My favourite thing about the Dan Lebatard Show is when Dan spends an entire segment railing on football for being too dangerous and how no one should be playing it and then they kick to a Draft Kings commercial where we are reminded that his media empire is financed entirely by Camel cigarettes.
I consider myself fairly liberal, but I was not bothered by Strickland’s comments in the slightest. I don’t know how anyone takes anything these UFC fighters say seriously. They’re all playing wrestling characters, striking up as much controversy as they can so ppl tune in to their fights. I’m a daily LeBatard listener, and thought Mike was being a little ridiculous. I understand the sentiment, but he’s a ufc fighter no one heard of a year ago. No one is “normalizing” this. Call the dude an idiot and move on
seems fighters can find themselves in the same "game" as media lightning rods: doesn't matter if ppl are watching because they hate me or love me, all attention is good.
Strickland sees value in being hated; perhaps he'll draw eyeballs from ppl hoping to see him get knocked out. His ego tells him it won't happen, and I'm sure he's enjoying his villain era. It'll end someday, and some other talented angry man will step into the role.
Tbf I think Strickland’s pov on how father’s feel about having a gay son is the normal perspective. You may disagree about whether it should be so, but it is obviously the common one.
Or as Ethan pointed out, Strickland himself may not actually believe the stuff he’s saying. He’s just up there saying stuff, trying to get people to tune into his fight. And he likely achieved his goal
I don't know what he really thinks but man did he have an f*d up childhood. The Theo Von pod was some heavy, wild and depressing stuff. Put somebody through a childhood like that and I don't know how to predict what they end up believing as adults. It seems like he legitimately has a desire to actually kill someone
I had completely forgotten Floyd’s hyper-racist takes on Manny. Mike Ryan and LeBatard should also demand that Mickey Arison and the Heat ban Floyd from sitting courtside and projecting his face onto the Jumbotron half a dozen times per game.
It will always be bizarre to me that otherwise intelligent people expect that men who make their living beating up other men will have the same view of the world as PMCs.
Worth mentioning that while Strickland has enjoyed ruffling the feathers of the PC brigade for years, and been considered always a bit of a joke, since his utterly shocking defeat of Israel Adesanya for the middleweight belt, he has emerged as an out-of-nowhere fan favorite, partly for his teasing attitude, but mostly for his authenticity, frankness about his background, and shocking vulnerability within a sport that will seize on any apparent weakness. In MMA circles his somber interview with Theo Von and frank back-and-forth’s with Du Plessis this week have been getting much bigger attention than the usual press conference gotchas.
+1 on the Theo Von pod. But I'm not sure I'm with you on that over under. My reaction this HOS piece was that Strauss is making too big a deal of the uniqueness of UFC fighters when compared to other athletes. They may well be more "unacceptable", on average, and they're certainly encouraged to play pro-wrestling-style characters (some do, some don't), but there's plenty of "acceptable" psychologically regular and even politically moderate guys and gals in fight sports. Or at least not so many fewer than in the NFL and NBA.
This is all annoying no matter who is doing it or what side they're on. Part of that is because the people "using their platform" are usually kind of dumb and saying dumb things. But even if it was refined and aligned with my views - say like Chris Fowler was quoting Hayek - still annoying during sports.
I know Disney owns ESPN and maybe it's a distinction without a difference, but this isn't running on Disney. Sean Strickland isn't a Disney employee. He isn't there when I open up the Disney+ app for my daughter. ESPN is a different business unit with a different brand, etc. that makes money in different ways, like selling cage fights and gambling. Should Disney ultimately be in that business? That's up to them to decide. But people like Ryan want to run to corporate mother superior and guilt her into punishing the bad man.
1. Strickland's is a literal threat to our society because his t-shirt and words will embolden others to feel the hate of the dark side, and perhaps act on that hate.
2. Strickland is not a threat, but he's so morally repugnant that it's worth calling for censorship to prevent him and others from expressing views like this in the future.
Obviously this guy is a disgusting clown but, like Ethan said, this is the business. Nothing really ESPN can or should do about it. Just let him speak and embarass himself and hope it helps sell the fight I guess. It's just sad that anyone could even agree or take anything he said seriously (outside of the seizure of bank accounts).
Sadly, Ethan misses the real angle here. Like the Lebatard guy, Ethen is mesmerized by a guy being politically incorrect. Who cares. Will he get cancelled?! Who cares.
Aside from F-bombs, here are 2 main points the UFC guy (brace yourself) actually said:
"Justin Trudeau ceased bank accounts."
