Comments by "Sisu Guillam" (@sisuguillam5109) on "Andrew Tate was ‘coercive’, says ex-girlfriend – BBC News" video.

  1. As it's not testimony i court but an interview, no. You do understand that there is a difference? And what it does is to help establish if there was a pattern of behaviour.
    9
  2. How much of your money did he take?
    8
  3. She is speaking hard facts.
    7
  4. Peterson is not a therapist. And need therapy himself.
    6
  5.  @eliasl332  No, that is not what relationships are. Whoever told you that lied to you.
    6
  6. You seem to be unfamiliar with the romanian court system.
    5
  7. As did the Tates. The Tates literally worked in the adult industry.
    5
  8.  @yellow4563  you keep posting that... it's not the clinching argument you think it is.
    4
  9.  @barneymagee3285  quite a lot of people do not see through grooming.
    4
  10. Which is why she provided additional evidence. Which you would not be able to do.
    4
  11.  @lukemurray4950  did you... did you just undermine the case Tate's lawyer is trying to make in his defense? Ooooops....
    3
  12. Yep.
    3
  13. So by the same Logik someone still in a relationship should never speak up on behalf of someone? Are you sure you thought that one through?
    3
  14.  @joexavier2287  if you think so... but sunk cost fallacy is something you should look up.
    2
  15. Obstruction of justice? Are you sure you do understand what that means?
    2
  16.  @ammarahmad6507  you mean: a movie made by two trans-women which you do not understand?
    2
  17.  @Enne-  No, it doesn't.
    2
  18. Worried about the money you wasted on his products?
    2
  19.  @allfootball8674  He is telling you that he is - he is simply selling you a product.
    2
  20. You seem to have lived either a very seltener life or one where people have neglected and hurt you. Using Tate and his talking points as a way to grow and to cope might have been a useful strategy at one point - but it will fail you. Time to move on.
    2
  21.  @davidzzz607  being old as dirt, and having a MA in two fields relevant here, does help.
    2
  22. Nor do you believe in punctuation. Yet it does exist.
    2
  23. That so? So when someone in your family finds themselves in danger from people who are invested in protecting a person that has exploited your family member because they stand to lose money you want them to show their face on national telly?
    2
  24. Your media literacy needs work.
    2
  25. You? Tate? But why tell us?
    2
  26. The Matrix is a movie. A movie made by two trans-women.
    2
  27. Tate? Yup.
    2
  28.  @GIBBO4182  erm... what? Time as a concept seems to elude you.
    2
  29. Anyone have some spare punctuation left?
    2
  30. Person on the internet has watched video, hasn't understood the video, was not able to evaluate the information - yet does comment.
    2
  31. I am so sorry he took your money, lied to you, and you now feel like you have no chance but to push on. Sunk cost fallacy is something you might want to look up.
    2
  32. That what happens when you traffick humans and scam - people do take issue with that.
    2
  33. From Tate? Not quite yet. But I am sure he will get there.
    2
  34. Is that what they asked you, when you called to defend Tate? I am dure they are much too polite to phrase it like that?
    2
  35. Neither of the Tate brothers are on trial yet.
    2
  36. Not working, is it?
    2
  37. You mean you do not understand what human trafficking works? And that she established a pattern of behaviour?
    2
  38.  @amirpride  they are refering to Tate trying to make fun of Greta - and failing.
    1
  39. But manipulation is what the Tates sold - quite literally.
    1
  40. You mean a voice under stress, over the phone sounds slightly differently from when it's recorded in a proper setting? Goodness... you don't get out much.
    1
  41. Is she? You take issue with her taking a lie down now and then?
    1
  42. 0. That's not how interviews outside of the Daily Mail work.
    1
  43.  @djbbdfggh  quite a lot of it is. The DM is fostering an environment hostile to media literacy as their business model does depend on it.
    1
  44. And?
    1
  45. I am so sorry the Tates scammed you.
    1
  46.  @p.o.p.e  Mate?
    1
  47. The Matrix is a movie. One made by two trans-women.
    1
  48. If he abused and coerced you, you report this to the police.
    1
  49. You do understand that the conditions under which sex work is undertaken matter?
    1
  50. You believe in lie detectors? Goodness... how odd.
    1
  51.  @billrerikson6378  that he did. Grown ups do understand that the law works differently in many places... but one thing quite a lot of places have in common is that a girlfriend (especially an ex girlfriend) is not awareded the same legal protection as a wife or parent: as in does not have to testify. When it comes to disregarding the evidence of a relative or marriage partner he is even more off.
