# Lorenzo Fertitta: Our top athletes are making multi-millions of dollars



## kickstar (Nov 12, 2009)

> UFC co-owner Lorenzo Fertitta says 2015 will go down as the biggest year for revenue yet and that's also resulting in some of the athletes at the top making a lot more money.
> 
> UFC co-owner Lorenzo Fertitta says that 2015 was the most profitable year in the history of the company and that's resulting in more top fighters reaching seven-figures per fight as a result.
> 
> ...


http://www.foxsports.com/ufc/story/...-of-dollars-122815?cmpid=tsmtw:fscom:ufconfox


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Indeed.


----------



## Andrus (Oct 18, 2011)

I believe the top athletes are McGregor and Rousey?


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

This is in response to Bendo, Overeem and Aljamain Sterling opting for the free agency route, due to them potentially making more at other promotions where they can have sponsors on banners and clothing?


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

> "Because we are a private company we don't get into profitability but we'll generate about $600 million in revenue in the year 2015, which is a record for the company," Fertitta revealed. "It's fairly significant growth coming off of 2014.


I guess, putting on more shows and less appealing cards was really bad for their business.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

How many "multi" millions over how long and how "top"? If the top 3-4 stars are making 2 million over 20 years, that's still "our stars are making multi millions" but actually pathetic. You can make that much doing a random desk job that doesn't generate $600 million in revenue per year.

Talk about vague wording.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

I guess his definition of top athlete is very different from mine.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

The fact that Sage is making 80k while Aljo makes 12 and 12 is the definition of what's wrong with the UFC.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

LL said:


> The fact that Sage is making 80k while Aljo makes 12 and 12 is the definition of what's wrong with the UFC.


Aljo has had 4 UFC fights which were very likely covered in his original contract since he was just your typical decent prospect coming into the company.

So they paid Northcutt a fortune...okay? What does that change? Aljamain signed his original contract. Did he think the UFC were gonna go "Right so you've won 2 fights. We feel like giving you 120k extra over your next two fights because...you know.....we're nice?".

There are PLENTY more people to complain about getting less money than moany 80s gimmick Sterling. If he was unhappy with 12/12, why did he sign a 12/12 contract for 4 fights?


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

If it is true that some UFC fighters made $100,000 per fight in sponsorships prior to the reebok deal, even $30,000 to $50,000 sponsorship cash in WSOF or Bellator might look tempting at this point in time, if it were available.

How much sponsors are willing to pay outside the UFC could be one aspect of free agency people are interested in checking out.

It could be a good time for Lorenzo to remind people how much money Ronda and Conor are making to entice people to stay in the UFC, rather than leave and go somewhere else.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Aljo has had 4 UFC fights which were very likely covered in his original contract since he was just your typical decent prospect coming into the company.
> 
> So they paid Northcutt a fortune...okay? What does that change? Aljamain signed his original contract. Did he think the UFC were gonna go "Right so you've won 2 fights. We feel like giving you 120k extra over your next two fights because...you know.....we're nice?".
> 
> There are PLENTY more people to complain about getting less money than moany 80s gimmick Sterling. If he was unhappy with 12/12, why did he sign a 12/12 contract for 4 fights?


And what is Sage?

Oh okay, unproven, no wins of any relevance not a draw in anyway, he's unknown to the casual fanbase, but you think he got 80k right off the bat? No, the unproven fighter came in, got a win and got a raise because he's what Zuffa wants and what Zuffa has always promoted, do the math, use logic.

When Sterling tapped Mizugaki from the bottom with an arm triangle he should have got a pay raise. Aljo could easily fight for the belt next year while Northcutt could easily wash out next year. Plenty more people to complain about? Show me a top five fighter making 12k to show outside of Flyweight and WBW.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

LL said:


> And what is Sage?
> 
> Oh okay, unproven, no wins of any relevance not a draw in anyway, he's unknown to the casual fanbase, but you think he got 80k right off the bat? No, the unproven fighter came in, got a win and got a raise because he's what Zuffa wants and what Zuffa has always promoted, do the math, use logic.
> 
> When Sterling tapped Mizugaki from the bottom with an arm triangle he should have got a pay raise. Aljo could easily fight for the belt next year while Northcutt could easily wash out next year. Plenty more people to complain about? Show me a top five fighter making 12k to show outside of Flyweight and WBW.


So are you complaining that they are paying Sage too much? What Sage earns is nothing to do with what Aljo earns. Sterling didn't need to sign that contract. Sage was signed after him. You can't pick your decision and bitch when someone took a different offer.

Sterling got fast tracked to the top 5, but regardless. The UFC, and most companies that make people sign contracts, don't renegotiate after just half the contract has been fulfilled. Why would they do that? If Sterling wanted a deal like that he should have demanded it.

Sage earning 80k has nothing to do with what Sterling is earning. Sterling got what most 9-0 fighters with no wins of note gets. In fact, he got more than most. Now that his contract was up, they'd have offered him something new and that's when the issue would arise if he was earning less than Sage (which might be the case), so he does the smart thing and goes out and tests the free market.

But you don't sign a lease and then go nuts when your neighbour pays less rent. You made your deal. Live it out and have a look at the situation.

Also, you were fairly dramatic. "That's what's wrong with the UFC". If Sage getting overpaid is their biggest downside they're doing pretty damn well.


----------



## aerius (Nov 19, 2006)

I believe him about as much as I believe Dana White.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Andrus said:


> I believe the top athletes are McGregor and Rousey?


Jones, Conor, Ronda, GSP, Anderson, Bisping, Rampage, Liddell, Tito, Rashad, Machida, Wanderlei, Brock, Randy, Penn, Vitor, Shogun, Mir, Hendo, Frankie, etc, have all made millions of dollars in the UFC. Fighters like Ronda/Conor/whoever else has a PPV cut are making a killing every single fight, 1-2mill+ each fight easily. In fact if my memory servers me correct, "professionals" were saying Conor raked in at least 3.5mill for the Aldo fight. Nothing official, but that's the number that was being thrown around in articles and by people who follow that sort of thing.

The best fighters who are well known or at least decently known are making lots and lots of money. The guys who aren't well known and don't bring eyes to the screen aren't making much money, as it should be. This is a contract by contract business where you negotiate your pay, if the UFC sees you as being worth X amount and won't budge during negotiations, you can either accept that price or go to the open market and see what your actual worth is out on the market. Chances are, if you are good enough/popular enough to bring enough eyes to the screen, the UFC is more than willing to pay you a lot of money. If you aren't, you aren't. Conor has 7 fights in the UFC and is 27 years old, and has made millions of dollars. That's some serious money, because he brings the numbers and when you bring big numbers you get paid big numbers. That's the way this business works. You get paid what you are worth to the company and the fact of the matter is, no-named fighters or guys nobody cares about simply are not going to be making much money. They are nothing more than filler fights and a way to weed out guys who shouldn't be in the organization at all.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> So are you complaining that they are paying Sage too much? What Sage earns is nothing to do with what Aljo earns. Sterling didn't need to sign that contract. Sage was signed after him. You can't pick your decision and bitch when someone took a different offer.
> 
> Sterling got fast tracked to the top 5, but regardless. The UFC, and most companies that make people sign contracts, don't renegotiate after just half the contract has been fulfilled. Why would they do that? If Sterling wanted a deal like that he should have demanded it.
> 
> ...


Considering the UFC is only interested in promoting Ronda, Conor, Sage and Paige it's not that dramatic, it's why they only have two big PPV draws and will be down to one after Ronda gets destroyed again and people like Jones can't draw nothing without a rivalry.

And yes Sage is overpaid and hasn't earned that money, Sterling has but as we've historically seen with the UFC white people usually do get preferential treatment.


----------



## SmackyBear (Feb 14, 2008)

If Sage were getting 10/10 would Sterling be getting more than the 14/14 he got against Eduardo?

If the UFC's payroll commitment isn't maxed out, then it benefits all fighters to some degree that others are getting paid more. When a fighter's contract comes up, the more people they feel they're better than who are paid higher amounts, the better. They can point to those people and their purses and say, "I'm better/higher ranked/more popular than them so I should be getting even more than they are."

I don't get the money hate in MMA. In the NFL/NBA/MLB when players see someone get good money, they're usually happy because they can use that contract in future negotiations.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

LL said:


> Considering the UFC is only interested in promoting Ronda, Conor, Sage and Paige it's not that dramatic, it's why they only have two big PPV draws and will be down to one after Ronda gets destroyed again and people like Jones can't draw nothing without a rivalry.
> 
> And yes Sage is overpaid and hasn't earned that money, Sterling has but as we've historically seen with the UFC white people usually do get preferential treatment.


You know what, I just deleted what I was typing about the first paragraph. I'm done. I'm out of this. My sig was in jest, I didn't think MMAForum had anyone stupid enough to talk about race but here we are. This is the one I'm not touching. 

Someone should have told the UFC that Jon Jones is black imo.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Example: You know who I want to see? Conor vs. Frankie, Rumble vs. Jones, Anderson vs. Bisping (glad this one was announced), Alistair vs. whoever. Those are the "main" fights I'm looking forward to, even though some of them aren't announced yet/possibly won't happen. I want to see those fights cause it's with guys who I like, who have styles I like, who are well known and create interesting fights/match ups. Guess what? They have all made millions of dollars. Now why do you think they make more than lesser known fighters? Exactly.

You know who I'm not at all interested in seeing? All (or most, there are a few exceptions) of the guys making 12/12-14/14 or whatever. When I hear that Alistair vs. Arlvoski (random fight) is main eventing a card on FOX, and there is a guy named XYZ fighting ABC 2 fights down or 3 fights down, the XYZ vs. ABC fight is nothing more than a red light that I have to wait for to be able to drive further down the street to get to the party (being the main event). Guys who make my (and others) eyes stick to the screen are guys who make money. XYZ and ABC are making 14/14 because nobody gives a shit about their fight, they are just filler. If they put on fun performance, that's a bonus, and if they keep doing that they have an opportunity to become one of the guys who draws my attention. Until they draw eyes, they don't make much money.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

M.C said:


> Example: You know who I want to see? Conor vs. Frankie, Rumble vs. Jones, Anderson vs. Bisping (glad this one was announced), Alistair vs. whoever. Those are the "main" fights I'm looking forward to, even though some of them aren't announced yet/possibly won't happen. I want to see those fights cause it's with guys who I like, who have styles I like, who are well known and create interesting fights/match ups. Guess what? They have all made millions of dollars. Now why do you think they make more than lesser known fighters? Exactly.
> 
> You know who I'm not at all interested in seeing? All (or most, there are a few exceptions) of the guys making 12/12-14/14 or whatever. When I hear that Alistair vs. Arlvoski (random fight) is main eventing a card on FOX, and there is a guy named XYZ fighting ABC 2 fights down or 3 fights down, the XYZ vs. ABC fight is nothing more than a red light that I have to wait for to be able to drive further down the street to get to the party (being the main event). Guys who make my (and others) eyes stick to the screen are guys who make money. XYZ and ABC are making 14/14 because nobody gives a shit about their fight, they are just filler. If they put on fun performance, that's a bonus, and if they keep doing that they have an opportunity to become one of the guys who draws my attention. Until they draw eyes, they don't make much money.


