The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Sticks and Stones Break Bones
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

One issue with Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature is the book’s presumption that popular entertainment may reliably be used as a proxy for cultural sensibilities on the ground. Medieval Europeans did bear baiting and burned cats alive for entertainment. Hardly surprising since their societies were more violent than the most blighted urban areas of modern America. We’re a lot less violent now. We’d never put up with that today.

Okay, but a generation ago baseball was America’s pass time and boxing matches were the events of the year. Today, football dwarfs baseball and the UFC towers over boxing. Our entertainment got more violent while our society became less so.

Or so I thought. It might be time to rethink that critical assessment. Maybe our popular entertainment is a leading indicator and our better angels are in retreat. Violence is ticking up and so is the popular embrace it is receiving by the country’s future. Race is a part of that, but it’s not the whole story. The differences are significantly generational as well:

While stock in the idea of violence is up, there’s not much evidence that an intimate and cultivated relationship with violence has correspondingly increased. The people engaged in and cheering on the violence have little understanding of how to manage it. This is unlikely to end well.

 
Hide 66 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The true societal danger happens not when sports become more like war. It happens when war becomes more like sport.

    • Replies: @Not My Economy
    @Intelligent Dasein

    This is a cool phrase but what does it mean? I think our society could be in better shape if our wars were treated more like sport than like a Human Resources Department project.

    , @bjondo
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Israelis Seen Clapping and Eating Popcorn While Watching Bombs Drop On Gaza

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rossalynwarren/israelis-seen-clapping-and-eating-popcorn-while-watching-bom

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing

    A lot could be said but better to let Yid ....

    , @Truth
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Another good one, Telly-Des.

    (I am assuming you actually came up with it).

  2. Interesting to see the “natural conservative” Hispanics are on board with the mayhem–even more so than blacks. I seem to recall Mexicans didn’t like it so much when that conquistador statue in New Mexico was targeted by Antifa. But that was their guy, so….

    I suppose it’s the idea of white businesses going up in flames that appeals to them. And of course Hispanics in this case would not include Cubans.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @Bragadocious

    This is actually the first survey I saw where Hispanics more pro-riot than blacks. I wonder if this could partly be explained by age? Hispanics are the youngest ethnic group and as we can see there is a strong correlation between youth and not favoring prosecution.

    Replies: @Wyatt

  3. Well, maybe the joggers & messcins do – participating, not managing – but none of the other dweebs do, either of them.

  4. Baseball is sooooooo…. Sloooow…. Zzzzzzzzz….

    There is a reason football won.

    PEACE 😇

    • Thanks: L. Guapo
  5. I don’t think popular sport has gotten more violent. The NFL has done what it can to limit injury to players and I don’t know that UFC is more brutal than boxing. Motor racing used to have drivers killed on a regular basis, now its a rarity. Could Evil Knieval even make a living today? ABC made Nick Wallenda wear a tether for his walk across Niagra Falls though he has made other tightrope walks that were televised without a tether. That bothered me as I have no desire to see a man fall to his death.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  6. Wake me when we get to… Rollerball!

    IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE,
    WAR WILL NO LONGER EXIST.
    BUT THERE WILL BE…….
    ROLLERBALL!

    (How they managed to screw up the re-make of such an obvious goldmine is totally beyond me.)

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Rollerball (1975) ORIGINAL TRAILER
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFSCzTCNW1M

    Rollerball (1975) - Intro (Bach - Toccata)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wFTkYm0i6g

    Rollerball Ending
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB1LuCUovW4

    Rollerball - Original Motion Picture Soundtrack - 1975 - playlist:
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLiwe0ANR8tDKmvgBF4kkJUA2LC5D1yfF7

  7. Boxing is more lethal than MMA, and it was the second most popular sport after baseball (maybe with the exception of horse racing) for the first half of the 20th Century. Remember that boxers fought far more often in the days before the era of TV and gloved boxing is particularly dangerous because it emphasizes blows to the head with the padded hand.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @fnn


    gloved boxing is particularly dangerous because it emphasizes blows to the head with the padded hand.
     
    Bare knuckle fighting has made a small comeback recently and people are re-learning why boxing used to be the way it was before gloves became mandatory. Power punches to the head were far rarer - hands being brittle, they tend to break easily upon being slammed into one of the hardest parts of the human body, the cranium. Parrying and defensive footwork were much more important, because it was difficult to "cover up" adequately without the larger, padded gloves.

    Boxing matches in the old days of bare knuckles often ended because participants became too bloodied up from lacerations - perhaps not a pretty sight, but far less damaging to the health of the boxers than receiving heavy, thudding, concussive blows to the head from tightly wrapped and gloved fists thrown with a great deal of power.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  8. Isn’t this just like the old saw about the stock market, that the crash comes when too few people remember the last one?

    How many of these younguns were in a fight when they were kids? When they were adults? Ever got robbed, etc?

    Possible proxies: does the survey break down by income, social class, university education, location? I note high support among “liberals”.

    Arguing against this is high support among Hispanics and blacks, who are poorer and more exposed to crime.

  9. Dogfighting was a common pastime in the 1800s USA.

    According to a study by the Michigan State University College of Law published in 2005, in the United States, dog fighting was once completely legal and was sanctioned and promoted during the colonial period (17th century through 1776) and continuing through the Victorian era in the late 19th century. The early 19th century saw the development in England of the Bull-and-Terrier[6], first imported into the United States ca. 1817, becoming the foundation stock of the later American Pit Bull Terrier.[6] Organized dog fighting became a part of American culture, and was promoted by the United Kennel Club.[7] As the activity grew in popularity, so too did opposition to it. By the early 20th century the United Kennel Club dropped its support and by the 1960s most states had made it illegal. It was not until 1976 that it was outlawed in all states and even then, enforcement was generally lax.[8]

    Low crime rates in the early-mid 20th century are partly due to young male casualties in war and pandemics. Few people believe those times were less inherently violent. The violent crime rate just keeps dropping year after year, natcucks.

  10. Hardly surprising since [Medieval] societies were more violent than the most blighted urban areas of modern America.

    This is not true. Medieval urban murder rates were comparable to murder rates in modern cities.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/us/historical-study-of-homicide-and-cities-surprises-the-experts.html
    From the article:
    “Studies of London in the first half of the 14th century determined a homicide rate of 36 to 52 per 100,000 people per year.
    By contrast, the 1993 homicide rate in New York City was 25.9 per 100,000.”

    NY has since famously improved, but, e.g., Baltimore’s rate was 56 per 100,00 as of 2018.

    However, even this is misleading because of the vastly improved medical technology we now have at our disposal. As the article notes, even a minor knife wound was often fatal in the middle ages. Today you can be shot or stabbed right through the torso and the odds are still good you’ll survive and thus not be counted as a “murder.” So taking that into account, it as actually reasonable to conclude that medieval cities were far *less* violent than our own, although both were/are much more violent than 19th century cities with their incredibly harsh judicial system.

    Intellectuals like Pinker have been falsely propagandizing about how ‘bad’ the middle ages were for centuries, so it’s always good to take them with a grain of salt and read primary sources when possible.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue


    Intellectuals like Pinker have been falsely propagandizing about how ‘bad’ the middle ages were for centuries
     
    That's true.

    And the average person's understanding of the Middle Ages is based on movies. Just as the average person's understanding of the Victorian era is based on movies and TV shows.

    In fact the average person's understanding of the 1930s, or even the 1950s, is based on movies and TV shows.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    What would the murder rate have been in London if handguns were widely available?

  11. The question asked is interesting; it specifies what the protests are about. Does the number (and sample size, since this isn’t that large) change when you expand it to protests in general rather than racial justice protests?

    Peace.

  12. Today, football dwarfs baseball and the UFC towers over boxing. Our entertainment got more violent while our society became less so.

    Although football is more popular than baseball as a spectator sport, the former has all but collapsed as a participation sport among middle class (and up) families as the danger of brain trauma has become widely known. I suspect football’s popularity will decline considerably in the future as fewer youngsters play it growing up (in contrast, soccer is likely to become even more popular as a spectator sport in the U.S. as the pool of young participants grows ever more).

    Also, while the UFC/mixed martial art is considered to be “bloodier” than boxing by casual fans, it is, in fact, much less dangerous to the combatants than boxing. Historically, boxing has had many more deaths (there has been only a handful of deaths in MMA, mostly in unsanctioned or poorly regulated events). In general, boxers receive many more, repeated and highly concussive blows to the head (made possible by heavily taped hands and padded gloves), which more often leads to deaths and crippling injuries. Moreover, the rules of boxing – of allowing knocked down opponents to be given a respite of a standing 8-count – makes possible for all-but-defeated foes to regain some semblance of sense, fight on, and go on receive even more punishing blows after already being badly hurt (in the head). Boxing rounds are also shorter while the overall duration of matches much longer, which lead to, again, boxers receiving many more concussive blows to the head. All of these factors make boxing far more lethal and dangerous to the participants.

    Meanwhile, MMA is far more multi-faceted (striking with hands/forearms, elbows, knees, and shins/feet, standing grappling, ground grappling, submissions/strangles/joint-locks), and there are many ways to win while minimally damaging one’s opponents with submissions. For that matter, in MMA it is considered perfectly honorable to concede defeat when caught in a submission (while suffering little to no injury). Meanwhile “quitting” is looked upon distastefully in boxing, in which boxers are reluctant to concede defeat mid-match and corners tend not to throw in the towel.

    That said, you are absolute right that popular entertainment is far more violent today than in yesteryears (just not in the example you cited above). When I was growing up 50 years ago, TV/film violence was very “cartoonish” – characters who were “shot” simply fell down dramatically and “died.” Starting with the 80’s, the violence level in films started to rise dramatically and today’s cinematic depictions of violence are far bloodier and more graphic. Such portrayals were nonexistent on TV when I was growing up, but are commonplace today on TV, not just on film.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Twinkie

    Twinkie, I think you do jujutsu, so I think you'll agree with me that the old trope that martial arts leads to peace has some truth in it. So, I don't think the MMA culture is leading to a more violent society. One example is to listen to the way people talk about UFC fights--it's very dispassionate and analytical. Contrast that with whoops of glee or groans of empathy that no doubt accompanied cat burning. Plus, there is a big difference between seeing two people voluntarily fight and watching a defenseless animal be tortured. I don't think these can be put in the same category at all. People who do are not thinking about violence are a reality in society but violence and non-violence as aesthetic choices. This mars Pinker's book because it is ultimately about his own preference for abstraction and thought over bodily experience. Pinker likes the absence of war, but he also likes the absence of physical striving like fighting or hunting that mark us as men rather than meat-calculators.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Truth
    @Twinkie


    When I was growing up 50 years ago, TV/film violence was very “cartoonish” – characters who were “shot” simply fell down dramatically and “died.
     