    1
  52. Is she one of the women named? No. Is she providing insight and establishing a pattern of behaviour? Yes.
    1
  53. And? Isn't that what the Tates are selling? How to make money? Isn't that what the Tates are proud of? Making money? Isn't that what the Tates used her for? Making money? If you think she is earning money by talking to these reporters you need to work on your media literacy.
    1
  54. You are not getting your money back.
    1
  55. Why would they lead with that? Being a sex worker does not mean you lose your rights. It doesn't mean you are worthless.
    1
  56. That's what grooming means. And people like the Tates do not only groom their victims (and that includes the boys and men they sold their products to) but their character witnesses too.
    1
  57. You are free not to watch it.
    1
  58. If you have insider information feel free to contact GRETA. They are easily found on the EU website.
    1
  59. Says who?
    1
  60. The lawyer, if he did indeed say that, is a waste of money.
    1
  61. Tate's fan boys working the comment section? Yep. That's their MO.
    1
  62.  @joexavier2287  apply the education you surely must have been given.
    1
  63. It's an interview, not a testimony in court. And yes, quite a lot of them should be in jail.
    1
  64. As did both of the Tates.
    1
  65.  @TheKnowledgeTimeChannel  they worked in the adult industry. And you do realise Andrew Tate himself has stated that he has chatted with customers while posing as a girl selling her services? That makes him not only someone working in the adult industry - that makes him a sex worker. Someone out there got off on Andrew Tate typing.
    1
  66. In court?
    1
  67. The whole BBC account? Don't you think that's a bit of a reach?
    1
  68. You okay?
    1
  69. In your scenario the women have every reason to suspect they are victims if there are red flags..
    1
  70. You mean... the very R Kelly that is in jail? That one?
    1
  71. He wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, mate.
    1
  72. That is a you problem. One you might want to bring up in therapy.
    1
  73. How much money did you give him?
    1
  74. Oh, it's a Jordan Peterson fan...
    1
  75. You are that close, that close to having a revelation about the sex industry...
    1
  76. As did Tate. Tate and his brother worked in the adult industry.
    1
  77. Not really. Media literacy is something you can learn to accomplish.
    1
  78. As she does know him, has lived with him, has better insight in his business she probably is.
    1
  79. Men. Sunk cost fallacy. Your point?
    1
  80. Oh, kiddo...
    1
  81.  @Codetrix22  you mean the same JD that has settled several times after assaulting men? That one? The won that went from court appointments with his former wife straight into meetings with a man he assaulted?
    1
  82.  @Codetrix22  that was not the result of the court case though. That was not even what the court case was about. You do understand that?
    1
  83. She established a pattern of behaviour.
    1
  84. @Michael Nkomo Mate, dude... not your claim to make. And her not Meeting your standard of victim does not mean that others are not victims. The Tates are in custody for valid reasons.
    1
  85.  @TreyBAND  I know that corruption exists. And I know that the Tates banked on it existing - quite publicly so. What I do know as well is that the Tates provided the evidence themselves. Andrew and his brother are not your friends - they wouldn't piss on you if your were on fire.
    1
  86. No. It means that the Tates followed the grooming text book to a T. Traffickers not obly groom their victims but their character witnesses too.
    1
  87. If he indeed did, you are free to contact his lawyer as ask him to be able to speak on Tate's behalf.
    1
  88. No. It means she is aware that Tate fan boys are prone to harrasment.
    1
  89. Erm... you do understand that your standard would exclude anyone who has been in a relationship with the Tates from giving evidence on their behalf?
    1
  90. You okay?
    1
  91. And you know that how? If you have insider informationen, please contact the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. It's easily found on the EU webpage.
    1
  92. Sunk cost fallacy seems to be keeping you working for the Tates though.
    1
  93. You are that close to having an epiphany. That close.
    1
  94.  @tejasdugar3304  unlikely to happen.
    1
  95. Apparently, as the comment section is quite busy with Tate minions.
    1
  96. You do realise that? Now? In 2023? What took you so long? Yes, it is always time for women to tell their stories. That doesn't zake anything away from you - including your right to tell yours.
    1
  97.  @oxidise3758  I know that she did get 0. And that her story was cooroborated. Knowing how journalist actually work does help, you know.
    1
  98. But... isn't that what you admire in Tate? The very thing he is selling?
    1
  99. Is she one of the women named as a victim? No. Is she able to provide insigth into the business Tate ran and establish a pattern of behaviour? Yes.
    1
  100. I am sorry you have been hurt - but therapy does help.
    1
  101.  @joexavier2287  oh, kiddo...
    1