I'd be the other way. I get excited when I see Tim Means or someone like that fighting. I love fighting so it doesn't really matter to me too much who's inside the cage as long as the fight isn't boring.

But they are at least improving the contracts of the new guys. The minimum is up by 4000 for winners and when you see the money come through, more and more "experienced guys" are on a lot of money which is fairly surprising at times. It's getting alright. If they pulled in their most this year I wouldn't be surprised for new guys to go up to 12/12.


----------



## Andrus (Oct 18, 2011)

How much is Sage making?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Andrus said:


> How much is Sage making?


He made 10/10 in his first fight, essentially the lowest that UFC pays anyone. He was likely on a one fight deal so they could see if he is legit once they enter the cage, after which he got bumped up to 40/40.


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

...

Imagine what the response will be when CM Punk is paid 5 to 10 times what Sage Northcutt is making in his 1st professional fight ever.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Whatever reason could those people want to leave. It's almost like they aren't the draw of these people.


















































I just can't seem to put my finger on why those people would feel the need or pressure to leave. I tells ya it's a mystery of the human condition why some people doing the exact same job of other people yet are paid far far far less than some other group.

It boggles the mind of such great thinkers like ClydebankBlitz


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

@John8204, look across any post in reference to Aljamain, Overeem and Henderson not signing their contracts. I'm in favour of not resigning and looking at the market and what you are worth as a commodity. I'm just not in favour of fighters signing on the dotted line and them complaining about what they signed up for. Aljamain did that, but he's also taking the specific action you need to take in such a situation. He did his fights, unlike Tim Kennedy for example, and now he's going to see what offers he can get. Perfect way to handle the business side of mixed martial arts and it's basically what everyone should be doing. He will relay his offers to the UFC, they will weigh up if they want to match or beat those offers, and Aljamain can decide which organisation is right for him (as can Henderson and Overeem).

Also, they aren't doing the same job. Do you think Conor McGregor and Clay Collard are doing the same job? CM Punk is going to bring more eyes to the UFC in one fight than Aljamain Sterling will do throughout his combined career if he fails to become a champion. Getting in the cage is only one aspect of the game and if no one's interested in watching you fight, then you can't expect to make the big bucks.


----------



## Scarecrow (Mar 20, 2008)

Feast at the top, famine at the bottom. Parse the words however you want Lorenzo.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Scarecrow said:


> Feast at the top, famine at the bottom. Parse the words however you want Lorenzo.


30k a year for a 0-3 UFC record = famine. Must be some rich ass people on this site.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> 30k a year for a 0-3 UFC record = famine. Must be some rich ass people on this site.


http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/10/...eight-myles-jury-reebok-expenses-fighter-pay-

A fighter wins and earns $20,000:

$2,000 (gym / team)

$4,000 (management)

$6,000 (taxes)

$500 (medicals)

$1,000 (coaching)

$1,000 (Misc.)

Total Expenses: $14,500


UFC ($10,000 show/$10,000 win) will profit $5,500 for a win and $1,500 for a loss.

So that 30K for an 0-3 is closer to 5,500 with the overhead costs so the sponsorship payouts of 2,500 which saying you bank all of that money puts you right at the poverty line. I don't think that's by accident.

Now I could get into your microagressions where these black fighters are complaining about pay...I don't see it. Or that picking out a terrible white fighter is someone competing in a different job as a fantastic white fighter, both are prize fighters.

But I'll just say this...aren't you a Diaz fan?


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> 30k a year for a 0-3 UFC record = famine. Must be some rich ass people on this site.


The thing that surprises the most is that people are actually shocked that you don't get paid well if you suck at your job. At my old sales job my salary was commission based and if I didn't make any sales, guess what I didn't make any money. It applies to anything and should apply to fighters as well imo. If you are a losing fighter, you get paid accordingly. If you win you get paid. Granted if you are entertaining, it does have more benifits, but at the end of the day, Conor wouldn't be Conor if h3 wasn't an elite fighter and didn't win. If you're not entertaining you are probably missing out on some cash, but still, keep winning and you will make money.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

John8204 said:


> http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/10/...eight-myles-jury-reebok-expenses-fighter-pay-
> 
> A fighter wins and earns $20,000:
> 
> ...



Mate if you're going 0-3 in the UFC and paying 2 grand for 6-8 weeks of training camp then you have some much more pressing issues than your fighter pay.

Wait when did I talk about black and white fighters? Black and white fighters get paid the same. You just mentioned Nate Diaz. If Nate was black, oh my god would the forums be blowing up. There are LOADS of fighters who get paid what Aljamain does despite being highly touted white fighters. Come on man, I know it's 2015 but not everything is about race.

Yes, I am a Diaz fan. I'm also a Manny Pacquiao fan, but I don't think gays are an abomination against God. I don't need to adopt a fighter's philosophies just because I like it when they punch people in the face.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Leed said:


> The thing that surprises the most is that people are actually shocked that you don't get paid well if you suck at your job. At my old sales job my salary was commission based and if I didn't make any sales, guess what I didn't make any money. It applies to anything and should apply to fighters as well imo. If you are a losing fighter, you get paid accordingly. If you win you get paid. Granted if you are entertaining, it does have more benifits, but at the end of the day, Conor wouldn't be Conor if h3 wasn't an elite fighter and didn't win. If you're not entertaining you are probably missing out on some cash, but still, keep winning and you will make money.


Did Cat Zingano suck when she earned a title shot and then ended up homeless? Because the UFC's business practices made that happen. Is it right that Michael Bisping is the UFC's all time money leader..of course not. Look at all the guys Jake Shields beat and look at how fast the UFC brought him in and chucked him out. 

They did studies and generally people side with management over the common worker. You could be paid more but if the person next to you is making more money than you you would be more disgruntled if you earned less but on the same level with everyone else. 

You used to work in sales, so did the fighters until the UFC took that away from them. I wonder how you would feel if that sales company changed your commission percentage by 20-50%, and then gave it to the young pretty white people.

You know how many black exciting fighters and prospects I can rattle off the top of my head that the UFC refused to sign. 
Tyrone Spong doesn't have a place in the UFC, 
Michael Page didn't have a place in the UFC, 
Emanuel Newton didn't have a place, 
Liam Mcgreery didn't have a place, 
Will Brooks didn't have a place...

But no, the UFC is elite which is why the HW, LHW, MW, and WW champions weren't signed by the UFC, and half of those guys actually got cut by the UFC.

But no, I must be crazy race and money issues in combat sports yeah that doesn't exist.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

John8204 said:


> Did Cat Zingano suck when she earned a title shot and then ended up homeless? Because the UFC's business practices made that happen. Is it right that Michael Bisping is the UFC's all time money leader..of course not. Look at all the guys Jake Shields beat and look at how fast the UFC brought him in and chucked him out.
> 
> They did studies and generally people side with management over the common worker. You could be paid more but if the person next to you is making more money than you you would be more disgruntled if you earned less but on the same level with everyone else.
> 
> ...


I can't tell which parts of this post is sarcastic and which parts aren't, so know that going into my post here. 

Of course it's right that Bisping is leading the pay race if that's what he's worth to the company. You get paid what you are worth, nothing more nothing less. He is a very popular fighter who brings in a lot of eyes, has been with the company a long time, and the UFC must find him to be a valuable asset to the company as a whole. If that's the case he should be paid well, and he is paid well. 

Cat's money issues are her own, there's negotiations and marketing (market yourself) for a reason. If she's struggling so hard with this job that she's going homeless (while countless others are not having that issue at all, I'm not even talking about the top guys, just the average guys in the UFC have houses and pay their bills and all that), then she needs to do the smart thing and change jobs. You know what I'd do if I couldn't make enough money to pay my bills at a job? I'd go get a job that could pay me enough to pay my bills, you know, like everybody else in the world. You get what you earn in this profession, this job is a lot like acting or singing, you don't make much money unless you are well known and people are buying your content (paying to watch you fight).

As for the race thing, there are many non-white people who are now millionaires from fighting in the UFC. Jones was the UFC's biggest star before Conor came around, and he still might be the UFC's biggest star once he starts fighting again. You can bet his return is going to be gigantic. As far as I'm aware, he's a black guy. Anderson was hailed as the P4P best fighter in the world, is a millionaire, and people were talking about "that Anderson money". Rampage is one of the UFC's biggest stars when he was active, the guy pulled huge numbers and is one of the best paid guys in the UFC. Anthony Johnson is way up there, the guy made 500k against DC and he's pulling 120k base pay for a non-title fight, he's never even held a belt in the organization. I could go on and on about non-white people making a killing in the UFC if you want me to. Your argument has no legs to stand on here when countless guys who aren't white are now millionaires, many of which are making more than 90% of the white people in the company.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

M.C said:


> You get paid what you are worth, nothing more nothing less.


You get paid what you dare to claim and what (you can make) people believe you are worth.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Voiceless said:


> You get paid what you dare to claim and what (you can make) people believe you are worth.


Exactly right. You bring eyes to the screen, you make money. If people want to watch you fight, you make money. A big part of making people want to watch you fight is self-promotion (making people want to see you, making people excited to watch you even if it means liking your or hating you, doing a lot of media, putting yourself out there, hyping your fights, putting on exciting fights when it's fight time, etc). All self-promotion involves "making people believe you are worth". When you are pulling big numbers for the UFC, the UFC in return pays you big numbers. You get paid what you are worth to the company.


----------



## kc1983 (May 27, 2007)

Doesn't surprise me at all. 
McGregor posting pics in front of a $400,000 Bentley - and that's just one of his many extravagant cars in the 6 figure range. 
He took home $500,000 in the Aldo fight. That's JUST for the fight itself. Factor in PPV %, Reebok dollars + any other endorsements and he is easily making seven figures. 

Not to mention, there's also a TON of perks that we will never know about. Cowboy eluded to getting some bonus cash under the table. You gotta assume the UFC is treating their top stars REALLY well.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

M.C said:


> I can't tell which parts of this post is sarcastic and which parts aren't, so know that going into my post here.
> 
> Of course it's right that Bisping is leading the pay race if that's what he's worth to the company. You get paid what you are worth, nothing more nothing less. He is a very popular fighter who brings in a lot of eyes, has been with the company a long time, and the UFC must find him to be a valuable asset to the company as a whole. If that's the case he should be paid well, and he is paid well.


Your logic is moving in circles, he's popular because he was promoted or was he promoted so he became popular. You can't say one way or the other, but he is a white fighter who the UFC invested time and money into that every other fighter of his ilk didn't get.



> Cat's money issues are her own, there's negotiations and marketing (market yourself) for a reason. If she's struggling so hard with this job that she's going homeless (while countless others are not having that issue at all, I'm not even talking about the top guys, just the average guys in the UFC have houses and pay their bills and all that), then she needs to do the smart thing and change jobs. You know what I'd do if I couldn't make enough money to pay my bills at a job? I'd go get a job that could pay me enough to pay my bills, you know, like everybody else in the world. You get what you earn in this profession, this job is a lot like acting or singing, you don't make much money unless you are well known and people are buying your content (paying to watch you fight).


