I would like to understand why, when ask these questions, which demand a sober, reflective response after some internal dialogue, we stop there, and seem to gloss over what I consider important follow ups:

Why in the fuck do we have a thing called "Ultimate Fighting Champion" and still think men should be treated with any degree of seriousness?
Have we considered that there is actually enough fighting already and being an ultimate champion of it is not the flex some think it is?
Having considered the first 2, why would anyone care about/admire/wish to be seen in the vicinity of the winner of this thing, let alone any rando participant?
Have we considered there might be a causal connection between his rapey-ness and his ultimate fighter champion-ness? Sex and violence do go to the same concerts a lot...

I can't think of a single thing that would make my wish I had my time back more than spending 30 seconds watching this fucking drivel. It's pig swill distilled into electromagnetic waves meant for things with a lot less folds in the cerebellum.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

I'm not one to defend the UFC, I think Dana White is a piece of shit. But as someone who used to be into it, this just seems like a complete misunderstanding of MMA.

Also, women do it too fyi. So not sure why you think this only reflects on men.

Boxing has existed for literally thousands of years. Wrestling and Pankration even longer I believe. The latter was an event in the first Olympics, and it's very similar to modern MMA.

This particular event was a travesty, but not because of mixed martial arts. You're angry at the wrong people.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Appealing to history isn't as strong as you might think, when we are talking about whether or not society should promote a social activity.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 57 minutes ago

Yeah like the Greeks did have some super cool ideas (democracy good, though flawed a bit, and that's some sweet beards y'all). But also a lot of fucking terrible ones. I'm not going to put wrestling on the same pillar as "we all get to decide who's in charge".

One is a more valuable contribution that is literally the opposite of "might makes right" and the other is.....more or less a metaphor for it. I have to say that equivocation got a good belly laugh, along with the assertion that I didn't "understand MMA" (as though bread and circus was a deep subject).

[–] winkledinkle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

men should be treated with any degree of seriousness?

Regardless of gender, if you're sexist you should never feel like you're taken seriously.

On that note, LOL.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It’s a little funny you’re commenting this on a post where McGregor is clearly being taken seriously.

[–] Linktank@lemmy.today 1 points 39 minutes ago (1 children)

Ah yes, one man bad means all men bad. Good argument from OP and that other mouth breather.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 0 points 37 minutes ago

You’re the only one resorting to name calling though.

No one said McGregor represents all men. You are the only one to conflate this man with all men.