Non-threadworthy MMA Rumors/Quotes/Tweets/Etc., Vol. 4

[REDDzone]

I may have listed one or two CTs that he doesn't believe in, but if so then there are 50 more that he does. I've never heard him dismiss anything except the MSM and government lol.

He, and everyone in this thread, and me, and everyone in the world, should read this book to better their lives and their perspectives:

https://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480999719&sr=8-1&keywords=demon+haunted+world

Seriously, I recommend it to everyone in real life if there is any opportunity at all. Skepticism is good (I think we can all agree on that) you just have to know how to process the information. I think the downfall of guys like Rogan and Bravo - and this is being said at the risk of sounding elitist - is that lack of formal education. Clearly they are smart dudes who are curious about the world, just not sure they always have the best tools to interpret and question what they read/hear.

[NO-KG-AI]

I'm not bombarding anything you say or even saying whatever you may have posted is wrong.

All I'm saying is that Eddie is ignorant to most of the stuff he preaches about, and is way more biased than the people he claims are biased and shills. Not only that, but he's stupidly smug about it, even when he's proven completely wrong.

Also. What CBR said.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[REDDzone]

I like Rogan, but tbh there probably haven't been too many people more responsible for the spread of pseudoscience than him in the last decade, given the reach of his show. Giving guys like Dave Asprey, Wim Hof (some legitimacy, some quackery), Graham Hancock, and Randall Carlson platforms to reach millions of viewers and spread their nonsense time after time.

The fact that he had a show called Joe Rogan Questions Everything is literally one of the most ridiculous and ironic things that I've ever heard of.

[Bernman]

What could possibly disprove anything you said? You (and Eddie) could just use post hoc explanation to push the conspiracy back one degree. A prediction proves untrue? An atrocity committed that contradicts the interests of the elite? "Oh, that was a false flag." Someone is exposed as a fraud? "Oh, they were a patsy used to discredit the movement." Every academic scoffs at your opinions? "Oh, they're propagandists".

That has already begun with the guy who shot up the pizza place. No one is accepting he's a reflection of poorly-educated dudes on the internet, he is instead an agent of the government used to discredit the movement.

One degree back in the conspiracy, you can explain everything that ever would otherwise disconfirm.

And that is what happens. Trump was supposedly a stooge to allow Clinton to win, countless people predicted that (including Bravo). And now? Have they reconsidered their faculties for judgement? Hilluminati Clinton is now embarrassed, exposed, sleeping late, removed from the halls of power.

How is that explained? Don't worry, you'll come up with something.

Well, it certainly could have been a false flag. They had motive to discredit researchers and they are commonplace according to their own documents and even some msm sources, like Operation Northwoods, USS Liberty Bombing, Gulf of Tonkin, TPAjax, Lavon Affair, etc. Why would you scoff at the notion? That just shows you're being stubborn. It's like you're mad they killed their own credibility. I established how the msm did overall too when it came to being a watchdog for the public.

And that shouldn't be overly relevant anyway whether it was a false flag. I don't condone the behavior, but I could see how uncovering all that evidence would lead one to try and take matter into their own hands. What that has to do with the actual validity of the evidence, I don't know. It's still on Wikileaks and linked off Comet PP's website, for examples of a couple obvious places.

Evidence one way or another is how you determine who has the better case. Right now, the evidence is on the side of those who believe there is something there to pizzagate. The other side/MSM basically don't provide evidence. They just say fake story because they say so and show you an example of a fake story. Not sure how that's a case. It's just a red herring. Let one side present the argument openly, then allow the other side to present theirs.

Noam Chomsky was one of the academics I cited a few times. Few are less respected than him in the world. What he describes are many conspiracies, although out of the other side of his mouth he can tend to be a skeptic of the general idea. It's a bit cognitive dissonant. Don't know about academics weighing in about pizzagate yet.

I'm not responsible for what someone else predicted about the election and what could or couldn't have happened. There are always going to be limits to manipulation and a breaking point for some people, and Trump exploited the frustration of some very well. He has still shown to be corrupt, thus probably can be corrupted. I was never one of these people who looked at him as a virtual savior, like say a Ron Paul, who they really railroaded, or Bernie Sanders to a lesser extent. I voted for Jill Stein. No, I'm not a "Trumpist" trying to attack Hillary because I'm a fanatic or conservative. This has happened before with the republican party and Hillary's policies attack her enough. Nobody can reasonably vouch for them, or the establishment when the fact is the U.S. ranks the #1 biggest threat to world peace by far.

