Saturday MMA Link Club: GSP, BJ Penn, Mike Swick and much more

this commercial is totally innacurate . why is gsp on the computer? should he be laying and praying in the cage, since he hasnt finished an opponent in more then 3 years

Serra fight was in 2008

And the Penn fight was in 2009.

And the Hughes fight is also less than 3 years ago.

you just got owned sucka ^

Just watch the video amateur..

Don't *****ng watch his fights then.

That was ####ing Hilarious!!!



..."Yea, come on in"...he say. LOL!!!

@ 2D2



You got that did, ya 2d2? Good for you, man. I guess you're not as stupid as I thought.



However, you did have to make note of the fact that you got it. And of course you are the only one on the thread that has had to do that; everyone else just got it, but your special self had to post about it and "state", that you got "it". The thread stands in awe of your intellectual heft.



However, lets face facts, it's not as if the clip was some deep Kafkaesque piece, it was pretty straight forward; The Champ in a cage, guy wants to borrow some post-it notes, Rush slides them across the desk and says "Yeah, come on in." Not much to get, there. So, if you got that, well then...bravo! I applaud you. Did you get it on the first view or did you play it a number of times and then went...oh, I get it...GSP is a fighter, he's in a cubical with a cage around it...the other guy is not a fighter....George says...come on it....and then you had the epiphany....oh, it's a joke. Oh, I get it. And then you read my post and thought to yourself...how dare that Wing Chun explain it to me...Me smart enough to figure it out...Me Bright...Me show him....Me post and show him Me figure out for self.



I simply commented that I thought it was hilarious and repeated the line. I was not trying to explain it to the thread, because I didn't think (and still don't) that the "bit" needs / needed to be explained; it's self-explanatory. It's comedy, you either get it or you don't.



All your comment does is draw attention to the fact that your are the one moron on this thread who had to stipulate the he got "it" and by doing so, you are pointing out that you were not bright enough to figure out that I wasn't explaining or trying to explain it, I was simply repeating it. That is all I was doing.



Concluding - I thank you for your continued reading of my posts and I encourage you to continue doing so. However, in future, could you please understand them before you criticize them; an uninformed opinion is really such a dreary thing. And if you are anything 2D2 you are dreary.



Cheers,



Wing Chun

****ing dana. you perform or you go away? no wonder all these fighters are afraid to engage, theyre ****ing scared to lose

I bet DW never said that in the early years. He was probably glad of the likes of shamrock and cabbage and tank. He has become spoilt like the modern day wwe convert and has forgotten his roots.

That commercial is so funny.

In terms of the Joe Rogan incident, I think it is corny to make such a big deal out of it and even go as far as to push the issue and say Rogan's intended definition, as he described it in his "apology," just further strengthens the term as an anti-gay slur.... How so? Unless that writer is suggesting himself that to be "weak and pathetic" directly associates you with being homosexual. Seems to me that writing those type of "articles" are doing more harm than Rogan exercising his freedom of speech. All that "writer" is doing is putting the issue under a microscope and then he has the nerve to say that the incident is bad for the sport. He goes on to say that its about more than Rogan's "forum-friends" online... However, if not for that dribble he wrote up, it would have remained right where it started, on that forum. Makes little sense to me.... This guy is obviously friends with Tomas Rios and Rogan is correct when he says that they have used his use of the term to over shadow the idiotic behavior on behalf of Rios to begin with. People like themselves are the ones that further strengthen the impact of these derogatory terms. Making a big huge scene out of this when they know very well that was not Rogan's intended use of the word... Its disgusting.

Man I agree 100%, and it tires me out thinking about the subject, or trying to discuss with people like Tomas Rios my point of view on it. Just had some human rights guy come and talk at one of my lectures the other day and he talked alot about the use of the word ****. He basically said that if someone at our university complained to the human rights department about another student using a word like ****, it doesn't matter the context it was in, or the intent, they can face severe consequences. At the end of the presentation the guy told us he was gay. Didn't really make a difference to me , but i was a bit surprised that gay people are truly offended by the word ****, even when the intention behind it is not hateful.



I just wish everyone would watch the episode of South Park "The F word", and maybe that would help them realize how ridiculous political correctness and what now can be in society.