"I don't want my kids being taught about who to f*** in school."
I'm sorry, what? A Western country FROOZE bank accounts of people who refused big pharma's cocktail? I'm sorry---they're teaching WHAT in schools?
100% of people 20 years ago would assume EVERYONE was screaming about those two things.
But you could ask Ethan to simulate this article a thousand times, and he would still write: "Mean man sound mean [grunt]. Mean is bad!"
The question for Ethan is, if someone 'sounds mean'' is there ANY limiting principle that would make you consider what he's actually talking about?
I'll crystalize my point: If the state of California successfully lobbied Substack to freeze your Substack--and you snapped. F-bombs, I can't stand people defending these mother effers! Etc. Would you be thrilled if your media colleagues believed the headline was "Strauss makes non-inclusive comments."
The low-hanging fruit isn't the story. Why is there an appetite--and a GROWING appetite for what this UFC guy is saying? Because ordinary people hear him and are thrilled, he's addressing the ISSUES that they're worried about. Everyone in the media has been marginalizing them for years. How's that going for ya?
But by all means, take my $10 and give me the "mean man acts bad." angle.
I think he touched on some real issues, but he wouldn't stop bringing up issues. I think he also acted like an asshole and wasn't the best representative for his political perspective (which I'm not sure was his goal).
Oh, contra. When 95% of the media dutifully embraces lawlessness and perversion, you'll eventually see acting out. In society, how can it go any other way? Especially when it comes to children's safety. Calmly addressing the serious issues he raised was met with "Well, you're just a white supremacist" in 2020, so people who are victims are angry, but even worse, have nothing left to lose.
Okay, you're getting at something interesting here, which is whether the hold on speech and certain perspectives gets broken by reason, over time, or by an avalanche of frustrated aggression. My verdict is...I'm not sure?
Strickland's forbidden thought isn't that radical, I'd say it's the popular view. Obviously it's passé to express these thoughts in corporate America or academia, but it's still the dominant perspective, especially amongst the international, racially diverse (maybe lesser educated) audience who consume UFC. It can be very exciting for those masses to see someone articulate their views amidst the halls of power, and while these traditional institutions continue to lose their cultural stranglehold, there's still money for them to make in that liminal tension even if they may get a little embarassed.
I’m on balance probably less sympathetic to Strickland on substance on many of these issues* but sometimes being an asshole is the right approach. They way this reporter (and many who share his apparent ideology) approach and question those who do not share their belief system is akin to the way abusers and/or those with emotional health issues badger those they have personal relationships with. The only healthy response is to not engage, and to set and maintain clear and nonnegotiable boundaries.
Would it have been better if Strickland responded more offhand, with cold contempt? To more highly educated, middle class intellectuals (like many of us) sure. But his approach is still better than most.
Fwiw, given his background re coming from a broken home with an abusive father and an enabler of a mom, I could see a little bit of him being triggered there. Some of his response is Kayfabe (Chael Sonnen has many sons), but my sense was his background left Strickland on guard against and not willing to tolerate even a whiff of this type of behavior.
*(we should treat people who block roads harshly, it would be great if we went further to demystify sex at a young age to make it seem mundane, etc…)
Agreed. Repeatedly, I could be wrong, and this is based on anecdotal evidence, but by the standards of the actual relevant social community Strickland is actually on the sensitive/self aware range of the spectrum. It’s only when judged by the standards of another community that you get commentary that implies he is uniquely archaic in that regard.
Sometimes can be hard to tell what’s a work or a shoot with MMA fighters. Most likely somewhere in the middle, but being a heel in combat sports is profitable. Colby Covington wouldn’t have gotten where he is if he didn’t become Trump’s little buddy
The fart-sniffing narcissistic defector/lebatard modus operandi is believing that these situations result in simpleton idiotic masses lapping the crap up and taking it as gospel and they must be told off by the enlightened keepers of sanctimony. No matter what the message is it’s condescending to the audience.
Strickland is also being condescending, but to a different audience.
My favourite thing about the Dan Lebatard Show is when Dan spends an entire segment railing on football for being too dangerous and how no one should be playing it and then they kick to a Draft Kings commercial where we are reminded that his media empire is financed entirely by Camel cigarettes.
Also, if it’s a Draft Kings commercial, it’s means his empire is financed by football. The vast majority of betting is done on football.
I too love to constantly rail against a spectator activity as immoral while continuing to watch it.