So you are advocating gentrification, got it. Every fighter that complains about money is wrong or a liar or boring. The UFC expanded weight classes to bring in cheaper labor. They ran as many pricey mid-level contracts they could in a year and replaced them with cheap smaller or female fighters.



> As for the race thing, there are many non-white people who are now millionaires from fighting in the UFC. Jones was the UFC's biggest star before Conor came around, and he still might be the UFC's biggest star once he starts fighting again. You can bet his return is going to be gigantic. As far as I'm aware, he's a black guy.


One successful black person doesn't suddenly end racism or racially discriminatory practices. Jon Jones is an undefeated fighter who ran through a gauntlet of legends. But when he comes back you won't see him in a tuneup fight. By stripping Jones of his title they now have one fight on his contract, he becomes a champion all they have to do is match his best offers.



> Anderson was hailed as the P4P best fighter in the world, is a millionaire, and people were talking about "that Anderson money".


Who wasn't a draw until Chael Sonnen talked a bunch of shit. Anderson had to go undefeated for years, Chael had to say some funny stuff. But racism doesn't exist.



> Rampage is one of the UFC's biggest stars when he was active, the guy pulled huge numbers and is one of the best paid guys in the UFC


What company made Rampage a star? 



> Anthony Johnson is way up there, the guy made 500k against DC and he's pulling 120k base pay for a non-title fight, he's never even held a belt in the organization.


We're just going to ignore the peanuts he was making for most of his career with the UFC, until they fired him for missing weight. If I was Kelvin Gastelum or Charles Oliveira or Henry Cejudo I would be worried, then again maybe they shouldn't.



> I could go on and on about non-white people making a killing in the UFC if you want me to.


Great, I'd love to see anyone of them that is comparable to Bisping, Northcut, VanZant, and Punk. The best you could come up with was two guys that were cut and two guys that were the p4p best fighters in the world...who pissed off the boss and he threatened to cut.



> Your argument has no legs to stand on here when countless guys who aren't white are now millionaires, many of which are making more than 90% of the white people in the company.


http://mma-manifesto.com/ufc-fighter-salary-database/salary-main/ufc-career-fighter-earnings.html

Well if you would ever so kindly look at the money list I would point out that removing champions.

1. Michael Bisping
21. Donald Cerrone
24. Wanderlei Silva.
25. Mirko Cro-Cop

Four men cracked the top 25, 3 white guys to 1 brown(ish) guy.

Now I'd like you to go down that list and find an African American fighter who was

A.) Not a champion
B.) Not a guy that was fired by the company
C.) That left the company on good terms, y'know retired or lost a bunch of fights and the UFC decided to let them go.

If you are happy with yourself looking at the actual numbers and casestudies of fighters. Well then I guess your right black and white fighters are paid the same.

And in conclusion the UFC released 8 fighters today

8 men were released by the UFC

Bubba Bush 0-1-(1)
Ericka Almieda 0-2
Chico Camus 3-4-(1)
Vernon Ramos 0-1
Mickael Lebout 1-2
jumabieke tuerxun 0-3
fabio maldonado 5-6
Kevin Souza 3-1

Now one of these fighters has black skin, you can do a google search if you like, but I doubt you'll have to look that hard.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

John8204 said:


> Your logic is moving in circles, he's popular because he was promoted or was he promoted so he became popular. You can't say one way or the other, but he is a white fighter who the UFC invested time and money into that every other fighter of his ilk didn't get.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To answer the bold, yes I have seen the numbers and yes I am happy with the numbers and yes black and white fighters are paid the same. 

The difference you're missing is that guys like Conor (who just so happens to be white by chance) sell a lot because of as you say, the shit talk, the media, the hype. Tell me, do you see Jose Aldo talking shit? Do you see him hyping up his fights? Do you see him actively searching out the media for interviews/articles to be done about him? No, you do not. You know what the result of that is? Low views. Do you know what low views mean? Less money.

You know who is paid really well? Jon Jones. You know why he's paid well? Cause he hits the media all the time, because he does a lot of interviews, because he goes out of his way to post on twitter and instagram, because yes he does talk shit (not as much as Conor, but he does), he is actively selling his brand and actively getting out there. What is the result of all that? Being one of the highest paid fighters in the company and one of the most popular/advertised fighters in the company. Guess what? He's black.

You apparently fail to realize that most people (including white people) who don't sell their brand/market themselves, make pennies. Cerrone, one of the very very best guys at 155 who was on an 8 fight win streak and has been around for years and years, made 87k in his last TITLE FIGHT. Guess what? He's as "white and american" as you can get, a full on white country boy. He made 87k for his title fight. Guess what RDA made for the same fight? 300k FLAT, no bonus, just 300k base pay. The last time I checked, RDA wasn't white. 

This "white people make more money" talk doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The very best you could say is that white people tend to talk more shit than non-white people, and tend to go to twitter and market themselves more often, therefore they get more media, therefore they get more attention, therefore they get more views, therefore they make more money. You could also make an argument for people from other countries such as japan/brazil, who don't speak english well in a company that is based in an english speaking market, therefore if you speak english more fans will follow you and want to see you fight because they can, you know, understand you. That has nothing to do with skin color, of course. 

As for people getting cut, people get cut all the time. What does getting cut have to do with anything? If you are useful to the company, you don't get cut. If you aren't doing anything for the company, you get cut. On that list you just put up of fighters who got cut, name off 1 single fighter on that list who is worth anything to the UFC. Go on, let me know who got cut that has any importance whatsoever to the UFC. Or is it the fact that they got cut because nobody gives a shit about them, I don't even know who 90% of them are. If I, an active MMA fan who has been watching for years and years have no idea who most of the people who get cut even are, how many of the mass viewer base know who they are? You guessed it, probably an extremely low percent. They aren't valuable to the company therefore they were cut. Black, white, brown, doesn't matter. If you're useless to the company, you get cut.


----------



## JGood456 (Dec 24, 2014)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> So are you complaining that they are paying Sage too much? What Sage earns is nothing to do with what Aljo earns. Sterling didn't need to sign that contract. Sage was signed after him. You can't pick your decision and bitch when someone took a different offer.
> 
> Sterling got fast tracked to the top 5, but regardless. The UFC, and most companies that make people sign contracts, don't renegotiate after just half the contract has been fulfilled. Why would they do that? If Sterling wanted a deal like that he should have demanded it.
> 
> ...



Actual;ly the UFC does renegotiate before the contract is over. PVZ redid her contract with two fights left, and McGregor redid his contract after the Porier fight, which still had fights left to complete. They only go back to the table when it's in their best interest


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

JGood456 said:


> Actual;ly the UFC does renegotiate before the contract is over. PVZ redid her contract with two fights left, and McGregor redid his contract after the Porier fight, which still had fights left to complete. They only go back to the table when it's in their best interest


Exactly, when it's in their best interest. You don't want to have a last minute situation like Ben Henderson and co got. But then again, you don't want to give them a 4 fight contract and reneg every time at two because you guaranteed don't get your money's worth then.
@M.C. cheers mate. Gets a bit annoying having to post massive paragraphs about shit that really really REALLY should be common sense. One of my favourite internet rises is the self-hating white man who feels like it's his natural born duty to stand up for the oppressed black men :laugh:


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

Those who draw well and get a PPV% certainly could make several million a year, those who don't get a PPV cut, unless they fight 6 times a year, don't. I would love to know what Robbie Lawler made in 2015, if he isn't in the low 7 digits all income combined, people can stop comparing pro sports to UFC because the latter would be a joke.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Rygu said:


> Those who draw well and get a PPV% certainly could make several million a year, those who don't get a PPV cut, unless they fight 6 times a year, don't.


But Dennis Siver and Nick Hein don't make PPV money so the UFC is discriminatory to Germans.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> But Dennis Siver and Nick Hein don't make PPV money so the UFC is discriminatory to Germans.


Or just nobody will pay to watch them fight. I'm in that demographic.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

M.C said:


> To answer the bold, yes I have seen the numbers and yes I am happy with the numbers and yes black and white fighters are paid the same.


Racisim is over got it.



M.C said:


> The difference you're missing is that guys like Conor (who just so happens to be white by chance) sell a lot because of as you say, the shit talk, the media, the hype. Tell me, do you see Jose Aldo talking shit? Do you see him hyping up his fights? Do you see him actively searching out the media for interviews/articles to be done about him? No, you do not. You know what the result of that is? Low views. Do you know what low views mean? Less money.


Some people might call that a microaggression because one guy speaks English and the other guy doesn't. 



M.C said:


> You know who is paid really well? Jon Jones. You know why he's paid well? Cause he hits the media all the time, because he does a lot of interviews, because he goes out of his way to post on twitter and instagram, because yes he does talk shit (not as much as Conor, but he does), he is actively selling his brand and actively getting out there. What is the result of all that? Being one of the highest paid fighters in the company and one of the most popular/advertised fighters in the company. Guess what? He's black.


right...just going to rewrite history there. Jon Jones beloved fighter people didn't rip him apart for being fake for years.



> You apparently fail to realize that most people (including white people) who don't sell their brand/market themselves, make pennies.


Once again another one of those pesky microaggressions. I'm aware that white people get screwed over and they can and are also oppressed. The UFC cherry picks people to promote and those people are not black. You are also describing a monopoly.



> Cerrone, one of the very very best guys at 155 who was on an 8 fight win streak and has been around for years and years, made 87k in his last TITLE FIGHT. Guess what? He's as "white and american" as you can get, a full on white country boy. He made 87k for his title fight. Guess what RDA made for the same fight? 300k FLAT, no bonus, just 300k base pay. The last time I checked, RDA wasn't white.


RDA's getting 300K for his first defense huh, that's over 100K more than Demetrius Johnson gets for his seventh defense. Obviously Demetrius Johnson doesn't work as hard so it makes sense. Some might even say RDA isn't black and doesn't have anything to do with my argument or yours.

Oh and um...what do you think the UFC paid Benson Henderson for his first title defense.



> This "white people make more money" talk doesn't hold up to scrutiny.


Have you given any facts that I haven't responded to?




> The very best you could say is that white people tend to talk more shit than non-white people, and tend to go to twitter and market themselves more often, therefore they get more media, therefore they get more attention, therefore they get more views, therefore they make more money.


Well unless your Kimbo Slice, can you support that opinion with some facts?



> You could also make an argument for people from other countries such as japan/brazil, who don't speak english well in a company that is based in an english speaking market, therefore if you speak english more fans will follow you and want to see you fight because they can, you know, understand you. *That has nothing to do with skin color,* of course.


And just how many non-english speaking white fighters does the UFC have again. Then again it's not really a "white" thing it's more a systemic oppression of black fighters.



> As for people getting cut, people get cut all the time. What does getting cut have to do with anything?


Firing fighters based on the color of their skin is wrong. Somebody get's cut for going 3-1 that's kinda big deal. When you cut 7 people with losing record and one guy with a winning record. It's best if that one person isn't also the only one that's black.

But hey you don't think race is an issue or it exists. Black people are lazy right. Because it seems to me the only thing I can gather based on your historically inaccurate posts. White fighters get paid more because they "earned" it.



> If you are useful to the company, you don't get cut. If you aren't doing anything for the company, you get cut. On that list you just put up of fighters who got cut, name off 1 single fighter on that list who is worth anything to the UFC. Go on, let me know who got cut that has any importance whatsoever to the UFC.