I stopped going over to Bloody Vag because of the attitude on offer there. It is nauseating.



I wish I could stomp on every politically correct moron as they do no one a service, actually their approach promotes more use of the terms because they have made it offensive now.



I have gay friends who I've called F-A-G-s and they too use the terminology on overly feminine males that are over dramatizing. Half of the gay male population does act overly fem.. that is in their nature.



I am not homophobic.. and some of the hottest women I ever dated I met through my gay friends at a gay club, where models and actresses go to get away from the creeps at normal clubs. So I am not a hater by any means.



Actually gay guys are fun, and can get away saying some things to women that us straight guys can't, it always made for a good laugh.. and some hot sessions with some hot babes courtesy of them.



I take all this talk offensive to those of us in the majority who feel we have to look over our shoulder all the time because of these idiots with an agenda.



Personally I took no offence to Joe Rogan's comments.. and I think the majority think the same way.. non-offensively..



I got really upset when Brent chastised Rogan for attempting to get Rios fired as an abuse of his power.. and a in the comments when a poster tried to say it was only a Bloggers issue he tried to highbrow suggesting SBnation has real credentials as real journalists...LOL



What a pompous fool, only the popularity of Blogging as a genre by the general public has afforded idiots like him credentials. I sincerely hope Rogan would get him fired. Maybe Bloody Elbow would improve.

@ JS



Rogan's use of the word "fagot" is unacceptable; freedom of speech, aside; and I'm an advocate.



What disappoints me about JR's remarks is that as a professional comic he should be able to do a lot better, then that. If he called the man a #### sucker, that would be (IMO) within bounds. The word has a very definite connotation about sexuality and I don't see how it's relevant to the argument. If Rogan called him a CS or a bastard, C**T, he'd be saying something about his character - no problem. When you call a man a fagot, you're stepping over the line and the inference (in a reverse Seinfeld way) is that there "is" something wrong with that.



When you refer to something that someone "is" and that they cannot do anything about, even if they wanted to, things such as their race or sexuality and you do so in a derogatory manner, then it is a slur. Whether or not this guy is gay or not, has nothing to do with it, because the word is an insult, in-and-of-itself, to gays.



An example of this would be an example of how women are openly referred to in modern society as - bitches and hoes. Let me ask you JS, surely you must have a female figure in your life that you love and admire...your mother, sister, girlfriend, wife...whatever...what would your reaction to someone coming up to your mother (in front of you) and just started to address her as bitch or hoe? Would that be acceptable to you or would you say or do something about it? The remarks are made in a derogatory and based on something she can do nothing about - her gender. So, should she be insulted for it?



Rogan is a funny guy and a guy I agree with most times and I respect his knowledge of MMA, but he's not always right and he's not always funny. To be honest, sometimes he just comes across as a loud mouth and a verbal bully; he talks right over people and shouts them down with a mic; he carries his stage act into real life.



And to be blunt JS - The UFC, SPIKE or both, should reprimand him for this. Someone should pull him aside and say...hey, your one of the faces of the brand and we need you to watch some of the remarks.



And if he's all so brave and everything, then why doesn't he ever use the "N-word"? I know why, because he'd get his head handed to him. So, maybe Rogan's not that brave and maybe Rogan should show the "fagots" the same respect and restraint that he shows others.

I have a funny feeling you're right Joey, funniest comment on the actual thread with the Rogan story though goes to NYCman ... "Now excuse me while i go and challenge the entire hip-hop genre for their use of slurs. Im sure that is truly “stunting” there growth eh?"

@ Wing Chung



Have you watched the episode of South Park entitled "The F Word". If not, I suggest you do as it will shed some light and perspective on the matter. Fag-got is not a word I use personally out of anger, I use it more as a joking term on people I know won't be offended by it. I try and watch who I say it to, and who is near by, but I don't want to live in a world where i can't call my friend a fa-g in public if i catch him humming the tune of a Justin Bieber song.



I used the word fag-got at a young age before i even understood or knew about the concept of homosexuality. The fact is, it was once used as a derogatory term for poor people, then women, and now gays. Its a word that will never go away (as it is to fun to use for most people), and people who try and control the freedom of speech of others by reprimanding them for using such words are really hurting their own cause and wasting their time and energy.

