Tristan Tate finds himself at the center of a hypocrisy storm after promoting the very activity he once condemned Sean Strickland for endorsing.
The controversy traces back to October 2024 when Tate took a strong moral stance against Strickland’s involvement with online betting platforms. Responding to a user who joked about losing money on a Strickland bet, Tate didn’t mince words:
“Damn. Out there scamming people. Bro gambling is degenerate behaviour he’s pushed on men. This isn’t your fault at all. Shame on him.”
Tate positioned himself as a defender of vulnerable men criticizing Strickland for promoting what he called “degenerate behaviour.” It was a clear line in the sand – until it wasn’t.
Fast forward to the present and Tate has released a promotional video for an online casino platform. The video opens with an admission that seems designed to inoculate him from criticism:
“gambling is a r*tarded thing to do”
before launching into an explanation of why viewers should use the platform anyway.
His justification? People will engage in questionable activities regardless so they might as well do so with a platform that offers “zero house edge” games and immediate payouts. The circular logic is striking: gambling is foolish but if you’re going to be foolish, here’s where to be foolish.
Promoting gambling caused a number of Muslim influencers to distance themselves from the Tates.
The backlash has been swift and merciless. Critics have highlighted the glaring contradiction between Tate’s past condemnation and present promotion. Social media users have pointed out that the platform he’s endorsing has been linked to controversy with some customers reportedly experiencing difficulties withdrawing winnings.
Making matters worse the timing coincided with Tate’s October defense of accountability in consumer choices. When discussing other business models he had argued:
“No man who spends money on an e-girl or p**n was scammed”
and questioned
“Aren’t men accountable for their own bad habits?”
Strickland himself fired back at this reasoning calling Tate and his associates “low life con artist.”
The irony isn’t lost on observers. Less than a year after casting judgment on Strickland for the exact same behavior Tate has crossed the line he himself drew. The contradiction is made more apparent by his own previous words which positioned gambling promotion as exploitative rather than merely offering consumer choice.
Can someone who loudly condemned an activity as predatory turn around and profit from it themselves without losing the trust of their audience? The court of public opinion appears to be delivering its verdict and it isn’t favorable.
What you condemn today may well be used to judge you tomorrow.