Is fight of the night and performance of the night important because Souza's 3-1 record had two of those.

But who cares about good fights when we really should judge guys based on their twitter facebook accounts.



> Or is it the fact that they got cut because nobody gives a shit about them, I don't even know who 90% of them are. If I, an active MMA fan who has been watching for years and years have no idea who most of the people who get cut even are, how many of the mass viewer base know who they are? You guessed it, probably an extremely low percent. They aren't valuable to the company therefore they were cut. Black, white, brown, doesn't matter. If you're useless to the company, you get cut.


Oh well if you didn't know them clearly they failed. Not the company's whose job it is to promote fighters. Then again most of the black fighters you do know want to leave. We will just ignore that, one of those pesky little facts.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

John8204 said:


> Some people might call that a microaggression because one guy speaks English and the other guy doesn't.


How, it's nobodies fault the UFC is an American company and Aldo only speaks Portugese. If he wants to promote himself better in the country in which the UFC is the most popular and gains the most revenue from, he should learn to communicate better with the American media, which would require him to learn English. If the UFC was based out of Brazil, Conor would have had a difficult time promoting himself in Brazil in similar fashion to how it is for Aldo right now.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> But Dennis Siver and Nick Hein don't make PPV money so the UFC is discriminatory to Germans.


Dennis Siver is 1-6 against UFC fighters active on the roster, he has received seven post fight bonuses and he started his career at 1-3 he also tested positive for steroids in a fight where he took on current Bantamweight Manvel Gamburyan.

I know you were trying to be cute, but if he was black he would have been released a long time ago.

The UFC has actually promoted Dennis Siver quite well, once again another terrible example


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

I legitimally feel sad for how poor some people can be by worshiping money gains so much. "Yeah, congrats, you talk shit on the Instagram, so you earned the high pays from the casuals, you are a business role model now..." SMH.


----------



## Old school fan (Aug 24, 2011)

I'm curious about RDA's ethnicity now. If he's not white what is he exactly?


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Rygu said:


> How, it's nobodies fault the UFC is an American company and Aldo only speaks Portugese. If he wants to promote himself better in the country in which the UFC is the most popular and gains the most revenue from, he should learn to communicate better with the American media, which would require him to learn English. If the UFC was based out of Brazil, Conor would have had a difficult time promoting himself in Brazil in similar fashion to how it is for Aldo right now.


Because Aldo went 10 years without losing a fight, it's a microaggression because most Brazilians don't speak english and the UFC has moved into Brazil bought the promotions and buried their champions like Kevin Souza who has 15 wins and 1 decision.

But he has no value because MC doesn't know who he is.

When it comes to racial/social issues, systemic issues are not absolute. You look at the trends not the individuals. I'm not talking about the bottom or the top of the card. I'm talking about the 80% in between and what is happening to those fighters.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Old school fan said:


> I'm curious about RDA's ethnicity now. If he's not white what is he exactly?


Mixed, or Pardo as they're called in Brazil. He's pretty brown to be considered "white" by the arbitrary standards of race, usually it's like people with at least 75% european ancestry and above that get that label in South America.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Old school fan said:


> I'm curious about RDA's ethnicity now. If he's not white what is he exactly?


I believe the proper term is Pardo.

Brazilians tend to be indian(Nog, Wanderlei), european(Maia, Royce) or african (Silva) and then a mix of some sort. The portugese did racial mixing very quickly, in some states it was illegal until the 1950's.

Liddellianko beat me to it, but generally I consider Brazilians to be native americans because their society generally bases itself on skin tone not ethnicity.


----------



## Old school fan (Aug 24, 2011)

That's interesting. He's always looked as white as Wanderlei or JDS to me... I'm gonna guess they are also considered Pardo? Personally I think these labels are very silly, even though I agree with John's points in this thread.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Yeah, I'm done. No one quote or tag me in the thread. In 2015, people complain that Scandinavian small budget parody films set in Viking times and Nazi Germany, Kung Fury, don't have enough diversity.

I have no interest in social justice warriors and their self hating ways. It's pretty much 2016 now, tag me when people start discussing MMA.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

John8204 said:


> Racisim is over got it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So all I got from this response is "yeah but black guys are still oppressed!". You pointed out - nothing - to show that black fighters are worse off than anyone else (in fact specifically stated other races have the same "issues"). All you did is claim specific fighters make less than other specific fighters (non-white fighters by the way), and that low ranked black guys can get cut from the roster. Congratulations, you're starting to understand how the fight business and individual contracts works, two people are paid differently based on varying factors from publicity, to hype, to position in the company, to value, to how many eyes they bring, to the options they can utilize with that fighter and how well they do in their fights. Also, fighters get cut. Both with losing records and winning records. If the contracts are up and ready to be negotiated, or even if they aren't, the UFC sits down and decides who is important and who isn't. Black guy or otherwise.

Kevin Souza obviously doesn't matter to the UFC and wasn't important to them, he was cut. There's really no argument here. When the UFC starts cutting every brown and black guy on the roster, let me know. Until then, your argument is extremely weak. As it stands right now, the top heavyweights are black/brown, the top LHW's are black, most of the top guys at 185 are black/brown. "Coincidentally", these "top guys" are guys like Jones/Alistair/Rumble/Anderson/Vitor/etc, you know, guys who are millionaires thanks to the UFC. Those poor, sad, lonely oppressed black millionaires! These poor stars that everyone knows and people love to watch fight, and as such get paid lots and lots of money. Let us pity them, the poor souls. 

Oh, and it's not the company's job to promote every fighter. Try again. Their job is to promote high profile fights, and they do that. If you want well known, you better be very good at your job and be very good at marketing yourself. Maybe Kevin Souza would have mattered more if he tried to, you know, market himself some. Maybe get his name out there? Maybe let fans know he even exists. That would have helped him out.

To avoid going in circles, let me say this - you will not convince me at any level whatsoever that black people make less money in the UFC when there are many black millionaires in the UFC and that the UFC hires black/brown fighters on a consistent basis. I'm not one of these "oh poor me, poor them, aw boo hoo!" type of people. When black guys are making a killing, as much and in fact more than many white fighters, they aren't being oppressed or picked on. Period. If your next reply is the same stuff you posted above, talking about individual fighters who get cut and pay vs pay and all this, save it. Learn how individual contracts work, learn how negotiation works, learn how important self-promotion is, you will come to the conclusion that every fighter is different and have a different place (or no place at all hence getting cut from the roster) in the company. That's why some white guys make 20/20 while others make millions, and why some black guys make 14/14 while others also make millions. So unless you have something new beyond pointing out that specific fighters get cut, and that specific fighters make less or more than other specific fighters, save your time and mine and don't even reply. It's ridiculous.


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

I was unaware people actually used the term 'microaggression' seriously... Ahh we have truely entered a woefully butthurt period of humanity.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

edlavis88 said:


> I was unaware people actually used the term 'microaggression' seriously... Ahh we have truely entered a woefully butthurt period of humanity.


It's a fad, and a ridiculous one. It'll go away.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Rygu said:


> It's a fad, and a ridiculous one. It'll go away.


I came to the thread to see what the fuss was about, but as soon as I saw 'micro aggression' I stopped reading. I had to go into my safe room so I could be genderfluid in peace.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> I came to the thread to see what the fuss was about, but as soon as I saw 'micro aggression' I stopped reading. I had to go into my safe room so I could be genderfluid in peace.


Which is a perfect an example of a micro aggression



> According to Sue et al.,[12] microaggressions seem to appear in three forms:
> 
> microassault: an explicit racial derogation; verbal/nonverbal; e.g.: name-calling, avoidant behavior, purposeful discriminatory actions.
> microinsult: communications that convey rudeness and insensitivity and demean a person's racial heritage or identity; subtle snubs; unknown to the perpetrator; hidden insulting message to the recipient of color.
> *microinvalidation: communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person belonging to a particular group.*


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Funny thing is the same people who use words like "microinvalidation" will calmly tell you why you as a white person are automatically racist, the cause of all the major social problems in the world, and no one can be discriminatory or racist against you because white people (including you personally) are all too powerful and evil for anyone to be racist against. This goes double if you're male as well. But they're not invalidating your experiences, they're just fighting against you, the oppressor.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

John8204 said:


> Which is a perfect an example of a micro aggression


Sure it is, but it doesn't mean that its not bullshit and a bullshit philosophy. 

The small context I've read in this thread in a few lines is you think black guys are getting treated less fair then white guys. But theres no statistics to back that up. Your using examples like MM that you very well know there are other reasons for. Therefore what you are doing is going looking for something to be sensitive about. 

This will never get you anywhere, and it won't benefit you as an individual or the cause you are attempting to fight for. 

Real issues of equality are important. Getting the same rights for all people, this is important. 
Homogenising society into a place where we essentially go so far left it whips around to the extreme right in the sense that people can no longer say anything that they actually feel because they are in total fear of offending others and breaking social norms will do nothing but suppress the world. That is the only cause that this over sensitivity aligns with. 

If I lived 100 years ago where there were signs on the doors saying No Irish, and Irish people got paid less money then someone from another country for the same job which freely occurred, I would be pissed and fight for my rights. But now when I have equality and the same opportunities as everyone else, putting my energies into nit picking over the odd English guy who calls me a thieving Mick c*** or Aussie who called me a drunken Irish bastard simply is of no value to me. Or even the person who says, oh your Irish, have a drink which is a micro aggression in your thinking. I could not possibly imagine getting upset about someone saying that to me. The concept is bizarre. 
Yet I could choose to be sensitive about it when I experience it, and let it affect me phsycologicaly. Or as I do I can choose to not give shit about nonsense that is meaningless and not be over sensitive. It has no positive result for anybody involved. 

So I say to you worry about the real problems in your life, how your going to make your way in the world and don't go looking for things to get upset about that are extremely marginal and could just as easily have no impact on your life whatsoever.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

HexRei said:


> Funny thing is the same people who use words like "microinvalidation" will calmly tell you why you as a white person are automatically racist, the cause of all the major social problems in the world, and no one can be discriminatory or racist against you because white people (including you personally) are all too powerful and evil for anyone to be racist against. This goes double if you're male as well. But they're not invalidating your experiences, they're just fighting against you, the oppressor.


They typically wouldn't call you racist, they might try and explain white privilege to you, or if they don't like you call you ignorant.

Like for example if I were to say the words

"black lives matter" and your response is "all lives matter" that's ignorance if you say **** you [email protected]##$$ that would be racist.

The lines fairly simple from people who use the terms microagression.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

John8204 said:


> They typically wouldn't call you racist, they might try and explain white privilege to you, or if they don't like you call you ignorant.
> 
> Like for example if I were to say the words
> 
> ...


Well, I've been told that I am inherently racist as a white person, and you skipped past everything else I posted which I have also been told by social justice warriors, like that a white person cannot be racially discriminated against for being white because power blah blah blah.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> Sure it is, but it doesn't mean that its not bullshit and a bullshit philosophy.
> 
> The small context I've read in this thread in a few lines is you think black guys are getting treated less fair then white guys. *But theres no statistics to back that up. *Your using examples like MM that you very well know there are other reasons for. Therefore what you are doing is going looking for something to be sensitive about.


