Andrew Tate a Chess Champion?

Is there really nothing strange about the incarceration of the Tate brothers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aDBI2g2uOA

The only strange thing is this topic.

Those who really want to talk about that trashcan should go to pimp.com or something.

So, which one is it?

• You watched that whole video, and noticed nothing strange, no possible injustice, no problem with "due process", nothing, you only saw that you don't like Andrew Tate.
• You didn't even watch the whole video, and just decided that there was probably nothing there, no possible injustice, no problem with "due process", nothing, you only saw that you don't like Andrew Tate.

Actually, I watched 60 seconds or so and then I stopped it because it annoyed me too much. Both the substance and the form are annoying. What is up with this practice that the guy puts a cut in the video any time he pauses between sentences?

There are plenty of material online about the case of the Tate brothers, it is weird to pick one by some random conspiracy theorist.

OK, got it.

You watched 60 seconds, decided that the video did not follow the official narrative and what your feelings told you it should say, and then you decided not to watch it. In order to bolster your case you have now also added that the messenger is not worthy, therefore the message cannot be correct. Well done.

Actually, I googled the guy, and even read (okay, skimmed through) his wikipedia article, before I declared that the messenger is not worthy. I did way more than this guy was worth. Sorry.

You are sorry for what? The fact that you cannot make logical arguments?

I didn't say you used an improper method to decide that he was not worthy, only that you decided it, and that you then did something improper in addition. Your method for the decision is completely irrelevant here.

Btw, there is nothing wrong with checking out the messenger of a video, and decide not to watch the video. But it is not OK to then make comments about that video as if you have watched it.

Which I never did. I never even implied.

I wouldn't believe a word about him unfortunately.

So

"The only strange thing is this topic.

Those who really want to talk about that trashcan should go to pimp.com or something."

This was not a reply to my post which in turn was really only about that video?

I certainly did not want to give the impression that I watched the video. If I did, it was my mistake. My comment was dismissive, based on the fact that this is chess.com, and that whole case has nothing to do with chess. There are plenty of better places to discuss this, right?

G <- top G

OK, you did clearly give me the impression you were talking about it by "correcting" me on what was strange, but it was not very surprised to see that you had not actually watched the whole thing. Anyway, you say "my mistake", OK, good enough for me.

As for chess.com, OK, you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that such discussions pop up anyway, and to have a dedicated topic for it, so people can ignore it if they want or join if they want seems to me to make sense. Maybe it isn't so clever to put it under "General Chess Discussion" though, which is where it seems to have been put.

Anyway, my real problem is more that your reply fits a troubling general pattern: People seem super dismissive of any message that goes against the official narrative these days, on all kinds of topics. I think it is very problematic that the masses seem to filter out anything that goes against this narrative, no matter how well reasoned, no matter how undeniable (not saying that this video is perfect in that regard, this is a general claim), in fact they do not even bother to go through any such argument, they simply dismiss it. This gives those who can influence the official narrative an incredible amount of power, and since all power corrupts, this is a very dangerous thing.

The problem is that for most people with some degree of experience, the content and conclusion of the video becomes clear after the first few seconds in the same way that the content of a spam email becomes clear after reading the first sentence. Of course, one risks missing important information by skipping the rest of a spam email, but I doubt many people would count on that and waster their time.

That being said, I watched the video and can confirm that those who didn't did not miss anything. Girls with fat lips defending the Tates. Tristan in a bus telling them, with the camera conveniently filming, that they can fly back any time. Him bringing up a selection of other cases trying to make a point of evil women destroying men. The latter part of the video is then him complaining that they are put in detention 'indefinitely' and not charged, and the officials not releasing all the evidence to the public. When they will eventually be charged, whatever the outcome, this will age as well as any Q-anon claims. He then goes on to the typical rants about this being orchestrated, comparing it to Assange, bringing in 'neo-Marxism' bs, and so on. The Tates are really not that important.

The one thing I agree on in general, whether it's this case or any other, is that one shouldn't jump to conclusions based on partial information. But posting a video by professional troll with experience in making connections wherever he wants to see them will not convince anyone.

Now to something unrelated. One thing that has puzzled me for some time is why many guys find this somewhat aggressive and overly assertive style of delivery, that not only the dude from the video but also Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson employ (and one could say historical figures like the one with the weird moustache) so appealing and convincing. But that's another story, and we are in a chess forum after all... let's get back to Hans Niemann

Alekhine was not a Nazi sympathizer, they had his wife and blackmailed him.

This video is typical of the disinformation floating in the vast sewer that is the internet.

He starts by throwing out a bunch of rhetorical questions that lead the viewer to think only one thing: the Tates are being wronged by some massive injustice.  Why? Because the Romanian courts and political system are (bunch of vulgarities I can't type on chess.com) let's just say, not of the Anglo-American jurisprudence tradition. They have different rules, so they must be crappy. Then more rhetorical questions and selective presentation of little film clips of what looks like "adult movie" actresses giving testimony as to what great guys they are. This is, of course followed by more rhetorical questions. Then a bunch of other people who have been wronged by delayed prosecutions...bla...bla...bla. He's arguing a defense case to you, the jury of on-line viewers, to the deafening silence provided by all the straw men on the prosecution side.

They probably have been treated poorly. Most of the former East Bloc countries have dodgy adherence to due process ideals or Western standards. Most also don't have trial by jury, but by a panel of judges. One travels the world at one's own risk. One plays super-gangsta at one's own risk too. Someone may take you at face value for all the toxic garbage and posturing you put on the web. We'll only get to the bottom of this if there is a trial and the case is made. Until then, there is just so much hot air being blown around about people I never heard of until they got arrested.

Chess goes Brrrrrrrrrr.

Paul Watson works for Alex jones.