Yeah, it's not like fully agree with the guy or the fact that he posted it, but it is kind of stupid to call this piece of writing "shameful" while trying to defend someone who bring andrew tate as a positive example to convey his message. At least be fair and label both as shameful.
Nah, if you're fine with people getting debanked for having opinions you disagree with, that's shameful.
DHH on Andrew Tate btw:
> You don't have to like any of Andrew Tate's takes on men, women, wealth, or the world to see that this modern, coordinated unperson campaign against his "wicked words" is crazy. It's also likely to be counterproductive. I'd literally never heard of Andrew Tate until he got banned. Now he's everywhere, and has a credible martyr role to drape his spiel in.