[Bernman]

Do you have new information on Tower 7?

What do you mean "new"?

I'm not bombarding anything you say or even saying whatever you may have posted is wrong.

All I'm saying is that Eddie is ignorant to most of the stuff he preaches about, and is way more biased than the people he claims are biased and shills. Not only that, but he's stupidly smug about it, even when he's proven completely wrong.

Also. What CBR said.

Cool, but I don't think CBR made good points, and I admitted that maybe my perspective on what Bravo believes in totality wasn't as good as other's. I think it's good to be willing to learn from others and when you realize you know less for the time being defer to them. Then you can do your own research, hopefully with an open mind, not confirming a bias. I just thought the conclusion was drawn from this previous podcast, and pizzagate was mentioned to discredit him.

[cowboyronnie]

LOL. *whoosh* You did not once address my point. Anyone can put together information that verifies virtually any opinion, especially with post hoc reasoning. What could disconfirm it, that's the question.

You have no idea who Noam Chomsky is, first of all. He appeared as part of your verification scheme. The context of him as an academic is lost. Second of all, you just did exactly what I said you would do! You found a reason to discount information that would otherwise disconfirm your worldview by claiming that HE lives in cognitive dissonance. Post hoc. Someone with credentials believes that government foreign policy involves covert operations, but he doesn't believe the other 90% of what you believe. For THAT 90%, 'oh, he must have bad conscience.'

Verifying information: Assimilated.
Disconfirming information: Discarded

It must be HIM, he must have a psychological weakness. The only explanation. Noam **** Chomsky, who has spent every night for 50 years drinking black coffee and pouring over government documents...relentless, the last bastion of universalism, as much character as anyone alive.

(My girl and I are naming our child - whether it be M or F - after Noam, for the record. Greatest living American.)

[cowboyronnie]

I like Rogan, but tbh there probably haven't been too many people more responsible for the spread of pseudoscience than him in the last decade, given the reach of his show. Giving guys like Dave Asprey, Wim Hof (some legitimacy, some quackery), Graham Hancock, and Randall Carlson platforms to reach millions of viewers and spread their nonsense time after time.

The fact that he had a show called Joe Rogan Questions Everything is literally one of the most ridiculous and ironic things that I've ever heard of.

I actually like Joe a lot. But also agree that his lack of perspective is shocking, as mentioned, with the Graham Hancocks and so on.

"JRQE" is so presumptuous. Jeez. So obnoxious. It actually doesn't even make sense that the dude on the podcast I like so much could come up with a title that douchey.

[Bernman]

LOL. *whoosh*

Repeatedly explaining Noam Chomsky's credentials and then having the gall to claim he lives in cognitive dissonance is a classic. You have no idea who Noam Chomsky is, first of all. Second of all, you just did exactly what I said you would do! You found a reason to discount information that would otherwise disconfirm your worldview by claiming that HE lives in cognitive dissonance. Someone with credentials believes that government foreign policy involves covert operations, but he doesn't believe the other 90% of what you believe. For THAT 90%, 'oh, he must have bad conscience.'

LOL! Noam **** Chomsky, who has spent every night for 50 years drinking black coffee and pouring over government documents...he can't reach the conclusions that a Criminal Justice major can.

(My girl and I are naming our child - whether it be M or F - after Noam, for the record. Greatest living American.)

Your thoughts drive your emotions, instead of the other way around often times. You can tell when your syntax breaks down, and now you're resorting to erroneous personal attacks. In regards to a criminal case, which is what events like Pizzagate, 911, and maybe Franklin Scandal are, I should have more credibility than Chomsky with my background. He's a historian, among other things. He's not more credible than me in every regard. That's just nonsense. Does he know more about MMA than me?

