A wild weekend in esports — Andrew Tate, Carlos, and Cancel Culture
This weekend has been an explosive one in esports with G2, specifically their CEO Carlos, at the centre of the drama. Like every time some controversy breaks out, metaphorical shit gets slung by both sides and heavily biased viewpoints & raging emotions dominate the argument.
There’s a lot I’d like to unpack so this article is broken down into three sections:
- Andrew Tate
- Carlos & Positions of Power
- Cancel Culture
I’ve tried to be as factually-informed and neutral as possible but as sometimes you have to read between the lines, I’ve probably got it wrong in places. Maybe my bias creeps in too. No one’s perfect (Carlos & Tate included). Let’s see how we do.
An important note to throw at the head of this post — I have never seen an Andrew Tate Tiktok video. I’m serious. I barely use Tiktok and my exposure to Tate has been sparked by headlines and second-hand info, followed by a bit of research/reading. Sometimes that was longer form interviews with Tate where the interviewers clearly wanted to drive him down a path that made him look bad, others were very clearly driven that way by Tate himself.
Here’s my view from top to bottom.
Andrew Tate
Most know of Andrew Tate by now. If you’ve had limited exposure to him like I did until a few days ago, you likely associate him with the worst side of “bro culture” — misogyny, dismissal of mental health, rape apologies etc — and that he was banned from practically every social media platform going for violating policies on hate speech.
Many who hold that view him pull up things like:
- Beating a woman on video
- Being a rape apologist
- Saying depression isn’t real
- Moving to Romania to avoid future sexual harassment cases
- Being under investigation for sex trafficking
- Being a misogynist
Whereas those who support him claim:
- His videos are taken out of context
- He’s playing a character and that what he says is part of a skit
- Nothing has been proven against him re: sex trafficking
- He does a lot to inspire men
Each is worth exploring to understand where the issue with Tate lies.
Beating a woman on video
A video of Tate and an ex of his came to light. He was beating her with a belt, verbally abusing her, and telling her to count her bruises. Said ex has come out TWICE to say it was consensual sex play. I understand that for many, he enjoys this kind of play because he’s misogynistic. I don’t agree. There’s plenty of healthy dom-sub relationships that can be like this.
None of our business and I genuinely feel bad he got dragged for this.
Being a rape apologist
Tate did say that sexual assault victims must “bare some of the responsibility” for sexual assault. It’s an opinion albeit a highly controversial one. I don’t know if Tate has had experiences where he’s spent hundreds of dollars on a woman only for her not to sleep with him or what but it’s not on. More fool him or any other bloke that thinks buying a woman drinks means you’re entitled to their body. No consent, no touch. Personally I think anyone who agrees with this take (or god forbid, more sinister ones) need to ask themselves if they’d stand by this if their mother, sister, or a close friend was a victim of sexual assault, no matter the context. Bad take by Tate.
Saying depression isn’t real
It’s medically recognised — it’s plenty real. We’ve lost many fantastic personalities to depression and it’s one of the greatest contributors to male suicide in men under 50. Again, bad take by Tate.
Some might argue “he says this to wake his followers up and get them to take action”. Okay… Just don’t write off a genuinely debilitating illness in pursuit of that goal. I wouldn’t dream of saying “Parkinsons isn’t real, just man up and stop shaking so much”. It doesn’t make it any less real because you can’t see it.
Moving to Romania to escape sexual harassment charges
Tate did go on video about this. His view is that in Eastern Europe, the police are more sympathetic to the man in cases where a woman has spent the night with one and then accused them of rape the next day. His fans will evidence cases where a woman lied about being raped. I get it, and this is a very divisive topic. Guys feel they’ve been strung along by a girl that then drops them at the end of the night and feel like they’re owed something but going back to my rape apologist point… This ain’t it.
If that’s his reason for moving to Romania, call it another bad take. Not treating women (in this case, “employees”) poorly would be a start.
Being under investigation for sex trafficking
He is under investigation. The details are a bit hazy still but he said no women were at his house. It sounds like there were 2 who we’re still not sure were there against their will. Make of it what you will.
Again, potentially nothing and unfair to leverage against Tate. This is the main argument against Tate I’ve been pretty opposed to this weekend; innocent until proven guilty, but I understand with his track record that many believe there’s something strange going on.
Being a misogynist
I think “misogynist” is the natural label to jump towards when anyone says something questionable about women. I’m not sure I’m fully onboard with label of that calibre — still working through that internally.
