I don't own a gym. "My gym" means "the gym I go to". Anyway, this is a pattern I see weirdly often on HN--person A casually insults a large group of people, an

I don't own a gym. "My gym" means "the gym I go to". Anyway, this is a pattern I see weirdly often on HN--person A casually insults a large group of people, and person B calls them out on it. A proceeds to clutch pearls about "guidelines" being violated as if they didn't just say something vitriolic. Also, I'm not sure how suggesting you spend too much time online is "calling names". Back to the point: using social media like HN isn't evidence of spending too much time online. Being unaware that Tate is a nobody outside of the internet is. > I don't get how you can claim that they don't care about his shit if you've never actually brought him up with any of them. Hence my accusation. The answer to this is obvious if you spend time around real people. How do you know your friends aren't flat earthers? Because those ideas appeal to a certain type of person, and they aren't that type (presumably). There's a certain segment of the male population: insecure, awkward young guys who think that if only they can emulate the right behaviors, they'll "be a man", and for some reason their ability to get laid while displaying maximum disregard for their partner is the sole yardstick by which they measure their success. This is Tate's target audience. Ever heard of the "manosphere", internet personalities teaching guys "game" and how to "spin plates" and whatnot? Tate is just the latest iteration of that. He's not some new phenomenon. I've known guys who follow that stuff. They're socially awkward, usually posturing, and have a thinly veiled resentment towards women. The guys at my gym are normal, fairly well-adjusted dudes. Relaxed, usually cracking jokes, supportive of their classmates both male and female. I know they don't follow Andrew Tate because he has nothing to offer them, and they don't act like the guys who are typically into that nonsense. > Even then, if your using "people at your gym" as your final dataset then you've got a biased sample and your data's inaccurate, at best. Imagine that, the guy who claims that 60% of men are $LIST_OF_SUBJECTIVE_NEGATIVE_THINGS expects only the most rigorous data from his opponents. Where's your data coming from? In your highly scientific analysis, precisely how "uninteresting" or "ugly" does a poor chap have to be to fall in your 60%? SI units only, please.