I can have these two thoughts in my mind at the same time, and it doesn't constitute cognitive dissonance: 1. Noam Chomsky is the man, 2. sometimes he can resort to cognitive dissonance and isn't always right. You know Noam Chomsky is not actually God, right? Just because I cite a guy as super credible in one regard or several of them, doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he says. He's prone to mistakes when breaking down a case just like the next guy. His standard for proof might be higher than others. Say he believes in Operation Northwoods, that the dept of defense/joint chief of staff planned to hijack U.S. planes, bomb U.S. military ships, and kill other Americans to blame it on Cuba; because the government told them he did it thus it's history. But he doesn't believe 911 is an inside job because some involved haven't admitted it yet. The mountain of physical and circumstantial evidence collected and tendency from the gov't isn't enough for him to call classify it as history, which is what he's interested in.

For example, in regards to 911 he brings up the nano-thermite evidence, but then takes a run at people for not knowing how to interpret it on the basis they aren't scientists, admitting he can't himself. But others can do their own research on it more thoroughly to learn that it's a gov't grade explosive that super heats with a slow energy release explaining why the fire burned for 3 months with little oxygen. How about the burden of proof being on the gov't to explain how it got there or other questions people may raise? Chomsky says he just doesn't care to look into it, because it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of history. While at other points he says it's a huge deal in history and why isn't anybody doing anything about it if they believe it was an inside job.

Here's a clip including Chomsky doing what I talked about:

Watch on YouTube

;t=473s

[cowboyronnie]

Your thoughts drive your emotions, instead of the other way around often times. You can tell when your syntax breaks down, and now you're resorting to erroneous personal attacks. In regards to a criminal case, which is what events like Pizzagate, 911, and maybe Franklin Scandal are, I should have more credibility than Chomsky with my background. He's a historian, among other things. He's not more credible than me in every regard. That's just nonsense. Does he know more about MMA than me?

Let that one sit.

Revolutionary cognitive scientist, the most prominent Anglo linguist of the past 100 years, philosopher of mind...the man's intellect is astounding. He's gone toe-to-toe with Kissinger and the Dulles brother on prime-time, but he can't compete with a Crim B.A. on Pizzagate. He's met his match on the most dangerous topic of all.

[Bernman]

Your thoughts drive your emotions, instead of the other way around often times. You can tell when your syntax breaks down, and now you're resorting to erroneous personal attacks. In regards to a criminal case, which is what events like Pizzagate, 911, and maybe Franklin Scandal are, I should have more credibility than Chomsky with my background. He's a historian, among other things. He's not more credible than me in every regard. That's just nonsense. Does he know more about MMA than me?

Let that one sit.

Revolutionary cognitive scientist, the most prominent Anglo linguist of the past 100 years, philosopher of mind...can't compete with a Crim B.A. on Pizzagate.

That's some logically fallacious appeal to authority there, I don't see anywhere he has remarked on Pizzagate or the Franklin Scandal, and it's somewhat of a different skill-set/standard.

Anyway, you're creating this false narrative too that many academics have looked thoroughly into these events, especially the child abuse ones, and then dismissed them.

And in this video a lot of them talk about there's a resistance to look into events like 911 seriously and desire to dismiss "conspiracy theorists" on select matters to make themselves feel intellectually superior, kind of like you're doing vicariously. Also a lot of pressure was put on them to be part of the group think otherwise they'd risk losing their jobs at universities.

Watch on YouTube

[Bernman]

If you trust the mainstream media in general, watch these two videos, for examples, by TYT Politics on the ground covering the DAPL struggle and compare it to what little you've heard elsewhere.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

TYT has no corporate sponsors to have a conflict of interest, but multiple journalists used to work for msm and have reported how they were expected to fit corporatist narratives by their producers which disillusioned them with the job. That's not why they got into the business. Jesse Ventura and Ashley Banfield were censored by MSNBC and kept off the air because of their views in opposition to Iraq in the early days when they were proven correct over time, not that it ever shouldn't have been obvious Iraq wasn't a threat to the U.S. and that was just a money grab or other ulterior motives.

Jordan Chariton is an actual real journalist and reporter unlike most of the people in msm willing or compelled to be corporate shills. He's the best in the biz at covering American news right now.