Tate believes a lot of things such as:
- Women shouldn’t drive
- Women should stay at home
- Women are a man’s property
Does that mean he’s a misogynist? Here’s the dictionary definition.
Are his views ingrained prejudice? I’d say so, yes. For many misogny means a “hatred of women”. I don’t think Tate hates women. He’s said many times that he doesn’t hate them, that he thinks they’re “beautiful creatures”, that they should be protected etc. A bit representative of a world gone by (“traditional” is the term some use) when combined with the earlier points but personally I don’t think it has a place in modern society regardless of which definition you go with. Freedom to choose is where it’s at.
I’ve referenced this a few times in this post but it’s the effect these views have on easily shaped minds that concern those against Tate. In a world that’s trying to move forwards, more young men believing women “have their place” and should be “owned” by a man is a step backwards.
His videos are taken out of context.
I’m not sure. Last I checked he openly declared he’s “absolutely sexist” and “absolutely a misogynist” in his final send off when he got banned from social media. I don’t see how that can ever be justified unless it was him being sarcastic. In that case, why would you joke about it knowing the criticism brought against you?
“He’s playing a character” others say. If I were to “play a character” and say we should burn everyone from a particular country, or we should reintroduce slavery… Is that suddenly okay? Of course it’s not. Character or not, saying you’d bash a womans face in for accusing you of cheating or that women should be the property of men is such a dive back into the history books (as well as being completely abhorrent) that it’s painful.
Nothing has been proven against him re: sex trafficking
Correct. He’s under investigation. People do need to calm down on the “he’s a sex trafficker” — he’s not, unless proven otherwise. The only lean towards this I will give is the odd business choice he had which he declares a “scam” whereby he’d essentially pimp women out to men (he got 5 girlfriends that didn’t know about each other together to start this) for $4 a minute on webcam. There’s lots to unpack there that I won’t go into for brevity since this is already getting long. Watch the video up above for his view on it.
He does a lot to inspire men
He does. I spoke to a few people this weekend (who were happy to have a measured discussion) and this was what they led with. I get it — if you’ve scrolled onto him on Tiktok and he’s inspired you to get up and sort your life out, good for you! The problem is that so do many others WITHOUT spouting questionable views on the side.
In the business world we always see names like Simon Sinek and Gary Vee inspiring people to change their lives WITHOUT demeaning and bashing an entire group of people (women). In summary, there are better heroes to pick.
That’s without going into Hustler’s University sounding like a crypto x dropshipping pyramid scheme scam. Got to make money from your inspired followers after all.
Carlos & Positions of Power
To get people up to speed who haven’t had the weekend to sit at their computers/on their phones, the CEO of G2 Esports, Carlos, posted a video of him and a group of people celebrating G2’s championship win. In that video (in the company of Carlos) was Andrew Tate.
Given all that’s been laid out in the section above, you can probably see why some take issue with this. Let’s take a quick look at positions of power.
Carlos is the CEO of G2. He has a large fanbase (>500k followers on Twitter) and is revered by many as a bit of a hero. My heart broke for him when he got hit by the famous xPeke backdoor back in the day, robbing him of a huge win; I’ve followed his journey for a good while now. He’s become a popular figure in esports with many impressionable minds hanging on his every word (and memes). Why many people were upset was that he was hanging out with someone who’s on record calling himself a misogynist, “joking” about violence against women, and so on. See section 1 for the exhaustive list. It’s not very becoming of someone that has female teams to associate with someone who I wouldn’t be surprised to hear some of those female teams feel threatened by or have a general dislike for him.
That was the bubbling broth in the afternoon. Carlos clearly read many of the comments on his initial video then came out with a tweet later saying “Nobody will ever be able to police my friendships. I draw my line here. I party with whoever the fuck I want”. Nuclear meltdown ensued. Carlos stopped short of directly saying “Andrew Tate is my friend” but the tweet goes 95% of the way. There’s an assumption to make here if you want to be technical about it but everyone can understand the inferred meaning.
Looking back at the position of power Carlos holds and what Andrew Tate represents to so many people, the problem with the friendship comes to the fore.
Imagine a world where G2 are celebrating the victory of the women’s VALORANT team (yet again — they’re killing it, with 3 back-to-back wins in the bag) at a party. Carlos invites Tate as ones of his friends he’s very keen to party with. Said players have seen the rhetoric Tate comes out with — women should belong to men, if they get raped it’s partly their fault, calling himself a misogynist etc. How do you think they’ll feel? God awful I’d bet. At their own party.
