Not contesting any of it, but what is wrong with stoicism?

Stocisim is actually the only part of the toxic blend that has real merit. Although it encourages disregarding one's emotions and feelings and people who practice classic stoicism were found to be detached from reality more often, uncertain about their relationships and likely to develop mental health issues.

The mix is toxic, but it had to be at least a little paletable.

Stoicism has critiques but that wasn't what I wanted to say, just that his way of thinking would lead to most men being deeply dissatisfied with their lived.

A lot of what he says goes directly against the protections of your mental comfort afforded by a stoicism mindset.

This is strangely popular, but wrong impression. If you read the origin sources (Markus Meditations or Seneca's Letters to Lucilius) it's easily deducted from there.

It's not about disregarding, it's about understanding that what you feel and what you are and do are two distinct entities.

Stoics view emotions as a two-stage process: the involuntary experience (natural emotional reactions) and conscious rationalization (examining and responding to emotions thoughtfully).

The initial mental impression (phantasia) is an inevitable component of human responses. The point of Stoic training is not to achieve disregarding emotions, but to focus on how one reacts to them, specifically whether one reacts automatically to them. It's the opposite of disregard, because they merit a very close inspection and when possible a reasoned reaction.

The Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is build on these principles and many studies (and meta studies) prove these principles work to improve many disorders:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3584580/

They didn't realize it because it isn't true.

Most of the things Andrew Tate pushes are not harmful. Stoicism isn't bad, it's massively undervalued in today's society. I'd say that most of today's modern sensibilities are the toxic influences that end up seriously harming the mental health of millennials and zoomers.

It's super easy to tell: the more in touch they're with them, the less reasonable they're, the more they get hung up on irrelevant things and have outbursts about completely asinine topics. They always have to be treated with silk gloves and if someone doesn't they'll try to get them cancelled.

Tate just adds silly amounts of narcissism as well, what people call "being alpha" and "sigma" right now. And that obviously ends up harming other people.

> the more in touch they're with them, the less reasonable they're, the more they get hung up on irrelevant things and have outbursts about completely asinine topics.

That describes Andrew Tate pretty well.

I dont disagree. It's also true for the people he teaches.

But they didn't become like that through Tate. They were already brought to that point by our society massively overvaluing things that are effectively harmful to us as productive members of society.

Tate just uses this issue in this messaging, and profits from simps that believe he can solve it for them. Even though the fact they're going to a "daddy figure" as grown men to have it solved is part of the issue in the first place.

Why would they believe he can solve it for them, if he can't even solve it in himself—or that he can, but has chosen to retain them? It seems more likely that these are fairly off-putting traits, and he attracts people who naturally have those traits themselves, because they see him as successful because of them.