@ dray



I have seen the episode. I don't see the relevance to, what is, a real world, pejorative attack, on a real person.



As to your use of the word - the simple fact that you say you "watch" who you say it to or around, speaks volumes as to the fact that it's offensive.



When you say you only use it around people you "know" won't be offended by it or that you're aware of who is "near by", how can you state that categorically? How can you say that no one is offended by it?



Part of my point on this issue Dray - is that, I assume, you are not gay and you're never going to be gay, subsequently, you can never take offense to the word or have offense given to you by it, because you are not gay.



As to you living in a world where you can't call your friend a fag - why do you want to call your friend a fag? That would be my first question. And my second would be, maybe the gay guy sitting one row behind you at the ball park, doesn't want to live in a world where people make inane references to a sexuality, which is not theirs. All he wanted to do was watch a ball game, not listen to two guys call each other "fag" all day.



In regard to its use as a descriptor of the poor and women - I have never heard that in my life. Regardless, what is implied in the statement is that it's an epithet and the term has simply been moved from one disenfranchised group, to another.



Controlling the speech of others - I'm not trying to control your speech, if that's what you're implying. You can call your buddy and all of your buddies for that matter, fag(s) all day long; knock yourself out. Again, I don't know why you would want to, but then that's me.



Maybe the better way of looking at it would be, that those that raise the issue of such things are really trying to quell free speech. Anyone who is criticizing Rogan on this issue, is criticizing a word, not the comments. What you are suggesting, is that whole comments hurt the cause of free speech, itself; and that is not logical.



As to wasting time & energy - I think spending time and energy defending this word, is a waste of time and energy. I also think referring to your friends (in our out of public) as fagots is a waste of time and energy. it's also not cool.



Cheers,



Wing Chun

@ Wing Chung



I appreciate your mastery of the English language and your points really do make a lot of sense and in some ways helped shed some light on the situation for me, but if i told you that I completely understand where your coming form and that I agree with you, I would be lying. And I'm glad you can discuss it because I'm open minded and willing to change and/or admit I'm wrong and change my ways/perspectives. But the truth is I still don't understand. I don't know if you or anyone close to you has ever been affected by the word, but I haven't, and maybe that is why I don't understand.



The more important thing to me, and in terms of the original issue, is that people like Tomas Rios shouldn't get away with trying to use other peoples usage of the word for their own benefit and to their own advantage. It is disingenuous and more insulting to the people the word may offend than the actual usage of the word. I'd imagine when Joe Rogan said what he said, Tomas Rios first reaction was "Yes!!! I got him!!!", not "ohh my god how offensive I feel bad for all the people reading this that are offended". Obviously I can't know how Tomas Rios really feels, but there are people out there that implement this ploy. And to be honest, because of this, I feel that the whole politically correct movement is flawed. it's fine and dandy to say that every argument in this world that takes place should focus on the content of the argument rather than the people arguing, but lets be real. We are not robots and sometimes our emotions run high. And when they do, most sensible people can gauge where those emotions are coming from and the intentions of the individual expressing them. Which is why I do not see the purpose of trying to stop people from saying the word, or reprimanding people for the use of it, when it is clear that the intention is not to actually offend gay people. The N-word TO ME is completely different, but I rather not get into that and bring up more arguments.





Also I don't want to drag on and bring up more controversy and feel free to ignore this last part but you said that



"When you refer to something that someone "is" and that they cannot do anything about, even if they wanted to, things such as their race or sexuality and you do so in a derogatory manner, then it is a slur. Whether or not this guy is gay or not, has nothing to do with it, because the word is an insult, in-and-of-itself, to gays."



Is there conclusive scientific data that states being gay is genetic(or determined at birth), and that it is something that people "cannot do anything about"?



I have NO problems with actual gay people and am not homophobic, but maybe you can explain to me why you stated what you did as a fact. I'm not greatly educated on the matter, but I think it is important to determine whether being gay is a choice or not, because it changes the way a lot of people look at the situation. And again, it doesn't change anything for me, and i don't care, but some people do.