    Never underestimate the abilities of Satan.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZtKPzlvJjQ
    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Twinkie

    Also, while the UFC/mixed martial art is considered to be “bloodier” than boxing by casual fans, it is, in fact, much less dangerous to the combatants than boxing.

    Points well taken.

    The perception of MMA being more violent than boxing is enough for it to work for the purposes of this post, I think.

  13. @fnn
    Boxing is more lethal than MMA, and it was the second most popular sport after baseball (maybe with the exception of horse racing) for the first half of the 20th Century. Remember that boxers fought far more often in the days before the era of TV and gloved boxing is particularly dangerous because it emphasizes blows to the head with the padded hand.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    gloved boxing is particularly dangerous because it emphasizes blows to the head with the padded hand.

    Bare knuckle fighting has made a small comeback recently and people are re-learning why boxing used to be the way it was before gloves became mandatory. Power punches to the head were far rarer – hands being brittle, they tend to break easily upon being slammed into one of the hardest parts of the human body, the cranium. Parrying and defensive footwork were much more important, because it was difficult to “cover up” adequately without the larger, padded gloves.

    Boxing matches in the old days of bare knuckles often ended because participants became too bloodied up from lacerations – perhaps not a pretty sight, but far less damaging to the health of the boxers than receiving heavy, thudding, concussive blows to the head from tightly wrapped and gloved fists thrown with a great deal of power.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke, Bill
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Twinkie

    Is football going to lose helmets on the same line of thinking?

    Replies: @Twinkie

  14. This reminded me of an old arcade game whose title my kids and I make fun of:
    Not “Violent Fight” mind you…and also as opposed to the failed game, “Ultra-Pacificism Brawl”.

    Peace.

  15. Anon[240] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s not just “sticks and stones” — it’s also words. My perception is that verbal aggression in sitcoms has increased over my many years; cloaked in humor, yes, but that just makes it more permissible. And of course there’s the new violence of music lyrics. People learn rudeness from these, I think, and thus everyday exchanges are more rude than they used to be. I can’t prove it, but I think that the Red-Blue map of counties won by Hillary vs. Trump = a map of verbal rudeness vs. politeness.

    • Replies: @Charlotte
    @Anon

    The amount and permissibility of swearing has also dramatically increased since the eighties. I think kids’ exposure to cable TV shows and rap music had a profound effect on the way they talked. Videocassettes were a big deal, too.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  16. @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    Hardly surprising since [Medieval] societies were more violent than the most blighted urban areas of modern America.
     
    This is not true. Medieval urban murder rates were comparable to murder rates in modern cities.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/us/historical-study-of-homicide-and-cities-surprises-the-experts.html
    From the article:
    "Studies of London in the first half of the 14th century determined a homicide rate of 36 to 52 per 100,000 people per year.
    By contrast, the 1993 homicide rate in New York City was 25.9 per 100,000."

    NY has since famously improved, but, e.g., Baltimore's rate was 56 per 100,00 as of 2018.

    However, even this is misleading because of the vastly improved medical technology we now have at our disposal. As the article notes, even a minor knife wound was often fatal in the middle ages. Today you can be shot or stabbed right through the torso and the odds are still good you'll survive and thus not be counted as a "murder." So taking that into account, it as actually reasonable to conclude that medieval cities were far *less* violent than our own, although both were/are much more violent than 19th century cities with their incredibly harsh judicial system.

    Intellectuals like Pinker have been falsely propagandizing about how 'bad' the middle ages were for centuries, so it's always good to take them with a grain of salt and read primary sources when possible.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    Intellectuals like Pinker have been falsely propagandizing about how ‘bad’ the middle ages were for centuries

    That’s true.

    And the average person’s understanding of the Middle Ages is based on movies. Just as the average person’s understanding of the Victorian era is based on movies and TV shows.

    In fact the average person’s understanding of the 1930s, or even the 1950s, is based on movies and TV shows.

    • Agree: Talha
  17. Did the survey distinguish between physical and verbal violence?

  18. I remember my step-grandfather, who lived his last few decades as a quiet, even meek Lutheran minister, telling us how one night in WW2 a particularly annoying first lieutenant went missing, presumed overboard from his troop ship in the South Pacific.

    The violence never really went away; there was a period where people spent a lot of time looking the other way, most specifically when the “system” delivered on its commitments to deal with the problem-children, e.g. murderers were executed rather than returned to the streets and punishment was actually meted out for crimes. As we get further away from protecting the citizenry, the citizens have little choice but to take matters into their own hands, some of it being just and some of it being just more crime. Tell me: What is the difference between a US City Council and a Somali Warlord?

  19. @Bragadocious
    Interesting to see the "natural conservative" Hispanics are on board with the mayhem--even more so than blacks. I seem to recall Mexicans didn't like it so much when that conquistador statue in New Mexico was targeted by Antifa. But that was their guy, so....

    I suppose it's the idea of white businesses going up in flames that appeals to them. And of course Hispanics in this case would not include Cubans.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    This is actually the first survey I saw where Hispanics more pro-riot than blacks. I wonder if this could partly be explained by age? Hispanics are the youngest ethnic group and as we can see there is a strong correlation between youth and not favoring prosecution.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Wyatt
    @Jay Fink

    It might depend on the type of hispanic. Puerto Ricans and Central Americans? Definitely. Mexicans and Cubans? More factors are at play like age and "education."

    Also, I wonder if the blacks surveyed are getting their shit pushed in by the riots and they're getting sick of it.

    Still, this doesn't bode well. Various articles here have taught me that the beans will jump in the direction they're goaded. Push them too far left and you get a retard round-up.

  20. anon[237] • Disclaimer says:

    The HRC’s assessment of evidence from the USG, civil society organizations, and UN special procedures probably trumps the public’s parochial law’norder notions. And from the synoptic and objective viewpoint of the HRC, violence is among the most urgent US derelictions, meriting intensive review. For one thing, the HRC pays attention to state violence, which has steadily escalated in terms of both capacity and practice. Furthermore, the HRC notices regression to premodern notions like torture and stand your ground.

    It’s odd, and stereotypically American/right, that you’re talking about violence but the evidence you turn to pertains to property crime. Lucky for you – you don’t know what violence is.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @anon

    Property damage is aggression. It retroactively steals time away from the creators of the property, turning them into unwilling slaves constructing a thing for the enjoyment or catharsis of the thing's destroyer.

  21. What Pinker refuses to acknowledge is that a lot of violence is subordinated to the state. The state does the robbing. It even gives the insults. Naturally, since we are in a feminist paradigm, street brawls are discouraged.

    The UK just issued a coin that is imprinted with “Diversity Built Britain.” So far as I know, most of the major nonwhite politicians have endorsed it, and none have spoken out against it. What would it be equivalent to, in terms of street violence? I’d say being spat on everyday, and being told you have no future and soon even your history will be erased.

    I didn’t think it was possible, but I’ve moved even further to the right. I don’t see how people who endorsed something like that can be permitted to stay in Europe. They need to be expelled. All of them. Seems clear, it will be us or them, and we have nowhere else to go – so there’s that.

  22. The options are

    “Prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law”
    “Issued a citation”
    “Let go”
    “Not sure”

    Prosecuted plus citation totals >80% for all the race groups. Saying that they should be let off with nothing is a very small minority.

    But on the other hand, Pinker is completely full of shit about everything, and he partied on Epstein’s island… soooooo

  23. @Intelligent Dasein
    The true societal danger happens not when sports become more like war. It happens when war becomes more like sport.

    Replies: @Not My Economy, @bjondo, @Truth

    This is a cool phrase but what does it mean? I think our society could be in better shape if our wars were treated more like sport than like a Human Resources Department project.

  24. @Jay Fink
    @Bragadocious

    This is actually the first survey I saw where Hispanics more pro-riot than blacks. I wonder if this could partly be explained by age? Hispanics are the youngest ethnic group and as we can see there is a strong correlation between youth and not favoring prosecution.

    Replies: @Wyatt

    It might depend on the type of hispanic. Puerto Ricans and Central Americans? Definitely. Mexicans and Cubans? More factors are at play like age and “education.”

    Also, I wonder if the blacks surveyed are getting their shit pushed in by the riots and they’re getting sick of it.

    Still, this doesn’t bode well. Various articles here have taught me that the beans will jump in the direction they’re goaded. Push them too far left and you get a retard round-up.

  25. Mostly OT

    It’s about 2 weeks to the election. Soon the polls will start to “tighten”. That way their previous outright gaslighting should be less obvious, to normal people anyway.

    Scan MSM articles and vids for the word “tighten”, it should be showing up by the end of this week.

  26. I agree with this.

    One interesting aspect is that social media magnifies the violence, making it seems worse than it is. The left couldn’t get very far with their destruction before they started looking really bad.

    When MLK was assassinated 50 years ago, the centers (many blocks) of maybe 100 cities were burned.

    So the destruction then was orders of magnitude larger what it was during the summer of 2020. Unless you are a fan of Confederate and Christopher Columbus statues. Among Confederate and Christopher Columbus statues the losses were staggering nationwide.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Dan


    Unless you are a fan of Confederate and Christopher Columbus statues. Among Confederate and Christopher Columbus statues the losses were staggering nationwide.
     
    What was really on displayed is Islamic BLM's hatred of all statues. The events followed the Taliban precedent of the Bamiyan Buddhas destruction.

    Other icons that were destroyed includes statues of:

    -1- Black Abolitionist Frederick Douglass
    -2- Abolitionist Hans Christian Heg
    -3- The Portland Elk

    Was the Portland Elk a notorious Oregonian slave owner?

    Enquiring minds want to know.
     
    https://oregoncatalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/elk-statue.jpg
     
    Open [MORE] for #1 & #2

    https://teamtrumpusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/DA2D92A5-87C4-4692-8282-E2B54DB34DFD-1024x439.jpeg
     
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-crJ--tmdLoI/XvRGE1kgiUI/AAAAAAAAKOE/ru7HBt4J4IUkcc1ID__E--I92_D6uWTMwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/IMG_9741.JPG
     
    PEACE 😇
    ______

    (1) https://www.dailywire.com/news/statue-destroyed-of-famed-black-abolitionist-frederick-douglass-on-anniversary-of-famous-speech

    (2) https://wwwp-lives.blogspot.com/2020/06/rioters-in-madison-assault-state.html

    (3) https://oregoncatalyst.com/48439-portland-elk-scores-damaged-statues.html

  27. @Dan
    I agree with this.