I consider myself fairly liberal, but I was not bothered by Strickland’s comments in the slightest. I don’t know how anyone takes anything these UFC fighters say seriously. They’re all playing wrestling characters, striking up as much controversy as they can so ppl tune in to their fights. I’m a daily LeBatard listener, and thought Mike was being a little ridiculous. I understand the sentiment, but he’s a ufc fighter no one heard of a year ago. No one is “normalizing” this. Call the dude an idiot and move on
seems fighters can find themselves in the same "game" as media lightning rods: doesn't matter if ppl are watching because they hate me or love me, all attention is good.
Strickland sees value in being hated; perhaps he'll draw eyeballs from ppl hoping to see him get knocked out. His ego tells him it won't happen, and I'm sure he's enjoying his villain era. It'll end someday, and some other talented angry man will step into the role.
Tbf I think Strickland’s pov on how father’s feel about having a gay son is the normal perspective. You may disagree about whether it should be so, but it is obviously the common one.
Or as Ethan pointed out, Strickland himself may not actually believe the stuff he’s saying. He’s just up there saying stuff, trying to get people to tune into his fight. And he likely achieved his goal
I don't know what he really thinks but man did he have an f*d up childhood. The Theo Von pod was some heavy, wild and depressing stuff. Put somebody through a childhood like that and I don't know how to predict what they end up believing as adults. It seems like he legitimately has a desire to actually kill someone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7ii2cUhjAk
It’ll take people like the community Ethan has here. People that just want the facts, whether you’re on the left or the right
For the longest time Dan and the extended LeBatard crew was the dog chasing the car.
Improbably at some point they caught it. And things were never the same.
I had completely forgotten Floyd’s hyper-racist takes on Manny. Mike Ryan and LeBatard should also demand that Mickey Arison and the Heat ban Floyd from sitting courtside and projecting his face onto the Jumbotron half a dozen times per game.
I don’t actually believe this, but the inconsistency and self-aggrandizing does bother me.
Disney should apologize for Boba Fett, Obi Wan etc
Indeed! They have just gutted that franchise.
It will always be bizarre to me that otherwise intelligent people expect that men who make their living beating up other men will have the same view of the world as PMCs.
Dan people:
Here is what hurts people….click gambling on the phone. It makes the somewhat vulnerable to dopamine much more.
Related, they literally cannot win. Reach about 52% success and get iced out.
EXPLOITATION.
Hard to say who I need moral clarity less from, cage fighters or sports talk show people.
Worth mentioning that while Strickland has enjoyed ruffling the feathers of the PC brigade for years, and been considered always a bit of a joke, since his utterly shocking defeat of Israel Adesanya for the middleweight belt, he has emerged as an out-of-nowhere fan favorite, partly for his teasing attitude, but mostly for his authenticity, frankness about his background, and shocking vulnerability within a sport that will seize on any apparent weakness. In MMA circles his somber interview with Theo Von and frank back-and-forth’s with Du Plessis this week have been getting much bigger attention than the usual press conference gotchas.
+1 on the Theo Von pod. But I'm not sure I'm with you on that over under. My reaction this HOS piece was that Strauss is making too big a deal of the uniqueness of UFC fighters when compared to other athletes. They may well be more "unacceptable", on average, and they're certainly encouraged to play pro-wrestling-style characters (some do, some don't), but there's plenty of "acceptable" psychologically regular and even politically moderate guys and gals in fight sports. Or at least not so many fewer than in the NFL and NBA.
This is all annoying no matter who is doing it or what side they're on. Part of that is because the people "using their platform" are usually kind of dumb and saying dumb things. But even if it was refined and aligned with my views - say like Chris Fowler was quoting Hayek - still annoying during sports.
I know Disney owns ESPN and maybe it's a distinction without a difference, but this isn't running on Disney. Sean Strickland isn't a Disney employee. He isn't there when I open up the Disney+ app for my daughter. ESPN is a different business unit with a different brand, etc. that makes money in different ways, like selling cage fights and gambling. Should Disney ultimately be in that business? That's up to them to decide. But people like Ryan want to run to corporate mother superior and guilt her into punishing the bad man.
Mike Ryan believes one of the following:
1. Strickland's is a literal threat to our society because his t-shirt and words will embolden others to feel the hate of the dark side, and perhaps act on that hate.
2. Strickland is not a threat, but he's so morally repugnant that it's worth calling for censorship to prevent him and others from expressing views like this in the future.
I'm not sure which is worse.
Obviously this guy is a disgusting clown but, like Ethan said, this is the business. Nothing really ESPN can or should do about it. Just let him speak and embarass himself and hope it helps sell the fight I guess. It's just sad that anyone could even agree or take anything he said seriously (outside of the seizure of bank accounts).