@ Dray12



I have no qualm(s) with what you say or how you feel (not that it would even be relevant) and I am no advocate of the politically correct; I understand neither the concept of hate speech or hate crime. One is free to say that which they wish, too and a crime is a crime; one does not need to establish motive, to prove an action (crime).



As to conclusive proof - I too am not either an authority or inclined in that manner, however, perhaps a better way to answer your question would be to reverse engineer it. Why are you or any other man, myself included, who is (considered) "normal" – a heterosexual? Were we taught? I know I was not. I have, from my first cognitive thought on the matter, been attracted to women. I didn't think, wish or hope it so. It just was / is. I have never heard a heterosexual person say otherwise. So, why should we expect sexuality to work differently for gay men and women?



As a gay friend of mine said to me once, if I could be straight...just throw a switch and make it so, don't you think I would do it? Why would anyone put themselves through the ridicule and adversity? A gay man or woman can no more stop being gay, then you, I or anyone else can stop being heterosexual.



Can where your sexuality comes from be proven or established – no; for neither men nor women, hetero or gay. Sexuality is innate; IMO. I’m not sure how one proves the innate. I have never once heard a gay man or women say that they consciously "chose" to be gay. That is the best answer I can give you on that. And my guess would be that if we did a comprehensive study of (both) gay men and women that we would find none of them had “chosen” to be gay, that they "just are." Yet, even if such a study existed it would still not be accepted as "proof"; probably not even evidence. And we should face facts, why does anyone else's opinion on this subject, other then gay men and women, matter? When you think about it, it’s laughable for heterosexuals to sit around and try and authoritatively pontificate on the origins and reasons for gay sexuality.



It's (also) particularly ludicrous (the word not the rapper) for those that are repulsed by the act and I am repulsed by the act, to espouse our beliefs as to why we think they do it or what they get out of it. I would imagine that a gay man or woman would be (as) equally repulsed by our acts, as we are theirs. And from a clinical point of view, if one cannot even watch it or conceptualize it, then how is it that we could ever understand or explain it; I'm cool with gay people, but I never want to see “it”. So, who am I to have an opinion on it; live and let live.



That is my answer to / for you, Sir.



Cheers,





Wing Chun

There actually is evidence that gay men are physically different from straits. The hypothalamus of gay men is identical to that of straight women. There are also correlations between certain hand shapes and homosexuality in men. A gay gene has not yet been isolated but there is evidence that homosexuality is do to physical differences whether they are genetic or of other origin.

And I don't think it is fair to compare it to the N-word.

@ Dray12



It's not only fair, but analogous.

doctormma.... it's ok.... come out of the closet...... freddy mercury is dead.... (we know he raped you) ......

@ DocMMA



Well argued point, but on a point of order I'd like to add - if gay men use the term with one another or allow you as their friend to do so, then that is one thing. It is another thing, to simply allow the word to be used as the foundation an ad hominem attack against a man (regardless of sexuality) and that's exactly what this is; an ad hominem attack.



If the guy in question is not gay, then why call him a fagot? If he is gay, then why would you call him a fagot? What would his sexuality have to do with anything? I get back to the point I raised with JS, if the guy was black, Asian or Hispanic, would he refer to him by their colloquial epithets? Of course he wouldn't. So, why does he get to use the word fagot?



I'm not saying he can't use the word, because I believe in free speech and it's not hate speech, because (IMO) there is no such thing; there is only freedom of speech and the freedom to hear; as the great Tommy Smothers, would say. I am saying, however, that Rogan is a smarter and funnier guy then this and when he starts talking like this I turn him off. I exercise my freedom not to hear.

aahahahhha i find it funny that f-a-g-g-o-t gets sensored on this site

Huh? The last link is to an article discussing the issue...

No worries, I was confused. Wasn't sure if that was what you meant or not because I know there is another post on the matter.

does any1 think the josh koscheck vs gsp fight is going to be a boring fight cuz both of them have been boring in there last fights

not necessarily. probably its gonna be both just trying to set up a big right, bc thats the only thing im expecting either of them to get caught with. there is no way its gonna be 5 rounds of L&P bc theyre both too good at standing back up. prediction is kos getting ko'd bc he hasnt fought any good striker who couldnt be taken down.

im not sure about gsps knock out power

whats a "WingChun"??