Private health care is absurd on so many levels. About 1.5 times more per capita than any country for 40th rated performance. That's what Americans should expect for ROI and performance as a nation with the resources we have? The first video is just another example of how it failed and she ended up losing her eye because of it. The system benefits about 3% of the country and is a drawback for the other 97%, but much of that group is tricked into thinking it's actually better for them thanks to the media. Not to mention it's just an inherently sociopathic system, which I think people will eventually look back on in shame for persisting.

What went on at DAPL is just a microcosm of the corporate fascism that's ascended in this country over the last hundred years thanks to corrupting politics and the media.

[Jasen777]

Didn't read everything, but it seems to me "corporations in the U.S. have too much power" is quite a bit different argument than "Pizzagate is totally legit and the Illuminati control oil prices".

[Bernman]

Didn't read everything, but it seems to me "corporations in the U.S. have too much power" is quite a bit different argument than "Pizzagate is totally legit and the Illuminati control oil prices".

If you're referring to my last post, it tackles the msm's major slant towards favoring gov't/corps, and the issue of a culture of psychopathy/sociopathy amid corporations, especially financiers, who infiltrate gov't directly or indirectly and run it for their own purposes as so many revered politicians of yesteryear claimed. As the studies show, CEO's are 4 times as likely as the gen pop to be sociopaths/psychopaths, and that chance greatly increases when you're talking about ones who are just in the business of making money and heirs who were never challenged growing up.

Sexual abuse is often a characteristic of male sociopaths/psychopaths naturally on account they can physically control a significant percentage of the population easily, and have a desire a greater desire for gratification, or derive pleasure in harming others in that way. They also tend to be drawn to positions where they have power to avoid detection and access to children or women they can control. They can also be controlled themselves by blackmail and because they aren't empathetic.

As far as Pizzagate goes, I never said it is totally legit in so far as everybody is a pedophile that's been mentioned, and everybody in gov't and surrounding are pedophiles or sadists, or even most of them. Rather there's almost surely something here, and it is a significant component of U.S. gov't. Ol' Billy Boy incidentally took 26 flights on the Lolita Express and a victim on Epstein's sex slave island claimed he was there, Andrew Breitbart coincidentally accused Podesta of this 6 years ago but to my knowledge wasn't sued however he conveniently died a month later, Hastert got caught (and in the Podesta email exchange they considered making him disappear), and then there was the Franklin Scandal in the '80s' with a lot more evidence collected over time which that had the luxury of. So there's been a lot of smoke about this before, and you can't cure pedophilia/psychopathy.

[tracey_nice]

Your thoughts drive your emotions, instead of the other way around often times. You can tell when your syntax breaks down, and now you're resorting to erroneous personal attacks. In regards to a criminal case, which is what events like Pizzagate, 911, and maybe Franklin Scandal are, I should have more credibility than Chomsky with my background. He's a historian, among other things. He's not more credible than me in every regard. That's just nonsense.

that's not what syntax is dummy. personal attacks are absolutely called for in this instance. noam chomsky can synthesize and interpret any kind of information better than you.

[tracey_nice]

also, new nick diaz interview

Watch on YouTube

things i learned:
1) diaz is trying to become a yuppy (he says this semi-ironically)
2) talks about why he doesn't compete in competitive grappling anymore. he says that at some point, around when he became a black belt, guys started being weird about matches. he thinks bjj should be respectful, nice, calm etc. and gets annoyed when guys **** re: grappling or call it a "fight".
3) says jeremy jackson is the only fight he lost, with the caveat "fighting the fight i thought we were fighting (damage)"
4) made lots of money in his time off
5) says he would retire if he knocked up his gf
6) told a story about rampage hitting on his hot girl friend when he was 15


up there with noam, to me, in terms of love/influence.

[Bernman]

that's not what syntax is dummy. personal attacks are absolutely called for in this instance. noam chomsky can synthesize and interpret any kind of information better than you.

In point of fact his arrangement of words and ability to create a well-formed sentence did break down when he got angry/emotional so referencing his syntax was appropriate.

And a personal attack from me to you is merited in this instance because you made no case just resorted to an ad hominem by itself and you've never exactly been a titan of intellect here with your single-minded irrational defenses plus emulation of the Diaz brothers. You're a joke. Sorry I stressed what few functional brain cells you had by trying to make you think too hard. You also have little courage and just went along with the herd. Congrats on your character or lack there of, guy.