8 guys just got fired, 7 had losing records, 1 had a winning record, he was the one black person. That is a statistic, what have I said that I didn't support with some fact or metric? 



> This will never get you anywhere, and it won't benefit you as an individual or the cause you are attempting to fight for.


Who's fighting? I'm not fighting for blacks, I'm not some social justice warrior but I do have a basic understanding of sociology, psychology and science. If I was fighting I might do a statistical study of the racial practices of the UFC but right now I'm just talking about it. The emotional reactions seem to be coming from everybody else.



> Real issues of equality are important. Getting the same rights for all people, this is important.


That's right.



> Homogenising society into a place where we essentially go so far left it whips around to the extreme right in the sense that people can no longer say anything that they actually feel because they are in total fear of offending others and breaking social norms will do nothing but suppress the world. That is the only cause that this over sensitivity aligns with.


It's oversensitive to point out clear pay and employment inequalities towards people of colour? What if all of AKA left the UFC would you call that an issue of sensitivity? I haven't seen a single factual issue from any of you. It's all been hyperbole, emotional responses, and anecdotes. 




> If I lived 100 years ago where there were signs on the doors saying No Irish, and Irish people got paid less money then someone from another country for the same job which freely occurred, I would be pissed and fight for my rights. But now when I have equality and the same opportunities as everyone else, putting my energies into nit picking over the odd English guy who calls me a thieving Mick c*** or Aussie who called me a drunken Irish bastard simply is of no value to me. Or even the person who says,


Are you a football fan? What do you think is going on in Qatar right now. 



> oh your Irish, have a drink which is a micro aggression in your thinking.


In my thinking that sounds more like racism, it's an insult based on a stereotype. A microaggression is more complicated than that, for example. 




> I could not possibly imagine getting upset about someone saying that to me. The concept is bizarre.


It shouldn't be, so you basically saying if someone says something racist and you aren't offended, it isn't racist. That is closer to a microaggression. The idea of refusing to entertain, acknowledge or respect other peoples perspectives. 




> So I say to you worry about the real problems in your life, how your going to make your way in the world and don't go looking for things to get upset about that are extremely marginal and could just as easily have no impact on your life whatsoever.


I think the biggest problem in the sport today are the economic policies the UFC has engaged in. The company is actively weakening the product to push guys out of the company. Fighters are throwing fights to get out of the company. This is a serious problem and if the UFC is shown to be systematically oppressing minorities, everything goes away, The sport will not recover from a race scandal because the UFC is a monopoly and if the UFC falls so does the sport. 

And that would suck because I would miss all of you.


----------



## laixuanthoi (Jan 1, 2016)

.thank


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

HexRei said:


> Well, I've been told that I am inherently racist as a white person, and you skipped past everything else I posted which I have also been told by social justice warriors, like that a white person cannot be racially discriminated against for being white because power blah blah blah.



Structures tend to be white and in a metric of race if the power structure and you are the same race then you can not be discriminated against for being white. You can be discriminated against for your class, sexual orientation, religion but if you share the same metric with the power structure you can not be discriminated against for that reason. It's a logical impossibility.

Now you can be discriminated against as we're all discriminated against in our daily lives. Gender, appearance, age, class, intelligence.. these are all metrics that we are judged by. We may accept them but you can't deny the basic action

What needed to be addressed in your previous statement?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

John8204 said:


> 8 guys just got fired, 7 had losing records, 1 had a winning record, he was the one black person. That is a statistic, what have I said that I didn't support with some fact or metric?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looking for that thread to see who was cut and can't find it. Can't recall the fighter or what way he's fought but I would be utterly astounded if it could be in any way linked to his colour. I'd bet my house that it wasn't. The UFC are in the business of making cash money race and colour are not factors in that money making equation, personality and fighting style is. Rampage Jackson coming back to the company proves that point in my eyes. 

Your basic understanding of psychology sociology etc would be completely different to mine. I grew up in a house where my older sister would always look around her for something to blame why her shit went wrong, despite having the same opportunities as me, while my strategy was to put the things that went wrong in my life down to my own mistakes, try not to make them again and get better. Both of us are in radically different positions now because of adopting those different philosophies in life. So I think the context of how different people react to different hurdles in life is very important, and giving people more rope to give themselves something else to feel sorry about it very bad in my eyes. 
We can impress the kind of psychology where we tell people its ok to be triggered and oversensitive about everything. Tell them, this is your right, to get upset. Then its going to happen 100 times more often that people are going to be upset and inventing new words and terminology on how to herd the human race in thinking and talking in the same way and having no understanding of our diversity and cultural traits. Its a type of facism because free speech is gone, actually having an opinion is gone. Having a sense of humour is gone. You cannot risk any of those things in a society that adopts this new standard of thought and action. That is bad. 

If someone says to me, have a drink your Irish, I could react in two ways. 1. OMG thats racist. How dare you staple me with that generalisation. or 2. I can laugh at it because its true. Ireland has a drinking problem, its a big part of our culture so when someone takes the piss out of me about it, I accept it and will respond in kind with my own humour. Or maybe a third way and just tell I don't drink as much as a typical Irish person and be ambivalent. Its the same way a black person could respond about fried chicken or a chinese person might respond about gambling, (or a Brazilian taking steroids INSERT HUMOUR EMO )
The first leads me down a road of conflict and torment, the second leads to a laugh and commradery. 

If I use strong language, and terms like bizarre, or ridiculous, this is an opinion not a microaggression. A confident and psychologically sound human being debates his side properly with being offended by strong words. Whats happening when someone can't accept being contradicted because they are over sensitive is that debate is ruled out. Once debate is ruled out the human race become idiot sheep because we cannot conclude anything. The conversation gets stopped as one side has become offended and refuses to continue. They have to go to a safe place and draw pictures. (Thats not sarcasm this is actually happening in universities). People will constantly get upset and offended by words that are not in fact offensive. They are just over sensitive and so through their paradigm of sensitivity they become offended. Ridiculous is a common word, but could be ruled out of the english language in 20 years if people suddenly find it offensive and upsetting, or a 'trigger' 

Its going that way now, where debate is getting taken out of universities because people are taking social justice to the extreme left, like i said making it whip around to become extreme right. Its very very dangerous that the places that are supposed to be the foundation of debate and ideas and free and new thinking are where the roots of this extreme movement are taking place and it is in fact stopping those hubs of creativity and education that have been the foundation of much social progression for hundreds of years. 

Not sure what you mean about Qatar? 

In terms of examples in the UFC I mentioned Rampage who acted like a dick and always does, came back to the UFC. AS got very nice money, was given a big money fight with Nick Diaz where he made 6mil dollars after he got KO'd twice. Cormier was given another shot at the title when JJ vacated even though he'd just been beaten. 
I think if anything when the UFC do bad things they don't discriminate on race. They are happy to shit all over everybody in an equal way. They shit all over all the ex hero's in the sport the guys that built it, Randy, Tito, Ken, Frank etc etc. 
And as a business strategy racial discrimination would be insane from a promoters point of view, it makes no business sense.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

John8204 said:


> 8 guys just got fired, 7 had losing records, 1 had a winning record, he was the one black person. That is a statistic, what have I said that I didn't support with some fact or metric?


Jacob Volkmann(6-4), Vladimir Matyushenko(4-3),Jon Fitch(13-4-1), Paul Sass(3-2)

Does this effect your statistic?


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> Looking for that thread to see who was cut and can't find it. Can't recall the fighter or what way he's fought but I would be utterly astounded if it could be in any way linked to his colour. I'd bet my house that it wasn't. The UFC are in the business of making cash money race and colour are not factors in that money making equation, personality and fighting style is. Rampage Jackson coming back to the company proves that point in my eyes.


As I've said, single incidents are not indicative of a systemic problem. But if you wish to use Rampage as an example, he was a man who brought in a lot of money for the company, so his value was clear cut. But racism comes into play if the guys that weren't champions or draws where pushed out of the company at a significantly higher percentage than white counterparts. What we are seeing right now with Alistair Overeem, Benson Henderson, Ajaming Sterling, Cheick Kongo, Josh Koscheck, Melvin Guillard, etc is an epidemic of fighters of color leaving the company. Now the next step is the UFC is keeping Jon Jones and Demetrius Johnson...but with UFC champions in all of those contracts those fighters are forced to stay with the UFC indefinitely. And another thing I want you to keep in mind with Rampage Jackson, the UFC didn't promote Rampage a different company (Pride) did, the UFC bought his contract. 



> Your basic understanding of psychology sociology etc would be completely different to mine. I grew up in a house where my older sister would always look around her for something to blame why her shit went wrong, despite having the same opportunities as me, while my strategy was to put the things that went wrong in my life down to my own mistakes, try not to make them again and get better. Both of us are in radically different positions now because of adopting those different philosophies in life. So I think the context of how different people react to different hurdles in life is very important, and giving people more rope to give themselves something else to feel sorry about it very bad in my eyes.
> We can impress the kind of psychology where we tell people its ok to be triggered and oversensitive about everything. Tell them, this is your right, to get upset. Then its going to happen 100 times more often that people are going to be upset and inventing new words and terminology on how to herd the human race in thinking and talking in the same way and having no understanding of our diversity and cultural traits. Its a type of facism because free speech is gone, actually having an opinion is gone. Having a sense of humour is gone. You cannot risk any of those things in a society that adopts this new standard of thought and action. That is bad.


I hear this idea of free speech going away and humor dying or whatever and I find that to be a strawman's argument. We don't have thought police it is not illegal to be racist(in my country) and if your being shunned for doing that, maybe you should stop. What you are talking about are philosophical differences, when the state comes in and starts regulating people who adhere to those differences, that's horrible. That could be a systemic issue but the system isn't in place.

The problem with the whole idea of "it's not my problem it doesn't matter to me", to your conscious knowledge perhaps. But do you really know that you aren't racist. Why is it as a white person you feel the need to deny systemic discrimination. Why is the idea so terrible that when confronted with facts you feel the need to defend the system.

In Qatar right now slave labor is being used to build football stadiums for the World Cup. By supporting Fifa you are indirectly supporting slavery, the system would not be in place if their wasn't a need and acceptance of that. 



> If someone says to me, have a drink your Irish, I could react in two ways. 1. OMG thats racist. How dare you staple me with that generalisation. or 2. I can laugh at it because its true. Ireland has a drinking problem, its a big part of our culture so when someone takes the piss out of me about it, I accept it and will respond in kind with my own humour. Or maybe a third way and just tell I don't drink as much as a typical Irish person and be ambivalent. Its the same way a black person could respond about fried chicken or a chinese person might respond about gambling, (or a Brazilian taking steroids INSERT HUMOUR EMO )
> The first leads me down a road of conflict and torment, the second leads to a laugh and commradery.


Which is you, and you have the right to do that. It's your freedom not care about that stuff. But you are not an institution, if people are your friends or not that doesn't really matter. You don't have clear damages, it's like having your housing options limited by your race, or having a police officer treat you differently because of your race.



> If I use strong language, and terms like bizarre, or ridiculous, this is an opinion not a microaggression. A confident and psychologically sound human being debates his side properly with being offended by strong words. Whats happening when someone can't accept being contradicted because they are over sensitive is that debate is ruled out.