    One interesting aspect is that social media magnifies the violence, making it seems worse than it is. The left couldn't get very far with their destruction before they started looking really bad.

    When MLK was assassinated 50 years ago, the centers (many blocks) of maybe 100 cities were burned.

    So the destruction then was orders of magnitude larger what it was during the summer of 2020. Unless you are a fan of Confederate and Christopher Columbus statues. Among Confederate and Christopher Columbus statues the losses were staggering nationwide.

    Replies: @A123

    Unless you are a fan of Confederate and Christopher Columbus statues. Among Confederate and Christopher Columbus statues the losses were staggering nationwide.

    What was really on displayed is Islamic BLM’s hatred of all statues. The events followed the Taliban precedent of the Bamiyan Buddhas destruction.

    Other icons that were destroyed includes statues of:

    -1- Black Abolitionist Frederick Douglass
    -2- Abolitionist Hans Christian Heg
    -3- The Portland Elk

    Was the Portland Elk a notorious Oregonian slave owner?

    Enquiring minds want to know.
      
    Open [MORE] for #1 & #2

  28. @Twinkie

    Today, football dwarfs baseball and the UFC towers over boxing. Our entertainment got more violent while our society became less so.
     
    Although football is more popular than baseball as a spectator sport, the former has all but collapsed as a participation sport among middle class (and up) families as the danger of brain trauma has become widely known. I suspect football's popularity will decline considerably in the future as fewer youngsters play it growing up (in contrast, soccer is likely to become even more popular as a spectator sport in the U.S. as the pool of young participants grows ever more).

    Also, while the UFC/mixed martial art is considered to be "bloodier" than boxing by casual fans, it is, in fact, much less dangerous to the combatants than boxing. Historically, boxing has had many more deaths (there has been only a handful of deaths in MMA, mostly in unsanctioned or poorly regulated events). In general, boxers receive many more, repeated and highly concussive blows to the head (made possible by heavily taped hands and padded gloves), which more often leads to deaths and crippling injuries. Moreover, the rules of boxing - of allowing knocked down opponents to be given a respite of a standing 8-count - makes possible for all-but-defeated foes to regain some semblance of sense, fight on, and go on receive even more punishing blows after already being badly hurt (in the head). Boxing rounds are also shorter while the overall duration of matches much longer, which lead to, again, boxers receiving many more concussive blows to the head. All of these factors make boxing far more lethal and dangerous to the participants.

    Meanwhile, MMA is far more multi-faceted (striking with hands/forearms, elbows, knees, and shins/feet, standing grappling, ground grappling, submissions/strangles/joint-locks), and there are many ways to win while minimally damaging one's opponents with submissions. For that matter, in MMA it is considered perfectly honorable to concede defeat when caught in a submission (while suffering little to no injury). Meanwhile "quitting" is looked upon distastefully in boxing, in which boxers are reluctant to concede defeat mid-match and corners tend not to throw in the towel.

    That said, you are absolute right that popular entertainment is far more violent today than in yesteryears (just not in the example you cited above). When I was growing up 50 years ago, TV/film violence was very "cartoonish" - characters who were "shot" simply fell down dramatically and "died." Starting with the 80's, the violence level in films started to rise dramatically and today's cinematic depictions of violence are far bloodier and more graphic. Such portrayals were nonexistent on TV when I was growing up, but are commonplace today on TV, not just on film.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Truth, @Audacious Epigone

    Twinkie, I think you do jujutsu, so I think you’ll agree with me that the old trope that martial arts leads to peace has some truth in it. So, I don’t think the MMA culture is leading to a more violent society. One example is to listen to the way people talk about UFC fights–it’s very dispassionate and analytical. Contrast that with whoops of glee or groans of empathy that no doubt accompanied cat burning. Plus, there is a big difference between seeing two people voluntarily fight and watching a defenseless animal be tortured. I don’t think these can be put in the same category at all. People who do are not thinking about violence are a reality in society but violence and non-violence as aesthetic choices. This mars Pinker’s book because it is ultimately about his own preference for abstraction and thought over bodily experience. Pinker likes the absence of war, but he also likes the absence of physical striving like fighting or hunting that mark us as men rather than meat-calculators.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Chrisnonymous


    I think you do jujutsu
     
    Been practicing Judo since I was in grade school and started Brazilian Jiujitsu in my twenties. I also did folk wrestling and Kali, boxed, and trained in Tae Kwon Do and Shotokan Karate. I even tried Kendo at one point.

    Basically, I've been a practitioner and a fan of combat sports since I was a toddler. ;)


    One example is to listen to the way people talk about UFC fights–it’s very dispassionate and analytical.
     
    Mixed martial art was heavily influenced by grappling sports (BJJ, Judo, wrestling, Sambo, etc.) and these tend to be more upscale than, say, boxing. So unlike boxers, many, perhaps most, MMA fighters are college-educated (some even have advanced degrees!). Furthermore, MMA is much more multi-faceted and complex than boxing and is undoubtedly a higher IQ sport (though it will shave off that IQ sooner or later due to head trauma). So the fight analyses you hear on TV reflect these traits.

    Plus, there is a big difference between seeing two people voluntarily fight and watching a defenseless animal be tortured.
     
    Of course.

    But it's also more than just seeing two people fight voluntarily. MMA is the most realistic fight sport there is (though in striking it's nowhere as brutal as something like Lethwei), but it's not actual fighting (for life). It's a ritualized person-to-person combat, so there are rules and traditions. As much as there is trash talk among fighters these days, you also see a genuine sense of camaraderie and mutual-respect between two fighter after a tough, grueling fight. You can see a certain kind of a bond develop between the combatants.

    This is NOT the same thing as two people trying to kill each other in real life, voluntarily or not.


    This mars Pinker’s book because it is ultimately about his own preference for abstraction and thought over bodily experience. Pinker likes the absence of war, but he also likes the absence of physical striving like fighting or hunting that mark us as men rather than meat-calculators.
     
    I agree - Pinker's own preferences are rather transparent. Nonetheless, he is, broadly-speaking, right about the decline in violence among humans over the long horizon.

    In ancient and medieval siege warfare, a city or a fortress that resisted the attacker could expect no quarter once the latter breached the walls. Not only was there looting, mass slaughter (including that of children and even babies) was common and women were as a routine raped and tortured, often in front of their husbands, children, fathers, and brothers (after which the forced spectators would be killed).

    Can you imagine that in modern warfare? The outrage would be immense. People are still (rightly) going on about the mass rapes and ethnic-cleansing of the Yugoslav civil war, which was small potatoes compared to what went on in pre-modern warfare.

    It's true that the violent tendencies of men have not been bred out completely, but they certainly have been moderated and channeled into less bloody pursuits by modern civilization.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

  29. @Intelligent Dasein
    The true societal danger happens not when sports become more like war. It happens when war becomes more like sport.

    Replies: @Not My Economy, @bjondo, @Truth

    Israelis Seen Clapping and Eating Popcorn While Watching Bombs Drop On Gaza

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rossalynwarren/israelis-seen-clapping-and-eating-popcorn-while-watching-bom

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing

    A lot could be said but better to let Yid ….

  30. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Wake me when we get to... Rollerball!

    IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE,
    WAR WILL NO LONGER EXIST.
    BUT THERE WILL BE.......
    ROLLERBALL!

    (How they managed to screw up the re-make of such an obvious goldmine is totally beyond me.)

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    Rollerball (1975) ORIGINAL TRAILER

    [MORE]

    Rollerball (1975) – Intro (Bach – Toccata)

    Rollerball Ending

    Rollerball – Original Motion Picture Soundtrack – 1975 – playlist:
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLiwe0ANR8tDKmvgBF4kkJUA2LC5D1yfF7

  31. @Intelligent Dasein
    The true societal danger happens not when sports become more like war. It happens when war becomes more like sport.

    Replies: @Not My Economy, @bjondo, @Truth

    Another good one, Telly-Des.

    (I am assuming you actually came up with it).

  32. @Twinkie

    Today, football dwarfs baseball and the UFC towers over boxing. Our entertainment got more violent while our society became less so.
     
    Although football is more popular than baseball as a spectator sport, the former has all but collapsed as a participation sport among middle class (and up) families as the danger of brain trauma has become widely known. I suspect football's popularity will decline considerably in the future as fewer youngsters play it growing up (in contrast, soccer is likely to become even more popular as a spectator sport in the U.S. as the pool of young participants grows ever more).

    Also, while the UFC/mixed martial art is considered to be "bloodier" than boxing by casual fans, it is, in fact, much less dangerous to the combatants than boxing. Historically, boxing has had many more deaths (there has been only a handful of deaths in MMA, mostly in unsanctioned or poorly regulated events). In general, boxers receive many more, repeated and highly concussive blows to the head (made possible by heavily taped hands and padded gloves), which more often leads to deaths and crippling injuries. Moreover, the rules of boxing - of allowing knocked down opponents to be given a respite of a standing 8-count - makes possible for all-but-defeated foes to regain some semblance of sense, fight on, and go on receive even more punishing blows after already being badly hurt (in the head). Boxing rounds are also shorter while the overall duration of matches much longer, which lead to, again, boxers receiving many more concussive blows to the head. All of these factors make boxing far more lethal and dangerous to the participants.

    Meanwhile, MMA is far more multi-faceted (striking with hands/forearms, elbows, knees, and shins/feet, standing grappling, ground grappling, submissions/strangles/joint-locks), and there are many ways to win while minimally damaging one's opponents with submissions. For that matter, in MMA it is considered perfectly honorable to concede defeat when caught in a submission (while suffering little to no injury). Meanwhile "quitting" is looked upon distastefully in boxing, in which boxers are reluctant to concede defeat mid-match and corners tend not to throw in the towel.

    That said, you are absolute right that popular entertainment is far more violent today than in yesteryears (just not in the example you cited above). When I was growing up 50 years ago, TV/film violence was very "cartoonish" - characters who were "shot" simply fell down dramatically and "died." Starting with the 80's, the violence level in films started to rise dramatically and today's cinematic depictions of violence are far bloodier and more graphic. Such portrayals were nonexistent on TV when I was growing up, but are commonplace today on TV, not just on film.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Truth, @Audacious Epigone

    When I was growing up 50 years ago, TV/film violence was very “cartoonish” – characters who were “shot” simply fell down dramatically and “died.