Sadly, Ethan misses the real angle here. Like the Lebatard guy, Ethen is mesmerized by a guy being politically incorrect. Who cares. Will he get cancelled?! Who cares.
Aside from F-bombs, here are 2 main points the UFC guy (brace yourself) actually said:
"Justin Trudeau ceased bank accounts."
"I don't want my kids being taught about who to f*** in school."
I'm sorry, what? A Western country FROOZE bank accounts of people who refused big pharma's cocktail? I'm sorry---they're teaching WHAT in schools?
100% of people 20 years ago would assume EVERYONE was screaming about those two things.
But you could ask Ethan to simulate this article a thousand times, and he would still write: "Mean man sound mean [grunt]. Mean is bad!"
The question for Ethan is, if someone 'sounds mean'' is there ANY limiting principle that would make you consider what he's actually talking about?
I'll crystalize my point: If the state of California successfully lobbied Substack to freeze your Substack--and you snapped. F-bombs, I can't stand people defending these mother effers! Etc. Would you be thrilled if your media colleagues believed the headline was "Strauss makes non-inclusive comments."
The low-hanging fruit isn't the story. Why is there an appetite--and a GROWING appetite for what this UFC guy is saying? Because ordinary people hear him and are thrilled, he's addressing the ISSUES that they're worried about. Everyone in the media has been marginalizing them for years. How's that going for ya?
But by all means, take my $10 and give me the "mean man acts bad." angle.
I think he touched on some real issues, but he wouldn't stop bringing up issues. I think he also acted like an asshole and wasn't the best representative for his political perspective (which I'm not sure was his goal).
Oh, contra. When 95% of the media dutifully embraces lawlessness and perversion, you'll eventually see acting out. In society, how can it go any other way? Especially when it comes to children's safety. Calmly addressing the serious issues he raised was met with "Well, you're just a white supremacist" in 2020, so people who are victims are angry, but even worse, have nothing left to lose.
Okay, you're getting at something interesting here, which is whether the hold on speech and certain perspectives gets broken by reason, over time, or by an avalanche of frustrated aggression. My verdict is...I'm not sure?
This is where history books come in. Because the pressure will always go somewhere. And it’s always bad.
Strickland's forbidden thought isn't that radical, I'd say it's the popular view. Obviously it's passé to express these thoughts in corporate America or academia, but it's still the dominant perspective, especially amongst the international, racially diverse (maybe lesser educated) audience who consume UFC. It can be very exciting for those masses to see someone articulate their views amidst the halls of power, and while these traditional institutions continue to lose their cultural stranglehold, there's still money for them to make in that liminal tension even if they may get a little embarassed.
contraire*
Mon frere!
I’m on balance probably less sympathetic to Strickland on substance on many of these issues* but sometimes being an asshole is the right approach. They way this reporter (and many who share his apparent ideology) approach and question those who do not share their belief system is akin to the way abusers and/or those with emotional health issues badger those they have personal relationships with. The only healthy response is to not engage, and to set and maintain clear and nonnegotiable boundaries.
Would it have been better if Strickland responded more offhand, with cold contempt? To more highly educated, middle class intellectuals (like many of us) sure. But his approach is still better than most.
Fwiw, given his background re coming from a broken home with an abusive father and an enabler of a mom, I could see a little bit of him being triggered there. Some of his response is Kayfabe (Chael Sonnen has many sons), but my sense was his background left Strickland on guard against and not willing to tolerate even a whiff of this type of behavior.
*(we should treat people who block roads harshly, it would be great if we went further to demystify sex at a young age to make it seem mundane, etc…)
Agreed. Repeatedly, I could be wrong, and this is based on anecdotal evidence, but by the standards of the actual relevant social community Strickland is actually on the sensitive/self aware range of the spectrum. It’s only when judged by the standards of another community that you get commentary that implies he is uniquely archaic in that regard.
Love this comment
Sometimes can be hard to tell what’s a work or a shoot with MMA fighters. Most likely somewhere in the middle, but being a heel in combat sports is profitable. Colby Covington wouldn’t have gotten where he is if he didn’t become Trump’s little buddy
The fart-sniffing narcissistic defector/lebatard modus operandi is believing that these situations result in simpleton idiotic masses lapping the crap up and taking it as gospel and they must be told off by the enlightened keepers of sanctimony. No matter what the message is it’s condescending to the audience.
Strickland is also being condescending, but to a different audience.