If you wish to discuss what a microaggression is, that's fine. But the debate that you are engaging in is that it does not exist. And when you fail to acknowledge it's existence then that isn't a debate. Arguing the existence of the concept is not over sensitivity. I microaggression is not something people are demonized over it's not socially acceptable yet. Could we live in a world where anytime a person says something racist they go to jail or get murdered...sure, the same way purple elephants can come down from Mars. But that's hypothetical, what I'm talking about(more than I would like) is tangible and measurable. Seeing some numbers that show discrimination towards a group people, and then dismissing it that is a microaggression.



> Once debate is ruled out the human race become idiot sheep because we cannot conclude anything. The conversation gets stopped as one side has become offended and refuses to continue. They have to go to a safe place and draw pictures. (Thats not sarcasm this is actually happening in universities). People will constantly get upset and offended by words that are not in fact offensive. They are just over sensitive and so through their paradigm of sensitivity they become offended. Ridiculous is a common word, but could be ruled out of the english language in 20 years if people suddenly find it offensive and upsetting, or a 'trigger'
> 
> Its going that way now, where debate is getting taken out of universities because people are taking social justice to the extreme left, like i said making it whip around to become extreme right. Its very very dangerous that the places that are supposed to be the foundation of debate and ideas and free and new thinking are where the roots of this extreme movement are taking place and it is in fact stopping those hubs of creativity and education that have been the foundation of much social progression for hundreds of years.


okay




> In terms of examples in the UFC I mentioned Rampage who acted like a dick and always does, came back to the UFC. AS got very nice money, was given a big money fight with Nick Diaz where he made 6mil dollars after he got KO'd twice. Cormier was given another shot at the title when JJ vacated even though he'd just been beaten.
> I think if anything when the UFC do bad things they don't discriminate on race. They are happy to shit all over everybody in an equal way. They shit all over all the ex hero's in the sport the guys that built it, Randy, Tito, Ken, Frank etc etc.
> And as a business strategy racial discrimination would be insane from a promoters point of view, it makes no business sense.


Promoters make money off of racism all the time, and plenty of people are fine making a living off of that. Because once again that's not discrimination, the WWE can have a "Ugandian Cannibal" as an attraction and that isn't illegal. But if they go oh we have our one black so now we won't hire anymore. It's wrong and illegal and they will be sued.

The racial element of the UFC's economic policies are neither my only problem or my biggest problem with the company. I have plenty of other issue with the way the UFC is running their business right now. And as a consumer, and god knows based on all the ads we are consumers. That those policies are going to kill the sport.



Term said:


> Jacob Volkmann(6-4), Vladimir Matyushenko(4-3),Jon Fitch(13-4-1), Paul Sass(3-2)
> 
> Does this effect your statistic?


Do you think listing four names that were fired over a couple years along many other people is a statistic?

Do you know what a statistic is?

Would you like me to talk about Carlos Newton, Antonio McKee, Gerald Harris, Yves Edwards, David Louiseau, Francis Carmont, Anthony Johnson, Jason High, Paul Daley and John Howard?


----------



## JASONJRF (Nov 3, 2009)

Trix said:


> ...
> 
> Imagine what the response will be when CM Punk is paid 5 to 10 times what Sage Northcutt is making in his 1st professional fight ever.


Other than that being a Ford, Nope No Problem.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

> As I've said, single incidents are not indicative of a systemic problem. But if you wish to use Rampage as an example, he was a man who brought in a lot of money for the company, so his value was clear cut. But racism comes into play if the guys that weren't champions or draws where pushed out of the company at a significantly higher percentage than white counterparts. What we are seeing right now with Alistair Overeem, Benson Henderson, Ajaming Sterling, Cheick Kongo, Josh Koscheck, Melvin Guillard, etc is an epidemic of fighters of color leaving the company. Now the next step is the UFC is keeping Jon Jones and Demetrius Johnson...but with UFC champions in all of those contracts those fighters are forced to stay with the UFC indefinitely. And another thing I want you to keep in mind with Rampage Jackson, the UFC didn't promote Rampage a different company (Pride) did, the UFC bought his contract.


I think your stretching a lot here. The Reem is on a huge contract one of the biggest in the UFC which they signed him on before he got busted. Since then his stock plummeted and he hasn't brought back the kind of $$ he should have. He also very valuable on the Japanese market and you can be sure he's talking to Rizin right now who maybe will offer him 500K to fight and allow him to juice again. 
Benson is on what 100K to show I think. He is a free agent now negotiating. He could also get much more money from that new show because he has a big following in Korea where his mother is from. 
Kongo was on a very big UFC contract also and he started losing fights and he also wasnt brining in numbers because apart from one or two fights he was putting on a lot of borefests. 
Koscheck is done, his eye is fcuked and he has not developed as a fighter, Guillard kept on losing he was 2-5 in his last 7 fights when he got cut. I don't see any suspicion there at all. If there was any hint of it I'd call the UFC out as I do on all the shitty stuff they do. 
When I think of unfair cuts I think of John Fitch who really needed the money was ranked and was cut because DW always never liked him and his grinding style. 



> I hear this idea of free speech going away and humor dying or whatever and I find that to be a strawman's argument. We don't have thought police it is not illegal to be racist(in my country) and if your being shunned for doing that, maybe you should stop. What you are talking about are philosophical differences, when the state comes in and starts regulating people who adhere to those differences, that's horrible. That could be a systemic issue but the system isn't in place.
> 
> The problem with the whole idea of "it's not my problem it doesn't matter to me", to your conscious knowledge perhaps. But do you really know that you aren't racist. Why is it as a white person you feel the need to deny systemic discrimination. Why is the idea so terrible that when confronted with facts you feel the need to defend the system.
> 
> In Qatar right now slave labor is being used to build football stadiums for the World Cup. By supporting Fifa you are indirectly supporting slavery, the system would not be in place if their wasn't a need and acceptance of that.


Well its illegal in the UK and you can go to prison for racist or homophobic statements in the workplace or in your social media. 
And its slowly becoming like that in the united states. The main reason I brought up the universities is that lecturers are getting fired and have their careers taken away. Its happening all of the country. Students are filing complaints to the universities during lectures whereby the lecturer brings up a debate on certain subjects.They get accused of microagressions, racism etc, when they are just talking about a subject. Once they say X, the student is offended and refuses to dialogue. Lecturers are now having to put notices in lecture notes and class descriptions that state this class HAS TRIGGERS. Universities have safe rooms that have colouring books and childrens music playing, that people can go to when they are 'triggered'. So essentially part of society which used to be the most free and capable of passionate debate is now being neutered in the US. If a lecturer gets fired and his career ruined for trying to have a debate its a good as it being illegal for me. I've heard about 2-3 cases of this happening and I was pretty shocked. 


With regards to Qatar, the Saudis and Dubai have been using these workers for the last few decades. Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Filipino workers brought over in their plane loads to build the skyscrapers. Passports taken upon arrival, wages slashed, forced to work in 50 degree heat. I am in real estate and have heard manies a story of workers getting thrown into the foundations there that die on site in accidents and from dehydration. The Arabs treat the workers like dirt, like second class citizens for the most part. Ive seen it first hand, no respect at all. Its not news, nor is the rest of the bad shit that goes on over there. 
Fifa are corrupt thats common knowledge. Its unfortunate they run football but at least they are starting to get uncovered now. What we are seeing is corruption but not racism. 

about 10 years ago ireland played france in a world cup playoff. Thierry Henry handballed twice and basically slapped the ball into the net. The game should have been replayed since Fifa were running a "Fair Play" campaign that year. But no they offered the irish football association £5m to STFU, and they did. Not racism, just corruption. 



> Which is you, and you have the right to do that. It's your freedom not care about that stuff. But you are not an institution, if people are your friends or not that doesn't really matter. You don't have clear damages, it's like having your housing options limited by your race, or having a police officer treat you differently because of your race.


In many cases I have clear damages, and choose to act in a certain way which is to my benefit.This is the point im trying to make here - its not good to foster the over sensitive reaction. People shut down and wont debate and then we are all fu**** as a society until there is a revolution. 

For example I'm in a country right now building a project. The neighbours don't want me there because Im not a local, and they have tried a variety of things to screw my project. They got the labour authority to go over my operation with a fine tooth comb to see if I had missed anything that they could file something against me. The guy from the state labour authority rings me up and says Im starting an investigation into your company, but from now on I wont be able to speak english to you. 
I calmly asked the guy was I in a modern and liberal european country, to which he replied yes. Then I asked him if one of his countrymen came to Ireland do you think the labour authority would so ignorant and backwards as to force this man to speak in Gaelic in his business dealings, or would that be discriminating against him? After a silence he then stated we would speak English from here on. 

So we have choices. I could have chosen to go OMG on this guy, shut down the conversation, become offended and reported him, gone to the press. It would have hurt him, but it would have hurt me as well as used up huge stress and emotion and time on my behalf. I don't believe me having a public image as a whiner is good for business or reputation or brand or my future. And I would have caused a big stress on this guy his organisation, a whole load of bullshit, lawyers fees, press. 
Instead we had a brief debate where he saw my point of view was correct and the right one. He changed his tune, and it all ended happily ever after. 

We need to be fostering the idea that being very sensitive, overreacting and shutting people down is folly. Its being too soft. The sticks and stones mentality is certainly the one I would be promoting in the name of self preservation and sound mind.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> I think your stretching a lot here. The Reem is on a huge contract one of the biggest in the UFC which they signed him on before he got busted. Since then his stock plummeted and he hasn't brought back the kind of $$ he should have. He also very valuable on the Japanese market and you can be sure he's talking to Rizin right now who maybe will offer him 500K to fight and allow him to juice again.
> Benson is on what 100K to show I think. He is a free agent now negotiating. He could also get much more money from that new show because he has a big following in Korea where his mother is from.
> Kongo was on a very big UFC contract also and he started losing fights and he also wasnt brining in numbers because apart from one or two fights he was putting on a lot of borefests.
> Koscheck is done, his eye is fcuked and he has not developed as a fighter, Guillard kept on losing he was 2-5 in his last 7 fights when he got cut. I don't see any suspicion there at all. If there was any hint of it I'd call the UFC out as I do on all the shitty stuff they do.
> When I think of unfair cuts I think of John Fitch who really needed the money was ranked and was cut because DW always never liked him and his grinding style.


Your problem is you see a fighter have a boring fight and you immediately blame the fighters. You don't think that maybe that fight was booked to make those fighters look bad. The UFC goes after guys, black, white, brazilian, asian they are ruthless little buggers. The problem with discrimination is you have not only people of color leaving the sport but you also have white fighters generally getting sweat-heart deals. There is no good reason to bring in CM Punk and not Hershel Walker.




