Not The Onion

20351 readers

1593 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

791

Andrew Tate is ’too smart to read’ and says books are for ‘slow brains’ (www.irishstar.com)

submitted 6 days ago by spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

166 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Self-professed misogynist influencer Andrew Tate believes reading is for people with “slow brains,” according to a recent resurfaced clip of him on X. In the video, Tate is seen bragging that his brain is too advanced for reading and that he’d rather be in constant chaos.

“I’m too smart to read. I know you’re sitting there going ‘smart people read’... no. I need action. I need constant chaos in my life to feel content. I need to be driving a supercar and f—ing fighting, f—ing a bunch of hoes and champagne… going crazy.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 7 points 5 days ago

ADHD does track with thriving in chaos. I know that my own attention span sometimes doesn't stick long enough to read a book.

I tend to consider it a detriment to myself, because it's at odds with what I wish I could do. I know that others have come to better terms with it. To Tate, however, anything and everything about him has to be another indicator of his supremacy. The logic goes like this:

1: I'm unable to keep my attention on books.
2: Everything that I am is great.
Ergo: My inability to stick with books is a good thing.
Inverse: Reading books is a bad thing.
Ergo: Books are stupid and I'm just too smart.

The error lies in the second premise being universal. Whether he might have some great things or none at all is irrelevant here, but I'm sure we all agree that not everything is great. If you turned that premise into a particular "Some things that I am are great" (again, veracity is irrelevant to my point), the syllogism would no longer work and the conclusion would be invalid.

So all in all, he might have ADHD, but that doesn't make him less of an arrogant waste of space.