    Never underestimate the abilities of Satan.

  33. @Chrisnonymous
    @Twinkie

    Twinkie, I think you do jujutsu, so I think you'll agree with me that the old trope that martial arts leads to peace has some truth in it. So, I don't think the MMA culture is leading to a more violent society. One example is to listen to the way people talk about UFC fights--it's very dispassionate and analytical. Contrast that with whoops of glee or groans of empathy that no doubt accompanied cat burning. Plus, there is a big difference between seeing two people voluntarily fight and watching a defenseless animal be tortured. I don't think these can be put in the same category at all. People who do are not thinking about violence are a reality in society but violence and non-violence as aesthetic choices. This mars Pinker's book because it is ultimately about his own preference for abstraction and thought over bodily experience. Pinker likes the absence of war, but he also likes the absence of physical striving like fighting or hunting that mark us as men rather than meat-calculators.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    I think you do jujutsu

    Been practicing Judo since I was in grade school and started Brazilian Jiujitsu in my twenties. I also did folk wrestling and Kali, boxed, and trained in Tae Kwon Do and Shotokan Karate. I even tried Kendo at one point.

    Basically, I’ve been a practitioner and a fan of combat sports since I was a toddler. 😉

    One example is to listen to the way people talk about UFC fights–it’s very dispassionate and analytical.

    Mixed martial art was heavily influenced by grappling sports (BJJ, Judo, wrestling, Sambo, etc.) and these tend to be more upscale than, say, boxing. So unlike boxers, many, perhaps most, MMA fighters are college-educated (some even have advanced degrees!). Furthermore, MMA is much more multi-faceted and complex than boxing and is undoubtedly a higher IQ sport (though it will shave off that IQ sooner or later due to head trauma). So the fight analyses you hear on TV reflect these traits.

    Plus, there is a big difference between seeing two people voluntarily fight and watching a defenseless animal be tortured.

    Of course.

    But it’s also more than just seeing two people fight voluntarily. MMA is the most realistic fight sport there is (though in striking it’s nowhere as brutal as something like Lethwei), but it’s not actual fighting (for life). It’s a ritualized person-to-person combat, so there are rules and traditions. As much as there is trash talk among fighters these days, you also see a genuine sense of camaraderie and mutual-respect between two fighter after a tough, grueling fight. You can see a certain kind of a bond develop between the combatants.

    This is NOT the same thing as two people trying to kill each other in real life, voluntarily or not.

    This mars Pinker’s book because it is ultimately about his own preference for abstraction and thought over bodily experience. Pinker likes the absence of war, but he also likes the absence of physical striving like fighting or hunting that mark us as men rather than meat-calculators.

    I agree – Pinker’s own preferences are rather transparent. Nonetheless, he is, broadly-speaking, right about the decline in violence among humans over the long horizon.

    In ancient and medieval siege warfare, a city or a fortress that resisted the attacker could expect no quarter once the latter breached the walls. Not only was there looting, mass slaughter (including that of children and even babies) was common and women were as a routine raped and tortured, often in front of their husbands, children, fathers, and brothers (after which the forced spectators would be killed).

    Can you imagine that in modern warfare? The outrage would be immense. People are still (rightly) going on about the mass rapes and ethnic-cleansing of the Yugoslav civil war, which was small potatoes compared to what went on in pre-modern warfare.

    It’s true that the violent tendencies of men have not been bred out completely, but they certainly have been moderated and channeled into less bloody pursuits by modern civilization.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Twinkie

    I hear what you're saying, but my point is slightly different. It's not just that physical striving can be re-channeled into less objectionable pursuits, but that physical striving is integral to our psychology. Without it, we might as well be replaced by AI or become chattel workers. This idea was inchoate in my mind for a long time until I read "Storm of Steel" and "Angry White Pyjamas". It's difficult to discuss in forums like this because it is antithetical to the modern world, so it doesn't feature in discussions of science and is represented in backward works like Evola's "Meditations on the Peaks". Probably the best book that treats the intersection of modern politics and the embodiedness of our experience is the book "Against the Grain"--the Richard Manning book, not the James C. Scott book (although the latter is likely a good adjunct). "The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre Kieth has passages that rise to the level of art and religion in this realm, but it is ultimately marred by a woke last chapter in which the author reveals that she hasn't been able to apply her insights about carnivory to politics and life more broadly.

    The world Pinker envisions in "Better Angels" is one built for his outlier personality. Ironically, with his big brain, he doesn't understand that he is a poor representation of humanity at large. Represented by our art, literature, and history, what we have striven for as a species over time is virtue and will (though perhaps not always in that order), but not "safe spaces", as it were. Aristotle, the proto-nerd, understood the centrality of nature, not just as an object of study but as a context for being, and civilization built on his thinking, like Catholic doctrine, seek to reign in violence rather than banning it altogether. Not until western civ's progressive/materialist impulses started to devour it did it start to reject animality wholesale.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen

    , @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Twinkie


    As much as there is trash talk among fighters these days, you also see a genuine sense of camaraderie and mutual-respect between two fighter after a tough, grueling fight. You can see a certain kind of a bond develop between the combatants.
     
    Unless you're a certain word-I-can't-say-here who sees fit to dry hump your fallen opponent and yell degenerate filth at his corner. I loved the spirit of honour and tradition of PRIDE (and modern RIZIN) but with the characters the UFC likes to promote the battle for the soul of the sport seems to be between thuggish degenerate savages (Jones, Adesanya) and foreign islamist machismo (Nurmagomedov, et al). I find myself rooting for islamism given honour and tradition isn't even in the running.

    But speaking to AE's point, mma embodies the spirit of the age more in its pay structure and continued centralization. The UFC is raking in money hand over fist, but the top boxers still make way more despite boxing being a smaller market. Also notable is the almost complete monopoly UFC holds on fighter notoriety. If the UFC media machine is behind you you're unstoppable, but if you haven't fought in the UFC then in the eyes of the public (especially "hardcore" fans) you ain't shit, no matter how good you are. God forbid you're a proven fighter or former UFC champ (like Eddie Alvarez or Benson Henderson) and you LOSE a fight outside the UFC; you better retire, you're a bum and your ranking on every site will fall off the face of the earth.

    Michael Chandler and Jiri Prochazka are both great examples of this; both already had excellent careers as champs outside the UFC fighting good competition, but to modern fans they were bums until they signed with those three magic letters, now Jiri's the hottest commodity at LHW and Chandler is the backup for the LW title this weekend.

    So we have a case of an exploitational monopoly swallowing more and more of the market, labor's bargaining power in the sewer, and the ability to make a career outside of the central power structure being extremely limited. Almost sounds like every other industry today.

    Not that I mean to cry about how much top-end fighters make, they're in fine shape (and ideally athletic achievement is mostly it's own reward, hence why the Olympics were supposed to be for amateurs), but it's the lower end guys who really take a hit, and it's almost a perfect microcosm of how society's going wrong as a whole.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Truth

  34. @Twinkie
    @Chrisnonymous


    I think you do jujutsu
     
    Been practicing Judo since I was in grade school and started Brazilian Jiujitsu in my twenties. I also did folk wrestling and Kali, boxed, and trained in Tae Kwon Do and Shotokan Karate. I even tried Kendo at one point.

    Basically, I've been a practitioner and a fan of combat sports since I was a toddler. ;)


    One example is to listen to the way people talk about UFC fights–it’s very dispassionate and analytical.
     
    Mixed martial art was heavily influenced by grappling sports (BJJ, Judo, wrestling, Sambo, etc.) and these tend to be more upscale than, say, boxing. So unlike boxers, many, perhaps most, MMA fighters are college-educated (some even have advanced degrees!). Furthermore, MMA is much more multi-faceted and complex than boxing and is undoubtedly a higher IQ sport (though it will shave off that IQ sooner or later due to head trauma). So the fight analyses you hear on TV reflect these traits.

    Plus, there is a big difference between seeing two people voluntarily fight and watching a defenseless animal be tortured.
     
    Of course.

    But it's also more than just seeing two people fight voluntarily. MMA is the most realistic fight sport there is (though in striking it's nowhere as brutal as something like Lethwei), but it's not actual fighting (for life). It's a ritualized person-to-person combat, so there are rules and traditions. As much as there is trash talk among fighters these days, you also see a genuine sense of camaraderie and mutual-respect between two fighter after a tough, grueling fight. You can see a certain kind of a bond develop between the combatants.

    This is NOT the same thing as two people trying to kill each other in real life, voluntarily or not.


    This mars Pinker’s book because it is ultimately about his own preference for abstraction and thought over bodily experience. Pinker likes the absence of war, but he also likes the absence of physical striving like fighting or hunting that mark us as men rather than meat-calculators.
     
    I agree - Pinker's own preferences are rather transparent. Nonetheless, he is, broadly-speaking, right about the decline in violence among humans over the long horizon.

    In ancient and medieval siege warfare, a city or a fortress that resisted the attacker could expect no quarter once the latter breached the walls. Not only was there looting, mass slaughter (including that of children and even babies) was common and women were as a routine raped and tortured, often in front of their husbands, children, fathers, and brothers (after which the forced spectators would be killed).

    Can you imagine that in modern warfare? The outrage would be immense. People are still (rightly) going on about the mass rapes and ethnic-cleansing of the Yugoslav civil war, which was small potatoes compared to what went on in pre-modern warfare.

    It's true that the violent tendencies of men have not been bred out completely, but they certainly have been moderated and channeled into less bloody pursuits by modern civilization.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    I hear what you’re saying, but my point is slightly different. It’s not just that physical striving can be re-channeled into less objectionable pursuits, but that physical striving is integral to our psychology. Without it, we might as well be replaced by AI or become chattel workers. This idea was inchoate in my mind for a long time until I read “Storm of Steel” and “Angry White Pyjamas”. It’s difficult to discuss in forums like this because it is antithetical to the modern world, so it doesn’t feature in discussions of science and is represented in backward works like Evola’s “Meditations on the Peaks”. Probably the best book that treats the intersection of modern politics and the embodiedness of our experience is the book “Against the Grain”–the Richard Manning book, not the James C. Scott book (although the latter is likely a good adjunct). “The Vegetarian Myth” by Lierre Kieth has passages that rise to the level of art and religion in this realm, but it is ultimately marred by a woke last chapter in which the author reveals that she hasn’t been able to apply her insights about carnivory to politics and life more broadly.