DonRifle said:


> Well its illegal in the UK and you can go to prison for racist or homophobic statements in the workplace or in your social media.
> And its slowly becoming like that in the united states. The main reason I brought up the universities is that lecturers are getting fired and have their careers taken away. Its happening all of the country. Students are filing complaints to the universities during lectures whereby the lecturer brings up a debate on certain subjects.They get accused of microagressions, racism etc, when they are just talking about a subject. Once they say X, the student is offended and refuses to dialogue. Lecturers are now having to put notices in lecture notes and class descriptions that state this class HAS TRIGGERS. Universities have safe rooms that have colouring books and childrens music playing, that people can go to when they are 'triggered'. So essentially part of society which used to be the most free and capable of passionate debate is now being neutered in the US. If a lecturer gets fired and his career ruined for trying to have a debate its a good as it being illegal for me. I've heard about 2-3 cases of this happening and I was pretty shocked.


Well that's a problem in the UK and I don't know how many people are going to jail every year over that. But if you want to talk systemic racism in the US we used to have a law where you could imprison someone for "loitering" send them to a work farm and keep them their for 30 years. The sentencing guidelines for crack and the sentencing guidelines for cocaine are wildly different. Because one effects white and the other minorities. And it wasn't 2 or 3 cases it thousands and millions of people.




> With regards to Qatar, the Saudis and Dubai have been using these workers for the last few decades. Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Filipino workers brought over in their plane loads to build the skyscrapers. Passports taken upon arrival, wages slashed, forced to work in 50 degree heat. I am in real estate and have heard manies a story of workers getting thrown into the foundations there that die on site in accidents and from dehydration. The Arabs treat the workers like dirt, like second class citizens for the most part. Ive seen it first hand, no respect at all. Its not news, nor is the rest of the bad shit that goes on over there.
> Fifa are corrupt thats common knowledge. Its unfortunate they run football but at least they are starting to get uncovered now. What we are seeing is corruption but not racism.


It isn't just corruption, it's slavery. It may not be Chattel slavery but trapping people to work to their deaths is the same thing, it could even be considered worse because slave owners typically try to keep their slaves alive. What's going on in the middle east is worse than that. 

But you don't think it's a little racist to ignore and accept that? To just be like eh "not my problem" and focus your worries on a possible rise of fascism. Would you really compare it to government official making it hard for you to do your job?


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

Two quotes that sum up my opinion on this thread perfectly... People get offended far too easily these days. At the end of the day you can say you're offended by anything. 
If I said I was offended by puppies the social justice warriors would say I was being stupid and just moaning, yet if I were to say I was offended obese people they'd say that is offensive and that I was being intolerant.

To me all that is is arrogance on their behalf that they think they can choose what I and others can and cannot be offended by. It's just all absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

Here are SJWs in a nutshell, and perfect examples as to why few take it even remotely seriously, the rest just laugh at them.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Right...

So anyone just give me an answer. This whole "sensitivity" and "sensitive people" thing, I'm reading what most of you are saying. And it seems to me I'm trying to have a discussion and I'm just hitting a wall of...sensitivity.

The labeling, the personal stories, the outright refusal to listen to any sort of reason.

that just seems very...sensitive to me.

But whatever I'm done.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

btw... The irish? Not a race...


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

John8204 said:


> Right...
> 
> So anyone just give me an answer. This whole "sensitivity" and "sensitive people" thing, I'm reading what most of you are saying. And it seems to me I'm trying to have a discussion and I'm just hitting a wall of...sensitivity.
> 
> ...


People have given you answers showing that black peole are not discriminated against or being payed less in the UFC. It's YOU who refuses to see the facts and listen, as such some people have just said "whatever" and are now posting anti-SJW stuff. When you throw things like black fighters making more money than white fighters, when you throw things like black fighters being consistently hired by the company, when you show things like black stars in the UFC, when you show things like white fighters who have been cut while having positive records, your entire argument completely decomposes. 

It's honestly not even a debate at this point, just you going around in circles posting the same stuff that people have already refuted, and will continue to go on that way over and over unless someone changes their tune, and in this case that's people moving on from that to poking fun at the SJW crowd.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

> Your problem is you see a fighter have a boring fight and you immediately blame the fighters. You don't think that maybe that fight was booked to make those fighters look bad. The UFC goes after guys, black, white, brazilian, asian they are ruthless little buggers. The problem with discrimination is you have not only people of color leaving the sport but you also have white fighters generally getting sweat-heart deals. There is no good reason to bring in CM Punk and not Hershel Walker.


Well sure I remember talking about fights in some of the podcasts about fighters I thought had been setup for a fall by the matchmaker in order for them to lose. Like Maldonado's last fight against a wrestling guy Corey something, he was never going to win that fight ever. And he just got cut. But Maldonado is white. I think you need to come up with something more clear cut for your argument to be effective. Theres nothing you've said that has made me think, shit maybe he's right. 



> Well that's a problem in the UK and I don't know how many people are going to jail every year over that. But if you want to talk systemic racism in the US we used to have a law where you could imprison someone for "loitering" send them to a work farm and keep them their for 30 years. The sentencing guidelines for crack and the sentencing guidelines for cocaine are wildly different. Because one effects white and the other minorities. And it wasn't 2 or 3 cases it thousands and millions of people.


I'm not arguing that theres not problems with police and race in america and that there was huge amounts of inequality and discrimination. Its a different issue. 
In this particular point just pointing out people are having their lives ruined by this intense social justice, when actually debate and reason should win out. 

At one point in time people were afraid of gay people. They thought they had aids, they weren't in the public eye, they were thought of as subhuman. In ireland last year we had a vote on gay marriage. There was a lot of debate. There was an awful lot of hate from both sides. But there was also very smart people who had the metal to debate the subject and the facets of it without getting so offended as to shut down the opposition. Freedom of speech, and debate is the democratic way of doing things. Shutting people down via sensitivity is not how to do things. We know that already. Getting into microaggressions and triggers and all that stuff is regression of society, it shuts us down and stops us moving forward and educating people. People who are ignorant will come around with education and debate and experience. They won't come around with hostility and wishy washyness. 





> It isn't just corruption, it's slavery. It may not be Chattel slavery but trapping people to work to their deaths is the same thing, it could even be considered worse because slave owners typically try to keep their slaves alive. What's going on in the middle east is worse than that.
> 
> But you don't think it's a little racist to ignore and accept that? To just be like eh "not my problem" and focus your worries on a possible rise of fascism. Would you really compare it to government official making it hard for you to do your job?


I can't do anything about the shit those guys do in the middle east. That is a chronic issue, but its not what Im debating with you. We are talking about social justice people singling out parts of dialogue and taking offence and looking for problems and things to get sensitive about. Why aren't these people focusing their do gooding energies on fixing problems in the middle east? Real problems? Why are they searching for micro aggressions and triggers to get upset about when there are serious problems that need to be tackled?

Im not sure why your asking me to compare the madness of the middle east with my example of how one can choose to react psychologically in a situation that is much more trivial. I just gave you that example to demonstrate we have choice in these kinds of matters. We aren't talking about world peace just much more grey areas of what is deemed racist or a microaggression. Its a long way from clear cut madness that goes on in qatar and saudi. 

The choice we make will determine our future and our happiness and will have a variety of knock on effects. Forks in the road we can decide how we want to react to. 





John8204 said:


> Right...
> 
> So anyone just give me an answer. This whole "sensitivity" and "sensitive people" thing, I'm reading what most of you are saying. And it seems to me I'm trying to have a discussion and I'm just hitting a wall of...sensitivity.
> 
> ...


No sensitivity from me here. I haven't seen you present a clear cut case for your point of view. 
I think we can narrow it down. You think its ok to be sensitive and use language like microaggression. I don't think it is, I think its detrimental to society as a whole and personally detrimental too. I'd be all ears and willing to change my mind if you could present something stronger then you have done. Something clear cut.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Joabbuac said:


> btw... The irish? Not a race...


Fu**in should be!


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

John8204 said:


> Do you think listing four names that were fired over a couple years along many other people is a statistic?
> 
> Do you know what a statistic is?
> 
> Would you like me to talk about Carlos Newton, Antonio McKee, Gerald Harris, Yves Edwards, David Louiseau, Francis Carmont, Anthony Johnson, Jason High, Paul Daley and John Howard?





John8204 said:


> 8 guys just got fired, 7 had losing records, 1 had a winning record, he was the one black person. That is a statistic, what have I said that I didn't support with some fact or metric?



You said that it was a statistic when one fighter out the recent 8 was fired had a winning record and he was black. 

I wasn't sure you understand statistics that well. Sample size is important.

As far as you talking about those other fighters I would be fine with you never posting again, but Gerald Harris is the only one I see that possibly fits your narrative.


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

Term said:


> You said that it was a statistic when one fighter out the recent 8 was fired had a winning record and he was black.
> 
> I wasn't sure you understand statistics that well. Sample size is important.
> 
> As far as you talking about those other fighters I would be fine with you never posting again, but Gerald Harris is the only one I see that possibly fits your narrative.


And god forbid we mention that Bones Vs Cormier was one of the most promoted fights in UFC history. 
The UFC rewards the fighters who they percieve will make them the most money it's as simple as that. No one was complaining when Rampage was making more than Rich Franklin despite being less deserving


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Term said:


> You said that it was a statistic when one fighter out the recent 8 was fired had a winning record and he was black.
> 
> I wasn't sure you understand statistics that well. Sample size is important.


1 out of 8 is a much greater result then 4 out of ????





Term said:


> As far as you talking about those other fighters I would be fine with you never posting again,


So I offended you and want to never see me again. 

But I'm being sensitive.




Term said:


> but Gerald Harris is the only one I see that possibly fits your narrative.


Jason High banned for life for slightly pushing the ref after a stoppage.

Anthony Johnson released for missing weight multiple times when Henry Cejudo, Charles Oliviera, and Kelvin Gastelum did the same thing and yet still employed.

Antonio Mckee, undefeated fighter for many years who the UFC refused to hire, he was given one fight far off the main card against Jacob Volkmann (undefeated at LW) lost a split decision gone. 

David Loiseau, between 03-10 fought for the MW title and cut from the company 4 times.

Carlos Newton, out of the UFC a fight after he lost the title

John Howard and Francis Carmount guys given terrible fights against top guys during losing streaks

Yves Edwards went on a six fight win streak in the LW division and rather than give him the title or the title shot, they dumped the division. He was clearly the UFC's LW champion in 2004 but they refused to recognize him.


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

Like others have stated what about Jon Fitch, Jake Sheilds, Paul Sass, Todd Duffee, Brian Foster, Jon Madsen or Matt Lindland. I'm not sure if youre being obtuse to get your point across but you're ignoring so many Bullsh*t cuts of white fighters it's laughable.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

The UFC has made many questionable cuts, of all races.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

edlavis88 said:


> Like others have stated what about Jon Fitch, Jake Sheilds, Paul Sass, Todd Duffee, Brian Foster, Jon Madsen or Matt Lindland. I'm not sure if youre being obtuse to get your point across but you're ignoring so many Bullsh*t cuts of white fighters it's laughable.





Rygu said:


> The UFC has made many questionable cuts, of all races.


Completely true, I've also addressed that.

The issue is not the UFC treating it's fighters poorly, they do that as well, I could double or even triple Ed's list. 

*It isn't the practices it's the percentages*. 

Throughout the Zuffa regime, it's been overwhelming that one group of people has been treated differently. I don't think I could list five black fighters that hadn't been clearly screwed over by the company in one way or the other.