[tracey_nice]

In point of fact his arrangement of words and ability to create a well-formed sentence did break down when he got angry/emotional so referencing his syntax was appropriate.

lmbo. where? point me to the syntactic error and explain why it is one.

And a personal attack for you is merited in this instance from me to you because you made no case just resorted to an ad hominem by itself and you've never exactly been a titan of intellect here with your single-minded irrational defenses and emulation of the Diaz brothers.

i think, a lot of times, actually debating the merits of ideas abstracts too far away. essentially, like most dumb CT people, any evidence against your worldview only adds another complicit party or rube into the pyramid. there's nothing productive from a back-and-forth. clowning you IS the appropriate strategy.

You also have little courage and just went along with the herd. Congrats on your character or lack there of, guy.

i came here to post the diaz interview and saw chomsky being slandered. the cowardly thing would have been to NOT defend my father.

[REDDzone]

I'm a fan of Gerald Harris.

Also in other nonthreadworthy news, WME has fired Chuck and Hughes. Sounds like this is their plan to make their investment back - stop the unnecessary expenses like these BS fighter jobs and comping fighters' tickets to events, etc.

Not to quote myself, but I'm wondering if this says something about the power (or lack thereof) that Dana has left with the ufc. Ariel said something on his show about how in the past when budget, etc. has been discussed at zuffa, anytime anyone would point at Chuck Liddell's salary as an expense, Dana would basically shut it down and say you aren't touching that. IDK it was a bit of a weird aside by Ariel but I can't imagine he would have brought it up if it isn't something that he heard has happened in the past. Now Chuck and Hughes get axed.

[Jasen777]

Delusional BJ.

Speaking with the 5ive Rounds podcast recently, Penn discussed why he's returning to MMA as a featherweight despite his disastrous first attempt at the weight class (a drubbing at the hands of Frankie Edgar that pushed him into retirement).

"There's more of an opportunity for me to get three UFC belts at 145 than going to 185. I really feel really confident that nobody's gonna able to get the 155 and 170 pound belts. But my best shot at 38 years old, if you really wanted to ask me - I want to get one more world title and to try to get three titles at three weight classes - and without a doubt 145 is my best option."

[Jasen777]

Congressman: UFC threatened to not participate in House committee hearing if Randy Couture spoke

U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma) confirmed with MMA Fighting on Tuesday morning that the UFC threatened to pull its participation in the hearing in front of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce committee if Randy Couture was the witness representing fighters. Bloody Elbow's Amy Dardashtian was the first to report the news Monday night.

Mullin, a former MMA fighter himself, serves on the committee and is the congressman who sponsored the bill proposing an extension of boxing's Ali Act to MMA earlier this year. Mullin said he was initially going to have former UFC fighters Nate Quarry and Cung Le, both members of the MMA Fighters Association (MMAFA), speak at the hearing, but the UFC balked because both Quarry and Le are involved in an antitrust lawsuit against the promotion.

The UFC then said it would not participate if Couture was a witness, Mullin said, but eventually backed off that threat. Couture is a UFC Hall of Famer and one of the most well-known names in the history of the sport. He's also had a combative relationship over the years with UFC brass, particularly president Dana White. Mullin said the UFC only wanted current contracted fighters to speak at the hearing.

"Randy is not part of that lawsuit, so I couldn't really understand what their argument was on that one," Mullin told MMA Fighting. "And they wanted us to use their fighters. I get it. The UFC is used to controlling the publicity and the marketing that comes out of their organization. The problem is is this isn't the UFC, this is the hearing. You have to understand everybody's perspective. I felt as though it would be a very biased point of view if we only used fighters under current contracts."

The UFC did not reply to a request for comment Tuesday. A UFC source told Bloody Elbow that Mullin's interpretation of the situation was not true.

The witness list for the hearing was released Tuesday and includes UFC vice president of health and performance Jeff Novitzky; Boston University professor of neurology and pathology Dr. Anne McKee; Association of Boxing Commissions and Combative Sports (ABC) treasurer Lydia Robertson; and Couture.