    The world Pinker envisions in “Better Angels” is one built for his outlier personality. Ironically, with his big brain, he doesn’t understand that he is a poor representation of humanity at large. Represented by our art, literature, and history, what we have striven for as a species over time is virtue and will (though perhaps not always in that order), but not “safe spaces”, as it were. Aristotle, the proto-nerd, understood the centrality of nature, not just as an object of study but as a context for being, and civilization built on his thinking, like Catholic doctrine, seek to reign in violence rather than banning it altogether. Not until western civ’s progressive/materialist impulses started to devour it did it start to reject animality wholesale.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Chrisnonymous


    It’s not just that physical striving can be re-channeled into less objectionable pursuits, but that physical striving is integral to our psychology.
     
    Who but pencil-necked sissies would disagree with this?

    civilization built on his thinking, like Catholic doctrine, seek to reign in violence rather than banning it altogether.
     
    In light of the current pope's purported utterances, this is a sad reminder to me as a faithful Catholic that Christianity used to be both chivalrous and "muscular" once. Behold the poem, "Hymn of the Knights Templars," by John Hay (an Ivy League grad and twice U.S. Secretary of State):

    MOTHER of God! as evening falls
    Upon the silent sea,
    And shadows veil the mountain walls,
    We lift our souls to thee!
    From lurking perils of the night,
    The desert's hidden harms,
    From plagues that waste, from blasts that smite,
    Defend thy men-at-arms!

    Mother of God! thy starry smile
    Still bless us from above!
    Keep pure our souls from passion's guile,
    Our hearts from earthly love!
    Still save each soul from guilt apart
    As stainless as each sword,
    And guard undimmed in every heart
    The image of our Lord!

    In desert march or battle's flame,
    In fortress and in field,
    Our war-cry is thy holy name,
    Thy love our joy and shield!
    And if we falter, let thy power
    Thy stern avenger be,
    And God forget us in the hour
    We cease to think of thee!

    Mother of God! the evening fades
    On wave and hill and lea,
    And in the twilight's deepening shades
    We lift our souls to thee!
    In passion's stress—the battle's strife,
    The desert's lurking harms,
    Maid-Mother of the Lord of Life,
    Protect thy men-at-arms!
     
    , @iffen
    @Chrisnonymous

    but that physical striving is integral to our psychology.

    Would 3 or 4 sessions of intense aerobic activity each week fit the bill?

    Or, are you trending in the direction of having professors and intellectuals cut sugar cane for a few months each year?

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  35. When you are dealing with more demons than angels, then violence is absolutely mandatory.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @neutral


    When you are dealing with more demons than angels, then violence is absolutely mandatory.
     
    The problem with that is that everybody sees their political opponents as demons and themselves as being on the side of the angels. It's worth bearing in mind that to the Woke pretty much everyone here is a demon and they're the angels.

    So it's a recipe for endless violence and misery.

    Replies: @Talha

  36. @Twinkie
    @Chrisnonymous


    I think you do jujutsu
     
    Been practicing Judo since I was in grade school and started Brazilian Jiujitsu in my twenties. I also did folk wrestling and Kali, boxed, and trained in Tae Kwon Do and Shotokan Karate. I even tried Kendo at one point.

    Basically, I've been a practitioner and a fan of combat sports since I was a toddler. ;)


    One example is to listen to the way people talk about UFC fights–it’s very dispassionate and analytical.
     
    Mixed martial art was heavily influenced by grappling sports (BJJ, Judo, wrestling, Sambo, etc.) and these tend to be more upscale than, say, boxing. So unlike boxers, many, perhaps most, MMA fighters are college-educated (some even have advanced degrees!). Furthermore, MMA is much more multi-faceted and complex than boxing and is undoubtedly a higher IQ sport (though it will shave off that IQ sooner or later due to head trauma). So the fight analyses you hear on TV reflect these traits.

    Plus, there is a big difference between seeing two people voluntarily fight and watching a defenseless animal be tortured.
     
    Of course.

    But it's also more than just seeing two people fight voluntarily. MMA is the most realistic fight sport there is (though in striking it's nowhere as brutal as something like Lethwei), but it's not actual fighting (for life). It's a ritualized person-to-person combat, so there are rules and traditions. As much as there is trash talk among fighters these days, you also see a genuine sense of camaraderie and mutual-respect between two fighter after a tough, grueling fight. You can see a certain kind of a bond develop between the combatants.

    This is NOT the same thing as two people trying to kill each other in real life, voluntarily or not.


    This mars Pinker’s book because it is ultimately about his own preference for abstraction and thought over bodily experience. Pinker likes the absence of war, but he also likes the absence of physical striving like fighting or hunting that mark us as men rather than meat-calculators.
     
    I agree - Pinker's own preferences are rather transparent. Nonetheless, he is, broadly-speaking, right about the decline in violence among humans over the long horizon.

    In ancient and medieval siege warfare, a city or a fortress that resisted the attacker could expect no quarter once the latter breached the walls. Not only was there looting, mass slaughter (including that of children and even babies) was common and women were as a routine raped and tortured, often in front of their husbands, children, fathers, and brothers (after which the forced spectators would be killed).

    Can you imagine that in modern warfare? The outrage would be immense. People are still (rightly) going on about the mass rapes and ethnic-cleansing of the Yugoslav civil war, which was small potatoes compared to what went on in pre-modern warfare.

    It's true that the violent tendencies of men have not been bred out completely, but they certainly have been moderated and channeled into less bloody pursuits by modern civilization.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    As much as there is trash talk among fighters these days, you also see a genuine sense of camaraderie and mutual-respect between two fighter after a tough, grueling fight. You can see a certain kind of a bond develop between the combatants.

    Unless you’re a certain word-I-can’t-say-here who sees fit to dry hump your fallen opponent and yell degenerate filth at his corner. I loved the spirit of honour and tradition of PRIDE (and modern RIZIN) but with the characters the UFC likes to promote the battle for the soul of the sport seems to be between thuggish degenerate savages (Jones, Adesanya) and foreign islamist machismo (Nurmagomedov, et al). I find myself rooting for islamism given honour and tradition isn’t even in the running.

    But speaking to AE’s point, mma embodies the spirit of the age more in its pay structure and continued centralization. The UFC is raking in money hand over fist, but the top boxers still make way more despite boxing being a smaller market. Also notable is the almost complete monopoly UFC holds on fighter notoriety. If the UFC media machine is behind you you’re unstoppable, but if you haven’t fought in the UFC then in the eyes of the public (especially “hardcore” fans) you ain’t shit, no matter how good you are. God forbid you’re a proven fighter or former UFC champ (like Eddie Alvarez or Benson Henderson) and you LOSE a fight outside the UFC; you better retire, you’re a bum and your ranking on every site will fall off the face of the earth.

    Michael Chandler and Jiri Prochazka are both great examples of this; both already had excellent careers as champs outside the UFC fighting good competition, but to modern fans they were bums until they signed with those three magic letters, now Jiri’s the hottest commodity at LHW and Chandler is the backup for the LW title this weekend.

    So we have a case of an exploitational monopoly swallowing more and more of the market, labor’s bargaining power in the sewer, and the ability to make a career outside of the central power structure being extremely limited. Almost sounds like every other industry today.

    Not that I mean to cry about how much top-end fighters make, they’re in fine shape (and ideally athletic achievement is mostly it’s own reward, hence why the Olympics were supposed to be for amateurs), but it’s the lower end guys who really take a hit, and it’s almost a perfect microcosm of how society’s going wrong as a whole.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    I loved the spirit of honour and tradition of PRIDE (and modern RIZIN)
     
    The Japanese promotions had some great matches and interesting rule sets (stomps to the head!), but were prone to varying levels of skullduggery and freak show matches. For all the criticisms against the UFC (and I have many), it is singularly responsible for turning mixed martial art into a professional, regulated, if highly entertainment-oriented, sport.

    thuggish degenerate savages (Jones, Adesanya)
     
    Jon Jones is a known degenerate, to be sure, and a serial cheater. As much as Israel Adesanya's personality is grating, I don't know of any thuggish, degenerate, or savage things he has done.

    foreign islamist machismo (Nurmagomedov, et al)
     
    I was a fan of Khabib Nurmagomedov early on, but soured on him when he turned out to be a stereotypical Caucasian (e.g. Chechen/Dagestani) mountain savage heart - ganging up on an entourage of a rival fighter and assaulting him and jumping into the crowd to attack yet another and initiating a highly dangerous brawl - and after he won a bout, no less.

    But there are still fine examples of excellent sportsmanship and true Budo spirit in MMA, such as Lyoto Machida and Stephen "Wonderboy" Thompson, who are both, regrettably, on the downsides of their careers. Ages comes to us all!

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    , @Truth
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    the battle for the soul of the sport seems to be between thuggish degenerate savages (Jones, Adesanya) and foreign islamist machismo (Nurmagomedov, et al). I find myself rooting for islamism .
     
    I am shocked, SHOCKED that such sentiment would come from a man with "whitesplosive" in his nom de plume.

    I think the earth's foundation just shifted an inch, Old Sport.
  37. Nurmagomedov

    I think Khabib is one of the most interesting people in the UFC to a lot of people because he is an enigma.

    He is spectacularly good at what he does, but he knows that he is at tension with his soul about it – you see this when he opens up about it:
    “Responding to the post, one person asked: ‘Do you think that the Almighty is satisfied with you? Taking part in haram (forbidden) fights for money?’

    ‘I don’t think so,’ Nurmagomedov replied.

    In April 2018 Nurmagomedov explained that ‘there is nothing else more important to me than being clear with Allah. And being clear with Allah is the No.1 hardest thing in life.’”
    https://aboutislam.net/muslim-issues/sports/ufc-champion-khabib-almighty-wont-approve-violence/

    This is one of my former teachers (for the text of Imam Quduri [ra]), a young mutfi in the Hanafi school (who happens to be a black belt in BJJ) with Khabib:
    So he’s not some guy who is ignorant of what the rules are, he has been around plenty of knowledgeable folks.

    He has probably single-handedly increased the interest in MMA among young Muslim men – a LOT of young guys I come across are increasingly getting into it (and in the Caucasus, it’s almost like people playing basketball around here). Which is a great thing. The doing-it-for-money-in-bad-environment is not.