Sure they've promoted and made black millionaires, they've had black champions. Dana White had a 40 minute press conference to rip into Jon Jones for UFC 151 he didn't do anything like that for UFC 176. Rampage Jackson, runned down and fired from the company, and then what happens. He goes to Bellator and continues to be a massive draw and the UFC brings him back.

It also isn't just the fighters being fired from the company, but also looking at some of other metrics. 

The Reebok deal what percentage of fighters received special sponsorship's that where not black. Or conversely how many of the UFC "veterans" are on the high end of the sponsorship payscale and what are those percentages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_UFC_fighters

And I'm not talking about champions, I'm talking about the 8-10 year vets that get that bump that didn't win a title. You see a much higher percentage of white and light-skinned Brazilians at the top of those lists.

We could also look at the race of fighters the UFC stands by when they go on losing streaks.

Gray Maynard 0-4
Joe Stevenson 0-4
Dan Hardy 0-4
Tito Ortiz 0-4-1
Frank Mir 0-4
Chris Leben 0-4
Andy Ogle 0-4
Josh Grispi 0-4
Bobby Voelker 0-4
Mark Hominick 0-4
Yoshiro Akiyama 0-4
Tank Abbott 0-4
Dave Herman 0-4
Ken Shamrock 0-4
Pat Healy 0-4-(1)
Chris Camozzi 0-4
John Albert 0-4
Dustin Pague 0-4
George Sotiropoulos 0-4
Alessio Sakara 0-4
Steve Cantwell 0-5
Leonard Garcia 0-5
Brandon Vera 1-4-(1)
Luiz Cane 1-4
Sam Stout 1-4
Duane Ludwig 1-4
Mac Danzig 1-4 and 1-4
Tom Watson 1-4
Brad Pickett 1-4
Nam Phan 1-4
Nate Marquardt 1-4
Joey Beltran 1-4
Shane Roller 1-4
Tyson Griffin 1-4
Jamie Varner 1-5
Roy Nelson 1-5
Spencer Fisher 1-5
Chuck Liddell 1-5
Dan Henderson 1-5
Shogun Rua 1-5
Keith Jardine 1-5
Danny Castillo 1-5
Paulo Thiago 1-5
Marcus Davis 1-5
Dan Miller 0-3, and 1-4
Jeremy Stephens 1-3 and 0-3 and 1-3

I didn't just pick that off the internet, each one of those imprinted on me their losing streak. How many of those guys do you not know? I could count on one hand the number of black fighters off the top of my head that would fit that same standard of going 0-4, 1-4, 1-5.

It's difficult for me to ignore that the UFC Reebok poster figures are typical blonde haired and blue eyed models. I remember all the drama, all the guys that the UFC kept on roster and stood by when better more exciting fighters were summarily dumped. When I watch other company's events I pretty know the color of the skin of their bright prospects, and I've become I suppose jaded enough to know why I have to seek those exciting fighters out.

And I know that about nine times out of ten, the black fighters that are in the UFC that wouldn't get cut based on the typical rules will run into some drama from the UFC.

I know rather than think about facts that I researched and presented my motives, intentions and character would be questioned. That any anecdote or metric would just be summarily pushed aside.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

edlavis88 said:


> Like others have stated what about Jon Fitch, Jake Sheilds, Paul Sass, Todd Duffee, *Brian Foster*, Jon Madsen or Matt Lindland. I'm not sure if youre being obtuse to get your point across but you're ignoring so many Bullsh*t cuts of white fighters it's laughable.


Brian Foster was found to have a brain hemorrhage, so I could understand him being cut on personal health grounds.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

And Dana White despises Todd Duffee 



> "I'm gonna be honest with you, I don't like Duffee's attitude. I don't like his attitude and I don't like some of the things he's said or done. He made it seem to me that he doesn't want to be in the UFC, like being here didn't matter to him and he didn't like it.* You don't want to be in the UFC brother? Okay. We're working on long term stuff, where guys can live and fight under this brand forever and continue to make money, even after they retire.* Being in the UFC is a very big thing for a fighter.* Some guys 'get it' and appreciate it and some guys don't.* The guys that don't, I don't have time for -- and you won't be around for long."


Duffee who the UFC paid 18K for his two fights, went onto main event his next fight against Alistair Overeem. He was then brought back put in a main event and well

Frank Mir: $200,000 (no win bonus) def. Todd Duffee: $12,000

12k a year, I wonder how that's going to work for him "long term".

And he had a few things to say about Jacob Volkmann

http://www.mmafighting.com/2013/7/4...fc-fighter-pay-everyone-doesnt-win-a-f-trophy

White singled out veterans like Sam Stout and Joe Lauzon as fighters he wants to have on his cards. While neither Stout nor Lauzon will ever be on the short list of title contenders, their exciting fight styles have made them popular with fans and earned them a combined 19 fight bonuses (Lauzon 12, Stout seven).



> "Look how long Sam Stout is in the UFC," White said. "Sam Stout is a guy who, he hasn't won any world titles, he hasn't been talked about as one of the greatest fighters or the top contenders or any of that s---. Sam Stout is a f--- animal who comes out and loves to fight and every time he comes out to fight he puts on an amazing show.
> 
> "Joe Lauzon is not seen as the top guy in his division," White continued. "He's not the champion. Do you know how many people go f--- crazy when I saw Joe Lauzon is on the card? Because people love to watch him fight. Joe Lauzon has won more fighter bonuses than I think anybody. If you are that guy, the system works for you. But if you are not that guy, then boo f--- hoo, you don't matter."


----------



## SM33 (Sep 22, 2009)

I've always had the opinion that the UFC looks after it's fighters financially, but sponsors were a big chunk of a fighter's income... now the sponsors are gone, guys like Mitrione are going to be pretty peeved when someone like Sage gets a bigger payday.

The UFC _will_ lose fighters over favoritism, unless it's evened out behind the scenes, which we know they do but we'll never know to what extent. And it's also evident now they'll keep retired fighters on the payroll, i.e. Big Nog.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

John8204 said:


> 1 out of 8 is a much greater result then 4 out of ????


Well it was 4 out of 16 and in that round of releases only 2 were black. Over half were white so clearly the UFC has it in for white guys. That's how statistics work right?



John8204 said:


> So I offended you and want to never see me again.
> 
> But I'm being sensitive.


I wasn't offended, just not overly impressed with your grasp of statistics.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

John8204 said:


> Structures tend to be white and in a metric of race if the power structure and you are the same race then you can not be discriminated against for being white. You can be discriminated against for your class, sexual orientation, religion but if you share the same metric with the power structure you can not be discriminated against for that reason. It's a logical impossibility.
> 
> Now you can be discriminated against as we're all discriminated against in our daily lives. Gender, appearance, age, class, intelligence.. these are all metrics that we are judged by. We may accept them but you can't deny the basic action
> 
> What needed to be addressed in your previous statement?



"structures tend to be white"

huh?

" in a metric of race if the power structure and you are the same race then you can not be discriminated against for being white"

I was never talking about white people being racist against white people.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Just wanted to add to this - In Yale, one of the best Universities in America if not the world, they are determining what micro aggressions are, and debating new ways to handle this 'wave' of racism. 

The question "Where are you from?" is now a micro aggression. 

The world is over as we know it. 

This is according to Thaddeus Russell on the JRE


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> Just wanted to add to this - In Yale, one of the best Universities in America if not the world, they are determining what micro aggressions are, and debating new ways to handle this 'wave' of racism.
> 
> The question "Where are you from?" is now a micro aggression.
> 
> ...


In American Uni's there has been attempts to set up White Unions for students who have been threatened by Black Rights groups such as Black Lives Matter. Of course they have been banned but I've noticed a disturbing trend over the last 10 years.

There is a rise right wing activity, I'm just talking about neo-nazi groups but white people are slowing being pissed off about their suppression of thought and ability to express an opinion that a minority group does not agree with.

The UK has gone PC nuts. Whilst I was working at the bank and whilst at University you have got to be extremely careful about what you say. I've seen people sacked at the bank for making an innocent joke that 99% of gays would have probably laughed at but if the 1% make a complaint then its good-bye career. I've seen a black lad tell a customer to fúck off - which is gross misconduct, but he saved his job by saying he was stressed due to discrimination at work - which was bullshit.

The crazy is thing is that the PC brigade is mostly white jobsworths who are telling people you can't say this because you'll offend gays/blacks/asians/aliens - but most minorities call bullshit on it and feel that these people are painting an unfair picture of them.

When white people have to walk on broken egg shells around minority rights there is going to be resentment. People are voting for parties they would not have voted for 20 years ago, like UKIP, even parties like the BNP are doing ok. In France a few years ago a far right party almost came to power.

It's not the fault of minority groups, they are just exercising their right to free speech. The fault is that of the government who are creating a situation where white people feel discriminated against.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Spite said:


> In American Uni's there has been attempts to set up White Unions for students who have been threatened by Black Rights groups such as Black Lives Matter. Of course they have been banned but I've noticed a disturbing trend over the last 10 years.
> 
> There is a rise right wing activity, I'm just talking about neo-nazi groups but white people are slowing being pissed off about their suppression of thought and ability to express an opinion that a minority group does not agree with.
> 
> ...


Yeah a right wing government was elected in both Holland and Finland. I was listening to a story on that podcast of white people running around the university campus screaming black lives matter, and ostracising anyone who is not doing and acting like they are. Its almost beyond comprehension. 
I think the resentment this kind of shit is creating and going to create is going to take away from real real tangible racism, like the cop shootings etc. People protesting for real issues will get lumped in with these clowns


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Spite said:


> In American Uni's there has been attempts to set up White Unions for students who have been threatened by Black Rights groups such as Black Lives Matter. Of course they have been banned but I've noticed a disturbing trend over the last 10 years.
> 
> There is a rise right wing activity, I'm just talking about neo-nazi groups but white people are slowing being pissed off about their suppression of thought and ability to express an opinion that a minority group does not agree with.
> 
> ...


Exactly, it's divide and rule. 

Another thing I noticed specific to the UK and EU is how the govts. purposely hand out ridiculous dole, housing etc. to minority immigrants, knowing that it will cause resentment when Joe Immigrant from Romania gets a 10 room mansion + dole for having 15 kids and doing absolutely nothing for work. 

These sorts of benefits policies are of course intentional ... they create an anti immigrant sentiment in the local working classes, fuelling cries for govt. action (which is of course what govt. wants) and creating right wing extremists like UKIP, and at the same time scare down the immigrants, most of whom work their asses off as cheap labor for the fat cats to profit from. Divide and rule, oldest trick in the book.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> Exactly, it's divide and rule.
> 
> Another thing I noticed specific to the UK and EU is how the govts. purposely hand out ridiculous dole, housing etc. to minority immigrants, knowing that it will cause resentment when Joe Immigrant from Romania gets a 10 room mansion + dole for having 15 kids and doing absolutely nothing for work.
> 
> These sorts of benefits policies are of course intentional ... they create an anti immigrant sentiment in the local working classes, fuelling cries for govt. action (which is of course what govt. wants) and creating right wing extremists like UKIP, and at the same time scare down the immigrants, most of whom work their asses off as cheap labor for the fat cats to profit from. Divide and rule, oldest trick in the book.


The sad thing is that you are probably right.


----------

