>>149728194
>it undermines Tate's whole sham. he's not rich and isn't even married despite preaching about family in his advertisement.
He also walked away with 2 grand from a sucker like Hank and the rest. Even if we assume that 50 grand was his mom's (I dont understand why this is meant to be some point of shame) he made about 10 grand off a single retreat. I assume he didn't make this business a week ago since the episode doesn't say that, so we can assume he has made more than 10 grand since then. If he holds these retreats regularly with similar attendance, let's say two per month, then he has already made more money than that initial investment. Therefore by every objective measurement the not Andrew Tate guy is a success, and whatever he thinks is working.
See this is what people are talking about when these episodes don't feel thought out. KOTH was not exactly a cerebral show when it was relevant, but that same mediocre writing is now 20 years old and did not progress even slightly. But people are so unintelligent nowadays that posts like
>Maybe the moral should have been to avoid grifters praying on insecurities, and leave out the shit about "men earning women" while conspicuously making women in the episode all look flawless
is seen as controversial incel shit. Surely anyone who has this rational response to a badly-written episode is a sexless loser destined to shoot up a grocery store.
