kennydidwhat

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
 

Colby created a story about why he turned toxic. He told that story to Joe Rogan. That story became canon.

That story was false. This video explains in explicit detail why the story cannot be true, and it unravels his entire defense mechanism for his sustained bigotry over the years.

1
I tackled Beneil Dariush (www.youtube.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by kennydidwhat@lemmy.world to c/mmaleft@lemmy.world
 

Okay, clickbait title. I didn't tackle him. But I did tackle the absurd interviews he kept giving about Marxism, Jesus, and Teslas.

The best part about this video is that I went into it truly believing Beneil was some fundy dumbo I'd never find common ground with, and I ended up actually liking the guy for more than one reason.

I suspect this may have been Beneil's last major push for a title, but I've been wrong a thousand times already. I do wish him the best of luck though, cringe interviews aside. What do you think about Beneil's post-fight interviews, fighting style, or anything else that comes to mind about the guy?

 

For me, this looks an awful lot like kayfabe. Assuming everyone's in on it, I don't really understand the fuss behind the scenes. Of course, the public miffing is understandable.

The problem arises if not everyone behind the scenes is in on it. If that's so, there is no reality where DDP says what he says about African fighters without recognizing the absolute TRUCKLOAD of baggage surrounding that topic. He lives in South fucking Africa. He understands the racial undertones of otherwise innocuous statements. His region helped write the blueprint for it. There is no plausible deniability of the volatility of his statement. The Western "he didn't actually SAY anything bad" take is simply wrong.

Again, I'm fairly certain this is just Izzy trying to salvage an otherwise meek division after Pereira went on to better things. If it's not, jesus christ.

What are your thoughts on this whole thing? I've kept it pretty vague so far, but I'll get more into my views in the comments.

[–] kennydidwhat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Hey! I'll have you know that at least one out of every hundred fights looks vaguely like a boxing match!

[–] kennydidwhat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, also they're sourcing from ISW. Which is fine, if proper considerations are made.

But, they were not. Really low-hanging fruit of an article imo.

 

LINKS:

https://lemmy.world/c/mmaleft@lemmy.world

https://lemmy.world/c/mmaleft

!mmaleft@lemmy.world

This community differs from other MMA communities in that it specifically focuses on themes of leftism and left-leaning in general as they show up in the sport. Which they do, constantly.

Conservative nonsense will be stamped out. I also make content on this subject (non-monetized, I do it as a small hobby) that explores various leftist themes in the MMA world that I'll be posting there. You can check those out and drop videos of your own if you're into that kind of thing.

The hope is to have a few smaller conversations with like-minded folk, serving as a bit of an oasis from the traditional conservative MMA fanbase. I'll likely set up event threads to discuss particular events if enough people join, otherwise we'll just let it chill as a small group.

 

This is a video I made, mostly to goof around with the topic and troll conservatives a bit for fun, but also to try to answer the question in earnest.

Ultimately, it is a standout that a "sports league" as large as the UFC has such a conservative fanbase. The traditional reasons for this, as told by right-wing identifying folk, is because of testosterone and masculinity and so on.

But it's more nuanced than that. Saying "MMA RIGHT WING BECAUSE BLOOD" is only a tiny part of the picture. This video helped me identify a bit more about the topic and hopefully is a fun watch for other leftist/left-leaning MMA fans.

 

This stuff is legendary. Dana was trying SO hard to line up Jon Jones for that fight to deny Ngannou from having his way. Literally some of the most petty shit ever.

The news is important because it shows a potential pathway for superstars to find success outside of the UFC. Given that Ngannou was left-leaning and refused to parley under traditional UFC contracts, this can be considered a great victory for worker's rights in the most reductionist of ways: the workers (albeit, highly paid) stuck it to the shrieking corporation (the UFC).

Warning: Ariel takes

[–] kennydidwhat@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I really didn't expect to have to read this corpo-apologist BS here.

You're sick, please get well.

[–] kennydidwhat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Is this sarcasm?

The DMV is government-regulated and has a legal duty to safeguard your data. Unlike the corporations we were happily discussing before you decided to try out as Ben Shapiro.

[–] kennydidwhat@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

The reason this doesn't make sense to you is because of how you're framing it.

This corpo is being run unilaterally by someone unconcerned with its longevity. It's that simple.

[–] kennydidwhat@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Product is sold by weight. Some settling during package and handling may occur. You can be assured of the proper weight regardless of settling.

Enjoy your 6 cornrings.

[–] kennydidwhat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

That is the entire (and only) point I was making. x)

[–] kennydidwhat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

On the contrary, I'm not conflating two specifics. I'm speaking in general terms about the demonstrable public perception (read: billions of social media users who happily hand over their data vs. the palpable unease over data publication in all walks of tech discussion) and how it is innately hypocritical.

It is perfectly normal and useful to discuss societal contradictions. For example: "We hate school shootings, but we do fuck-all to stop them from occurring." That statement does not conflate two different vocal minorities, it purports to accurately describe the generalized societal contradiction at hand.

The rest of your post is completely off-topic.

[–] kennydidwhat@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Why? The masses have no issue forking data over to big tech. What difference does it make if it's one or a million corporations using that data when it's being sold willy-nilly to anybody with a checkbook?

The point is not how many actors have access to your data. The point is that in both scenarios (public data vs. single-corporation-controlled data), your data is pragmatically public from data sales, data leaks, and so on. However, in only one of them, your data is ostensibly "protected" by a corporation - the lie at hand. In the other scenario, you are under no spell that your data is protected or private - the truth.

My comment was simply pointing out how they're effectively the same thing. Giving your data to a big tech firm is effectively the same thing as making it public. Hence, the outrage over one not matching the outrage over the other is amusing to me because it implies how effective the corpo framing of this issue is.

[–] kennydidwhat@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

No bootlicking detected. The first sentence of my comment actually belies my contempt for them.

view more: next ›