    I’m almost certain he will quit in one of two years (I would honestly be shocked if he doesn’t) – that is what I believe his father wanted him to do.

    What will he say once his career is over? Will he encourage people into cage-fighting? Will he discourage it? Will he remain silent and simply keep promoting the rise of MMA in the Muslim world (and the rest of the planet)?

    I’ve seen similar sentiments of this tension from Firas Zahabi (Georges St-Pierre’s coach). Who, by the way, has a great insight on perhaps why so many people may increasingly be willing to accept violence in protests and stuff, namely that most of them have probably only seen it on TV and never even sparred against another human being before to have a level of respect for it:

    Peace.

  38. @Anon
    It’s not just “sticks and stones” — it’s also words. My perception is that verbal aggression in sitcoms has increased over my many years; cloaked in humor, yes, but that just makes it more permissible. And of course there’s the new violence of music lyrics. People learn rudeness from these, I think, and thus everyday exchanges are more rude than they used to be. I can’t prove it, but I think that the Red-Blue map of counties won by Hillary vs. Trump = a map of verbal rudeness vs. politeness.

    Replies: @Charlotte

    The amount and permissibility of swearing has also dramatically increased since the eighties. I think kids’ exposure to cable TV shows and rap music had a profound effect on the way they talked. Videocassettes were a big deal, too.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Charlotte


    The amount and permissibility of swearing has also dramatically increased since the eighties.
     
    It's not the actual swearing in modern entertainment that bothers me (although there is way to much of it), it's the general all-round atmosphere of nastiness.
  39. @neutral
    When you are dealing with more demons than angels, then violence is absolutely mandatory.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    When you are dealing with more demons than angels, then violence is absolutely mandatory.

    The problem with that is that everybody sees their political opponents as demons and themselves as being on the side of the angels. It’s worth bearing in mind that to the Woke pretty much everyone here is a demon and they’re the angels.

    So it’s a recipe for endless violence and misery.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @dfordoom


    The problem with that is that everybody sees their political opponents as demons and themselves as being on the side of the angels.
     
    I see Horseshoe Theory everywhere I go these days.

    Peace.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  40. @Charlotte
    @Anon

    The amount and permissibility of swearing has also dramatically increased since the eighties. I think kids’ exposure to cable TV shows and rap music had a profound effect on the way they talked. Videocassettes were a big deal, too.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The amount and permissibility of swearing has also dramatically increased since the eighties.

    It’s not the actual swearing in modern entertainment that bothers me (although there is way to much of it), it’s the general all-round atmosphere of nastiness.

  41. @dfordoom
    @neutral


    When you are dealing with more demons than angels, then violence is absolutely mandatory.
     
    The problem with that is that everybody sees their political opponents as demons and themselves as being on the side of the angels. It's worth bearing in mind that to the Woke pretty much everyone here is a demon and they're the angels.

    So it's a recipe for endless violence and misery.

    Replies: @Talha

    The problem with that is that everybody sees their political opponents as demons and themselves as being on the side of the angels.

    I see Horseshoe Theory everywhere I go these days.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Talha


    I see Horseshoe Theory everywhere I go these days.
     
    Do you mean that you see persons promoting the Theory? Or do you mean that you see instances confirming the Theory?

    Individuals have long been leaping the gap between far Left and far Right (typically from the former to the latter), but the gap is never bridged. The Horseshoe metaphor seems apt.

    Replies: @Talha, @A123

  42. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Twinkie


    As much as there is trash talk among fighters these days, you also see a genuine sense of camaraderie and mutual-respect between two fighter after a tough, grueling fight. You can see a certain kind of a bond develop between the combatants.
     
    Unless you're a certain word-I-can't-say-here who sees fit to dry hump your fallen opponent and yell degenerate filth at his corner. I loved the spirit of honour and tradition of PRIDE (and modern RIZIN) but with the characters the UFC likes to promote the battle for the soul of the sport seems to be between thuggish degenerate savages (Jones, Adesanya) and foreign islamist machismo (Nurmagomedov, et al). I find myself rooting for islamism given honour and tradition isn't even in the running.

    But speaking to AE's point, mma embodies the spirit of the age more in its pay structure and continued centralization. The UFC is raking in money hand over fist, but the top boxers still make way more despite boxing being a smaller market. Also notable is the almost complete monopoly UFC holds on fighter notoriety. If the UFC media machine is behind you you're unstoppable, but if you haven't fought in the UFC then in the eyes of the public (especially "hardcore" fans) you ain't shit, no matter how good you are. God forbid you're a proven fighter or former UFC champ (like Eddie Alvarez or Benson Henderson) and you LOSE a fight outside the UFC; you better retire, you're a bum and your ranking on every site will fall off the face of the earth.

    Michael Chandler and Jiri Prochazka are both great examples of this; both already had excellent careers as champs outside the UFC fighting good competition, but to modern fans they were bums until they signed with those three magic letters, now Jiri's the hottest commodity at LHW and Chandler is the backup for the LW title this weekend.

    So we have a case of an exploitational monopoly swallowing more and more of the market, labor's bargaining power in the sewer, and the ability to make a career outside of the central power structure being extremely limited. Almost sounds like every other industry today.

    Not that I mean to cry about how much top-end fighters make, they're in fine shape (and ideally athletic achievement is mostly it's own reward, hence why the Olympics were supposed to be for amateurs), but it's the lower end guys who really take a hit, and it's almost a perfect microcosm of how society's going wrong as a whole.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Truth

    I loved the spirit of honour and tradition of PRIDE (and modern RIZIN)

    The Japanese promotions had some great matches and interesting rule sets (stomps to the head!), but were prone to varying levels of skullduggery and freak show matches. For all the criticisms against the UFC (and I have many), it is singularly responsible for turning mixed martial art into a professional, regulated, if highly entertainment-oriented, sport.

    thuggish degenerate savages (Jones, Adesanya)

    Jon Jones is a known degenerate, to be sure, and a serial cheater. As much as Israel Adesanya’s personality is grating, I don’t know of any thuggish, degenerate, or savage things he has done.

    foreign islamist machismo (Nurmagomedov, et al)

    I was a fan of Khabib Nurmagomedov early on, but soured on him when he turned out to be a stereotypical Caucasian (e.g. Chechen/Dagestani) mountain savage heart – ganging up on an entourage of a rival fighter and assaulting him and jumping into the crowd to attack yet another and initiating a highly dangerous brawl – and after he won a bout, no less.

    But there are still fine examples of excellent sportsmanship and true Budo spirit in MMA, such as Lyoto Machida and Stephen “Wonderboy” Thompson, who are both, regrettably, on the downsides of their careers. Ages comes to us all!

    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Twinkie


    As much as Israel Adesanya’s personality is grating, I don’t know of any thuggish, degenerate, or savage things he has done.
     
    While as far as degenerate behaviour, he is an obvious sexual pervert and that was before the aforementioned dry-humping episode. As well he's an African tribal involved (even if it is at a very low level of organization) with an anti-civilizational racial chauvinist organization (BLM). He's a savage in the truest sense; a foreign tribal transplant at odds with western civilization both culturally and politically.

    ...were prone to varying levels of skullduggery and freak show matches. For all the criticisms against the UFC (and I have many), it is singularly responsible for turning mixed martial art into a professional, regulated, if highly entertainment-oriented, sport.
     
    While there were certainly fixed fights, the pervasiveness of fight fixing and other things of that nature I believe are severely overblown (partially by the UFC media presence, which had an interest in their competitors being seen as crooks). Virtually none of these fixed fights had any relevance to the top end of the division (barring maybe the one Mark Coleman was involved in? He was on his way down already iirc), and a fixed fight is pretty damn obvious 99% of the time.

    And regarding "freakshows" with big weight discrepancies, I don't see the real issue. Seeing openweight as absurd is the type of corporate commodification that I think is everything wrong with it becoming a more "legitimate" sport. Traditionally all martial arts were openweight, since at root they were the art of cultivating martial prowess. Being much bigger and stronger is an "unfair" advantage in a commodified sport, but in the sense of cultivating martial prowess it's just called being a better fighter. Hence why in antiquity wrestling and pankration were seen as the "heavy" events; the big guys dominated and if small guys couldn't compete, sorry but you're just not as good.

    Though martial arts have become pure unarmed sport they began as practical skills (especially when they still included weapons training); in the personal realm people who want to rob or kill you aren't interested in a "fair" fight, in the realm of warefare even less so. If you want to keep your life you better be prepared to fight for it against whoever you run into, whether he's 3 feet tall or 8. I appreciate the little guys getting more of a chance to compete and show their skills, but that openweight is basically extinct is a real shame. It's cut the sport off from the structure and theory that birthed it and the fighting traditions themselves.

    Replies: @Truth, @Twinkie

  43. @Chrisnonymous
    @Twinkie

    I hear what you're saying, but my point is slightly different. It's not just that physical striving can be re-channeled into less objectionable pursuits, but that physical striving is integral to our psychology. Without it, we might as well be replaced by AI or become chattel workers. This idea was inchoate in my mind for a long time until I read "Storm of Steel" and "Angry White Pyjamas". It's difficult to discuss in forums like this because it is antithetical to the modern world, so it doesn't feature in discussions of science and is represented in backward works like Evola's "Meditations on the Peaks". Probably the best book that treats the intersection of modern politics and the embodiedness of our experience is the book "Against the Grain"--the Richard Manning book, not the James C. Scott book (although the latter is likely a good adjunct). "The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre Kieth has passages that rise to the level of art and religion in this realm, but it is ultimately marred by a woke last chapter in which the author reveals that she hasn't been able to apply her insights about carnivory to politics and life more broadly.

    The world Pinker envisions in "Better Angels" is one built for his outlier personality. Ironically, with his big brain, he doesn't understand that he is a poor representation of humanity at large. Represented by our art, literature, and history, what we have striven for as a species over time is virtue and will (though perhaps not always in that order), but not "safe spaces", as it were. Aristotle, the proto-nerd, understood the centrality of nature, not just as an object of study but as a context for being, and civilization built on his thinking, like Catholic doctrine, seek to reign in violence rather than banning it altogether. Not until western civ's progressive/materialist impulses started to devour it did it start to reject animality wholesale.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen

    It’s not just that physical striving can be re-channeled into less objectionable pursuits, but that physical striving is integral to our psychology.

    Who but pencil-necked sissies would disagree with this?

    civilization built on his thinking, like Catholic doctrine, seek to reign in violence rather than banning it altogether.

