banning speech'. It’s called criticism. And 'he means whores not women' is pure nonsense. Reducing women to 'whores' whenever they fail his purity test is misogyny, full stop.

Andrew Tate is flexing on his followers, calling them failures because they didn’t send their mums $1 million for Mother’s Day like he supposedly did. Only problem: the WhatsApp screenshot he posted appears to be fake. And even if it were real, most mothers would probably prefer their ‘billionaire’ son to show up with flowers, spend time with them, and act like a decent human being. This is also the same Tate who publicly called his own mother an idiot when she was horrified by his ‘Pimping Hoes Degree’ course. She said it would create dangerous men like Vlad Obu. Looks like she understood him better than his fans do.

This tweet is literally a strawman. Almost nobody is arguing that rape is acceptable or that women “enjoy it.” That’s a caricature invented to make disagreement look insane. Most people already agree rape is wrong and should be punished. The real debate is about due process, false accusations, and teaching responsibility to both sexes — not pretending all men are potential criminals.

Feminists: we need to educate young men on consent to help challenge attitudes around victim blaming Manosphere: WOAH that's assumes young men are rapists! That's misandrist! Feminists: Ok, what would you like to do to decrease rape rates? Manosphere: Nothing, women are liars and whores and they enjoy it

Men are 50% of conception. Women are 100% of the pregnancy decision. Women control contraception choices, emergency contraception, abortion access, and adoption decisions. So yes, both sexes create the situation — but only one ultimately decides whether a pregnancy continues. Calling that “one-sided responsibility” ignores basic biology and law.

Men who say “just stop opening your legs” in an abortion debate are not arguing. They’re dodging. The “close your legs” argument also conveniently forgets that men are 50 percent of the equation. Funny how responsibility becomes very one-sided the second the topic gets uncomfortable.

You’re still missing the core point. Influencers don’t “program” people. They produce content. People choose what to consume and how to interpret it. If controversial speech automatically makes someone responsible for how millions of strangers interpret it, then every comedian, rapper, movie director, and political commentator would be responsible for society’s behaviour. That standard would make half of entertainment illegal. You say Tate “poisons young men”. But young men are also consuming music about violence, movies about crime, and social media glorifying drugs. Yet we don’t claim those creators are “grooming” society. Why? Because we understand the difference between content and personal responsibility. Parents raising their children properly is not “irrelevant”, it’s the entire foundation of how values are learned. Blaming internet personalities for bad parenting is just outsourcing responsibility. And if you truly believe controversial speech should be restricted because some people interpret it badly, then you’re not arguing against Tate. He talks shit about whores not women, he talks more shit about men then women. You’re arguing against free speech itself.

No, genius, this is what people like you never grasp: When a man builds a brand on misogyny, domination, humiliation and pimp rhetoric, it does not magically become harmless because you call it 'an online persona'. 'Parents should educate their children' is true. It also has absolutely nothing to do with whether Tate is pushing toxic, abusive ideas into millions of young minds for profit. Both things can be true: Parents have responsibilities, and Andrew Tate is a malignant influence. And spare me the free speech cliché. Nobody said he should be 'cancelled' because speech can be offensive. The issue is that his content normalises contempt for women, grooms boys into narcissistic stupidity, and then people like you dismiss the fallout as somebody else’s problem. 'He’s just trolling' is not a defence. If your entire brand is poisoning young men and degrading women, you do not get to hide behind 'lol it triggered you bruv'.

@TheEcho13 So… Andrew Tate encouraging men to stay fit and make money but has a few controversial opinions on women just to annoy liberals is upsetting? You wonder why havent visited earth “Ah, these clowns are upset over a few words, fuck that”

Except I’ve never seen the manosphere speak positively about men or encourage men to have any form of productive, stable life. They're not pro-men, they're just anti-woman. They don't do anything to actually help men. It's just a poor attempt at making everything someone else's fault.

@DG0DNFT @Cobratate How do you trust a man who has an emotional reaction to content online deliberately made to provoke retards like you?

@Cobratate How do you trust a man that’s emotional unstable and has to tweet his thought out to the world

If this gets 2000 retweets I’ll start a thread of free fitness tips.

@emaxstatman @ididdodat @Cobratate This is because it’s entertaining… The internet wouldn’t be fun without misogyny, racism or sexist comments. Even women talking shit about men. It’s a double edged sword.

@ididdodat @Cobratate That ain’t being humble. The humble one does it without looking for a clout. I like Tate, but you never do humble activities on camera.

Humble billionaire Bugatti Drop-Off! Watch what happens next! 👀

@primetateHQ Coming from a Tate fan, this is legit fucking gay. You’re a robotic Tate.. Tate encourages people to think for themselves yet you talk like him 24/7 That’ll really turn on the women 🤣

I don’t sleep with vaccinated women.

Is @Cobratate the worst man alive or is it FAILED parents??? As usual, the media trying to demonise men. My friend here spoke facts; instagram.com/reel/DV6livkCP… People act like controversial influencers are some new dangerous phenomenon, when in reality the internet is just an amplified version of what talk shows, shock radio and entertainment media have done for decades. Strong opinions and provocation drive attention. That’s the attention economy. Many of these creators exaggerate their delivery because controversy creates reach. The personality becomes theatrical. But the existence of theatrics doesn’t automatically invalidate every idea being discussed. A rational person should be able to consume content, separate personality from information, and decide what they agree with or reject. That’s basic media literacy. Listening to someone talk about discipline, relationships, money or life choices doesn’t mean you automatically endorse their entire worldview or personal behaviour. Adults are capable of extracting ideas without copying the person delivering them. The reaction online often assumes viewers are incapable of independent thought, which ironically says more about the critics than the audience. The other strange thing is that outrage almost always amplifies these figures. Every documentary, exposé, and viral criticism simply introduces them to new audiences. In the attention economy, criticism often functions as free marketing. Whether people like these personalities or not is a separate discussion entirely. But pretending that audiences can’t hear controversial opinions without becoming brainwashed is a very low view of human intelligence. Most people understand the difference between entertainment, provocation and genuine belief.

It’s not really the influencer’s fault if the audience doesn’t understand the difference between entertainment and belief. We live in an attention economy. The most controversial opinions get the most engagement, so creators deliberately say provocative things because that’s what the algorithms reward. That doesn’t mean every word is meant to be taken as literal life advice. If someone disagrees with their opinions that’s completely fair, but the ability to speak freely means some people will say things others find offensive. That’s the trade-off of free speech. If a 16 year old is watching someone like Andrew Tate and cannot recognise that the content is deliberately exaggerated to provoke reactions and views, that’s more of a parental or education issue than an influencer issue. The internet didn’t invent controversial personalities. It just made them visible.

Just watched Louis Theroux’s: Inside The Manosphere! Young men please DO NOT choose these people as your role models! 😳😳😳