If Tate becomes “normalised” to Carlos’ fans, his behaviours and beliefs become more and more accepted in the esports arena. As they become accepted, people start to listen. As they listen, they begin to believe. And once they believe, that’s where the damage begins. Esports already sucks enough where sexism/racism is concerned.
This is the issue many have with Carlos associating with Tate. It gives him and his rhetoric a platform that people don’t want to welcome into esports. His fans will say “but he helps men grow a backbone and take some responsibility” — okay, but once you look up to him as an inspiration/a leader, his other beliefs begin to follow (or if they already existed in the individual, they fester and grow).
As a side note — it’s relevant to the above, promise — I made a few tweets over the weekend that got pulled down to “so you think Tate is the new Hitler?”. Some will be here to find this nugget so let’s address it head on.
Short answer — no, I don’t. Longer answer, my comparison was the tactics employed by Tate are similar to that of Trump, Hitler, and many other “successful” but questionable individuals throughout history. Hitler is perhaps the most notorious so let’s go there. Germany between WW1 and WW2 is a fascinating period of history and I heavily encourage anyone to read about it. “Those who don’t learn from the past are bound to repeat it” blah blah blah.
Hitler capitalised on the fears and wants of the German people. They were sick of living in terrible economic conditions due to allied reparations for WW1. They had little food. Their lives were miserable. Hitler offered hope. He showed them a path forward. One where their fridges would be full and one where he’d take back control from the allies that were suppressing their once great nation. A pretty compelling offer, no? A path out of their misery? He built a following, raised their fears and scorn to a fever pitch, and then directed it at the Jews. We all know how it went from there.
I’m not at all insinuating Tate is about to lead us to the genocide of women. That’d be disgustingly sensationalist. But it does show how the path Tate is on employs the same tactics Hitler did. We all saw Trump walk a similar path not too long ago. Drum up frustration and hatred, point it at whatever Trump felt like on a given day. Mexicans. Muslims. Democrats. Take your pick. Jan 6th was a result of that.
Someone did argue all politicans do this to win support. They use similar tactics — promising to solve a pain or fear — but rarely in a way that invokes hatred against a group of people. Those against these figures then rally hard, causing those that are for them to rally even harder. The end result is the individual in the middle’s profile builds and builds and builds.
Tate isn’t stupid; he knew what he was doing. It’s not on the same scale (I think?) but he was getting to a point where misogynist views were becoming prevalent in an alarming number of individuals.
Some of them people I thought I knew better.
Cancel Culture
In trying to stay neutral, I’ve spoken to a lot of folks this weekend who are pro-Tate, pro-Carlos, or merely anti-cancel culture — maybe even all 3.
Before I get into this, my bare basic expectation of any human being is that they “live and let live”. Where others aren’t jumping down their throats or actively seeking to harm/affect others negatively, it’s none of your business what someone gets up to. Your personal beliefs shouldn’t influence what someone else does. See sexual orientation, gender, abortion, drugs etc. Is it unfair to expect others to believe the same? Maybe. But that’s where I sit.
For the uninitiated, cancel culture is the practice of ostracising/”cancelling” someone who holds a view that is deemed unacceptable. In some cases it works wonders and really does shut the pig ignorant up. In others, it goes too far. For example I don’t believe people should be cancelled when they apologise, realising they were wrong/had a misinformed view/did something dumb and are now seeking to course correct. Doesn’t matter if it’s a tweet from 10 years ago or partying with a questionable individual, no one’s perfect and they deserve forgiveness if they’re genuine in their desire to make amends.
Should Carlos be cancelled for his poor decision? That’s for you to decide. He did come out and make a- I won’t call it an apology. He made a statement. Anyway, after posting it he was straight back on liking pro-Tate tweets.
It shows that Carlos isn’t genuine with his statement. He doesn’t respect what Tate means to many of his fans who are threatened by the views Tate holds. And that is where the outrage kicked in and why G2’s supervisory board have put him on leave for 8 weeks. Whether or not a cosy 8 week break is due punishment is for you to decide. I know where I sit.
I think when the dust settles, nothing will change. Carlos will stay friends with Tate. G2 staff and fans will continue to feel the same sense of being let down by someone they admire. And the world goes on.
I’m always curious to learn new perspectives and viewpoints. If people raise good questions or educate me on something I wasn’t aware of, I’ll be sure to add it below.