    In light of the current pope’s purported utterances, this is a sad reminder to me as a faithful Catholic that Christianity used to be both chivalrous and “muscular” once. Behold the poem, “Hymn of the Knights Templars,” by John Hay (an Ivy League grad and twice U.S. Secretary of State):

    MOTHER of God! as evening falls
    Upon the silent sea,
    And shadows veil the mountain walls,
    We lift our souls to thee!
    From lurking perils of the night,
    The desert’s hidden harms,
    From plagues that waste, from blasts that smite,
    Defend thy men-at-arms!

    Mother of God! thy starry smile
    Still bless us from above!
    Keep pure our souls from passion’s guile,
    Our hearts from earthly love!
    Still save each soul from guilt apart
    As stainless as each sword,
    And guard undimmed in every heart
    The image of our Lord!

    In desert march or battle’s flame,
    In fortress and in field,
    Our war-cry is thy holy name,
    Thy love our joy and shield!
    And if we falter, let thy power
    Thy stern avenger be,
    And God forget us in the hour
    We cease to think of thee!

    Mother of God! the evening fades
    On wave and hill and lea,
    And in the twilight’s deepening shades
    We lift our souls to thee!
    In passion’s stress—the battle’s strife,
    The desert’s lurking harms,
    Maid-Mother of the Lord of Life,
    Protect thy men-at-arms!

    • Thanks: Mr. Rational
  44. @Talha
    @dfordoom


    The problem with that is that everybody sees their political opponents as demons and themselves as being on the side of the angels.
     
    I see Horseshoe Theory everywhere I go these days.

    Peace.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    I see Horseshoe Theory everywhere I go these days.

    Do you mean that you see persons promoting the Theory? Or do you mean that you see instances confirming the Theory?

    Individuals have long been leaping the gap between far Left and far Right (typically from the former to the latter), but the gap is never bridged. The Horseshoe metaphor seems apt.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Or do you mean that you see instances confirming the Theory?
     
    Yes - this. Here in UNZ and elsewhere.

    Peace.

    , @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Individuals have long been leaping the gap between far Left and far Right (typically from the former to the latter), but the gap is never bridged. The Horseshoe metaphor seems apt.
     
    There is no political Left. There is no political Right. The horseshoe and its associated gap does not exist in any meaningful sense.

    To achieve understanding, one must redefine the concept so extremists confusingly tagged far-left/far-right can be aggregated on the same highly Authoritarian side. They have the same beliefs, use the same methods, and desire the same goals.

    PEACE 😇
  45. @Chrisnonymous
    @Twinkie

    I hear what you're saying, but my point is slightly different. It's not just that physical striving can be re-channeled into less objectionable pursuits, but that physical striving is integral to our psychology. Without it, we might as well be replaced by AI or become chattel workers. This idea was inchoate in my mind for a long time until I read "Storm of Steel" and "Angry White Pyjamas". It's difficult to discuss in forums like this because it is antithetical to the modern world, so it doesn't feature in discussions of science and is represented in backward works like Evola's "Meditations on the Peaks". Probably the best book that treats the intersection of modern politics and the embodiedness of our experience is the book "Against the Grain"--the Richard Manning book, not the James C. Scott book (although the latter is likely a good adjunct). "The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre Kieth has passages that rise to the level of art and religion in this realm, but it is ultimately marred by a woke last chapter in which the author reveals that she hasn't been able to apply her insights about carnivory to politics and life more broadly.

    The world Pinker envisions in "Better Angels" is one built for his outlier personality. Ironically, with his big brain, he doesn't understand that he is a poor representation of humanity at large. Represented by our art, literature, and history, what we have striven for as a species over time is virtue and will (though perhaps not always in that order), but not "safe spaces", as it were. Aristotle, the proto-nerd, understood the centrality of nature, not just as an object of study but as a context for being, and civilization built on his thinking, like Catholic doctrine, seek to reign in violence rather than banning it altogether. Not until western civ's progressive/materialist impulses started to devour it did it start to reject animality wholesale.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen

    but that physical striving is integral to our psychology.

    Would 3 or 4 sessions of intense aerobic activity each week fit the bill?

    Or, are you trending in the direction of having professors and intellectuals cut sugar cane for a few months each year?

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @iffen

    Exercise is not the same as physical striving. You should read Manning's Against the Grain. Most of it is moderately written polemic against industrial agriculture, but the sections on hunting reveal some of what is lost in a Pinkerian world. Actually, come to think of it, you can get a similar sense from the last part of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma--the part in which he reveals the psychological aspect of hunting that he wss not expecting.

    Joe Rogan is not an intellectual, but his lifestyle including jujutsu and hunting for his own meat is kind of ideal. People have forgotten that physical striving used to be an accepted adjunct of intellectual striving. You can see this in the 19th-century artifacts we still have in our culture, like Boy Scouts (which teaches boys that both physical and intellectual development are aspects of virtue) and the Olympics, which was ultimately born out of the idea that amateur sport was a universal important aspect of life, not a niche for highly trained specialists, as it has become. I add to those examples the sport judo, which was founded by a gentleman to be a study for modeen men in a modern society.

    I would like all professors and intellectuals to have at least one experience of hunting and killing an animal in their lives and to practice some form of physical discipline that requires exertion, training, and performance. Not cutting sugar cane.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen, @Twinkie

  46. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Talha


    I see Horseshoe Theory everywhere I go these days.
     
    Do you mean that you see persons promoting the Theory? Or do you mean that you see instances confirming the Theory?

    Individuals have long been leaping the gap between far Left and far Right (typically from the former to the latter), but the gap is never bridged. The Horseshoe metaphor seems apt.

    Replies: @Talha, @A123

    Or do you mean that you see instances confirming the Theory?

    Yes – this. Here in UNZ and elsewhere.

    Peace.

  47. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Talha


    I see Horseshoe Theory everywhere I go these days.
     
    Do you mean that you see persons promoting the Theory? Or do you mean that you see instances confirming the Theory?

    Individuals have long been leaping the gap between far Left and far Right (typically from the former to the latter), but the gap is never bridged. The Horseshoe metaphor seems apt.

    Replies: @Talha, @A123

    Individuals have long been leaping the gap between far Left and far Right (typically from the former to the latter), but the gap is never bridged. The Horseshoe metaphor seems apt.

    There is no political Left. There is no political Right. The horseshoe and its associated gap does not exist in any meaningful sense.

    To achieve understanding, one must redefine the concept so extremists confusingly tagged far-left/far-right can be aggregated on the same highly Authoritarian side. They have the same beliefs, use the same methods, and desire the same goals.

    PEACE 😇

  48. @Twinkie
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    I loved the spirit of honour and tradition of PRIDE (and modern RIZIN)
     
    The Japanese promotions had some great matches and interesting rule sets (stomps to the head!), but were prone to varying levels of skullduggery and freak show matches. For all the criticisms against the UFC (and I have many), it is singularly responsible for turning mixed martial art into a professional, regulated, if highly entertainment-oriented, sport.

    thuggish degenerate savages (Jones, Adesanya)
     
    Jon Jones is a known degenerate, to be sure, and a serial cheater. As much as Israel Adesanya's personality is grating, I don't know of any thuggish, degenerate, or savage things he has done.

    foreign islamist machismo (Nurmagomedov, et al)
     
    I was a fan of Khabib Nurmagomedov early on, but soured on him when he turned out to be a stereotypical Caucasian (e.g. Chechen/Dagestani) mountain savage heart - ganging up on an entourage of a rival fighter and assaulting him and jumping into the crowd to attack yet another and initiating a highly dangerous brawl - and after he won a bout, no less.

    But there are still fine examples of excellent sportsmanship and true Budo spirit in MMA, such as Lyoto Machida and Stephen "Wonderboy" Thompson, who are both, regrettably, on the downsides of their careers. Ages comes to us all!

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    As much as Israel Adesanya’s personality is grating, I don’t know of any thuggish, degenerate, or savage things he has done.

    While as far as degenerate behaviour, he is an obvious sexual pervert and that was before the aforementioned dry-humping episode. As well he’s an African tribal involved (even if it is at a very low level of organization) with an anti-civilizational racial chauvinist organization (BLM). He’s a savage in the truest sense; a foreign tribal transplant at odds with western civilization both culturally and politically.

    …were prone to varying levels of skullduggery and freak show matches. For all the criticisms against the UFC (and I have many), it is singularly responsible for turning mixed martial art into a professional, regulated, if highly entertainment-oriented, sport.

    While there were certainly fixed fights, the pervasiveness of fight fixing and other things of that nature I believe are severely overblown (partially by the UFC media presence, which had an interest in their competitors being seen as crooks). Virtually none of these fixed fights had any relevance to the top end of the division (barring maybe the one Mark Coleman was involved in? He was on his way down already iirc), and a fixed fight is pretty damn obvious 99% of the time.

    And regarding “freakshows” with big weight discrepancies, I don’t see the real issue. Seeing openweight as absurd is the type of corporate commodification that I think is everything wrong with it becoming a more “legitimate” sport. Traditionally all martial arts were openweight, since at root they were the art of cultivating martial prowess. Being much bigger and stronger is an “unfair” advantage in a commodified sport, but in the sense of cultivating martial prowess it’s just called being a better fighter. Hence why in antiquity wrestling and pankration were seen as the “heavy” events; the big guys dominated and if small guys couldn’t compete, sorry but you’re just not as good.

    Though martial arts have become pure unarmed sport they began as practical skills (especially when they still included weapons training); in the personal realm people who want to rob or kill you aren’t interested in a “fair” fight, in the realm of warefare even less so. If you want to keep your life you better be prepared to fight for it against whoever you run into, whether he’s 3 feet tall or 8. I appreciate the little guys getting more of a chance to compete and show their skills, but that openweight is basically extinct is a real shame. It’s cut the sport off from the structure and theory that birthed it and the fighting traditions themselves.

    • Replies: @Truth
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    As well he’s an African tribal involved (even if it is at a very low level of organization) with an anti-civilizational racial chauvinist organization (BLM). He’s a savage in the truest sense; a foreign tribal transplant at odds with western civilization both culturally and politically.
     
    Now, you wouldn't be a racist, would you, Old Sport?

    https://worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhP1DyZh3Tzg3WIgBD

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-u1B-pPl_c

    Replies: @Talha, @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Twinkie
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    the aforementioned dry-humping episode
     
    That was very unsportsmanlike and crass, but it was a gesture. I don’t think that’s any different than poor conduct of other fighters such as Michael Bisping (who fouled his opponent and then spit into the corner of his opponent, etc.).

    the pervasiveness of fight fixing and other things of that nature I believe are severely overblown
     
    It’s not overblown. Foreign fighters were routinely offered money to throw fights against local talent. There was no drug testing. Foreign fighters sometimes didn’t know who the opponent was until arriving in Japan. Gangsters were implicated in the operations.

    Traditionally all martial arts were openweight... Hence why in antiquity wrestling and pankration were seen as the “heavy” events; the big guys dominated and if small guys couldn’t compete, sorry but you’re just not as good.
     
    Weight classes exist for a reason. And the specifics of Ancient Greek Pankration are spotty at best.

    in the personal realm people who want to rob or kill you aren’t interested in a “fair” fight, in the realm of warefare even less so. If you want to keep your life you better be prepared to fight for it against whoever you run into, whether he’s 3 feet tall or 8.
     
    Weapons, esp. projectile weapons, change everything. Using the lack of weight classes in real combat as an argument for having freak show matchups in athletic contests is... well, pretty nonsensical in my view.
  49. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Twinkie


    As much as there is trash talk among fighters these days, you also see a genuine sense of camaraderie and mutual-respect between two fighter after a tough, grueling fight. You can see a certain kind of a bond develop between the combatants.
     
    Unless you're a certain word-I-can't-say-here who sees fit to dry hump your fallen opponent and yell degenerate filth at his corner. I loved the spirit of honour and tradition of PRIDE (and modern RIZIN) but with the characters the UFC likes to promote the battle for the soul of the sport seems to be between thuggish degenerate savages (Jones, Adesanya) and foreign islamist machismo (Nurmagomedov, et al). I find myself rooting for islamism given honour and tradition isn't even in the running.

    But speaking to AE's point, mma embodies the spirit of the age more in its pay structure and continued centralization. The UFC is raking in money hand over fist, but the top boxers still make way more despite boxing being a smaller market. Also notable is the almost complete monopoly UFC holds on fighter notoriety. If the UFC media machine is behind you you're unstoppable, but if you haven't fought in the UFC then in the eyes of the public (especially "hardcore" fans) you ain't shit, no matter how good you are. God forbid you're a proven fighter or former UFC champ (like Eddie Alvarez or Benson Henderson) and you LOSE a fight outside the UFC; you better retire, you're a bum and your ranking on every site will fall off the face of the earth.

    Michael Chandler and Jiri Prochazka are both great examples of this; both already had excellent careers as champs outside the UFC fighting good competition, but to modern fans they were bums until they signed with those three magic letters, now Jiri's the hottest commodity at LHW and Chandler is the backup for the LW title this weekend.

    So we have a case of an exploitational monopoly swallowing more and more of the market, labor's bargaining power in the sewer, and the ability to make a career outside of the central power structure being extremely limited. Almost sounds like every other industry today.

    Not that I mean to cry about how much top-end fighters make, they're in fine shape (and ideally athletic achievement is mostly it's own reward, hence why the Olympics were supposed to be for amateurs), but it's the lower end guys who really take a hit, and it's almost a perfect microcosm of how society's going wrong as a whole.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Truth

    the battle for the soul of the sport seems to be between thuggish degenerate savages (Jones, Adesanya) and foreign islamist machismo (Nurmagomedov, et al). I find myself rooting for islamism .

    I am shocked, SHOCKED that such sentiment would come from a man with “whitesplosive” in his nom de plume.

    I think the earth’s foundation just shifted an inch, Old Sport.

  50. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Twinkie


    As much as Israel Adesanya’s personality is grating, I don’t know of any thuggish, degenerate, or savage things he has done.
     
    While as far as degenerate behaviour, he is an obvious sexual pervert and that was before the aforementioned dry-humping episode. As well he's an African tribal involved (even if it is at a very low level of organization) with an anti-civilizational racial chauvinist organization (BLM). He's a savage in the truest sense; a foreign tribal transplant at odds with western civilization both culturally and politically.

    ...were prone to varying levels of skullduggery and freak show matches. For all the criticisms against the UFC (and I have many), it is singularly responsible for turning mixed martial art into a professional, regulated, if highly entertainment-oriented, sport.
     
    While there were certainly fixed fights, the pervasiveness of fight fixing and other things of that nature I believe are severely overblown (partially by the UFC media presence, which had an interest in their competitors being seen as crooks). Virtually none of these fixed fights had any relevance to the top end of the division (barring maybe the one Mark Coleman was involved in? He was on his way down already iirc), and a fixed fight is pretty damn obvious 99% of the time.

    And regarding "freakshows" with big weight discrepancies, I don't see the real issue. Seeing openweight as absurd is the type of corporate commodification that I think is everything wrong with it becoming a more "legitimate" sport. Traditionally all martial arts were openweight, since at root they were the art of cultivating martial prowess. Being much bigger and stronger is an "unfair" advantage in a commodified sport, but in the sense of cultivating martial prowess it's just called being a better fighter. Hence why in antiquity wrestling and pankration were seen as the "heavy" events; the big guys dominated and if small guys couldn't compete, sorry but you're just not as good.

    Though martial arts have become pure unarmed sport they began as practical skills (especially when they still included weapons training); in the personal realm people who want to rob or kill you aren't interested in a "fair" fight, in the realm of warefare even less so. If you want to keep your life you better be prepared to fight for it against whoever you run into, whether he's 3 feet tall or 8. I appreciate the little guys getting more of a chance to compete and show their skills, but that openweight is basically extinct is a real shame. It's cut the sport off from the structure and theory that birthed it and the fighting traditions themselves.

    Replies: @Truth, @Twinkie

    As well he’s an African tribal involved (even if it is at a very low level of organization) with an anti-civilizational racial chauvinist organization (BLM). He’s a savage in the truest sense; a foreign tribal transplant at odds with western civilization both culturally and politically.

    Now, you wouldn’t be a racist, would you, Old Sport?

    https://worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhP1DyZh3Tzg3WIgBD

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Truth


    Now, you wouldn’t be a racist, would you, Old Sport?
     
    In the intellectual defense of his position, he might be claiming that Irish and Caucasians don't count as white:
    https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2013/10/15/1381841814778/Maurice-Mcleod-008.jpg

    Just sayin'.

    Peace.
    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Truth

    @Athletic and Whitesplosive wrote:


    As well he’s an African tribal involved (even if it is at a very low level of organization) with an anti-civilizational racial chauvinist organization (BLM). He’s a savage in the truest sense; a foreign tribal transplant at odds with western civilization both culturally and politically.
     
    @Truth, with what part of the quoted passage do you disagree? Why?

    You wrote:


    Now, you wouldn’t be a racist, would you, Old Sport?
     
    I see. This is not an argument, but if you are merely trying to insult the man, you're not trying hard enough. Try “white supremacist” next time. More syllables.

    Replies: @Truth, @iffen

  51. @Truth
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    As well he’s an African tribal involved (even if it is at a very low level of organization) with an anti-civilizational racial chauvinist organization (BLM). He’s a savage in the truest sense; a foreign tribal transplant at odds with western civilization both culturally and politically.
     
    Now, you wouldn't be a racist, would you, Old Sport?

    https://worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhP1DyZh3Tzg3WIgBD

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-u1B-pPl_c

    Replies: @Talha, @V. K. Ovelund

    Now, you wouldn’t be a racist, would you, Old Sport?

    In the intellectual defense of his position, he might be claiming that Irish and Caucasians don’t count as white:

    Just sayin’.

    Peace.

    • Agree: Truth
  52. @iffen
    @Chrisnonymous

    but that physical striving is integral to our psychology.

    Would 3 or 4 sessions of intense aerobic activity each week fit the bill?

    Or, are you trending in the direction of having professors and intellectuals cut sugar cane for a few months each year?

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Exercise is not the same as physical striving. You should read Manning’s Against the Grain. Most of it is moderately written polemic against industrial agriculture, but the sections on hunting reveal some of what is lost in a Pinkerian world. Actually, come to think of it, you can get a similar sense from the last part of Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma–the part in which he reveals the psychological aspect of hunting that he wss not expecting.

    Joe Rogan is not an intellectual, but his lifestyle including jujutsu and hunting for his own meat is kind of ideal. People have forgotten that physical striving used to be an accepted adjunct of intellectual striving. You can see this in the 19th-century artifacts we still have in our culture, like Boy Scouts (which teaches boys that both physical and intellectual development are aspects of virtue) and the Olympics, which was ultimately born out of the idea that amateur sport was a universal important aspect of life, not a niche for highly trained specialists, as it has become. I add to those examples the sport judo, which was founded by a gentleman to be a study for modeen men in a modern society.

    I would like all professors and intellectuals to have at least one experience of hunting and killing an animal in their lives and to practice some form of physical discipline that requires exertion, training, and performance. Not cutting sugar cane.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Chrisnonymous


    I would like all professors and intellectuals to have at least one experience of hunting and killing an animal in their lives and to practice some form of physical discipline that requires exertion, training, and performance. Not cutting sugar cane.
     
    I would like all professors and intellectuals to have a few years' experience in digging ditches and cleaning toilets. I think it would do them the world of good.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    , @iffen
    @Chrisnonymous

    Interesting perspective, but I'm not sure that hunting is scalable for urban society. You do understand what the trend line is for hunting, and eating meat for that matter, is? If we suffer a triple sweep the downslope of that line is going to accelerate.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    , @Twinkie
    @Chrisnonymous


    I add to those examples the sport judo, which was founded by a gentleman to be a study for modeen men in a modern society.
     
    Kano Jigoro was foremost an educator who wanted to refine traditional Jujutsu into a codified and scientific fighting system AND a tool for bettering both the body and spirit of the student. Hence the two mottos of Judo are: “Maximum efficiency (minimum effort)” and “mutual benefit.”

    Judo is really a product of cross-cultural pollination. Kano transformed Asian traditions with Western educational and scientific methodology, and created one of the finest (perhaps the best) unarmed fighting system(s) that quickly went on to defeat all comers in the Tokyo Metroploitan Police contests, became an Olympic sport, and birthed Russian Sambo and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and by extension mixed martial arts.
  53. @Truth
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    As well he’s an African tribal involved (even if it is at a very low level of organization) with an anti-civilizational racial chauvinist organization (BLM). He’s a savage in the truest sense; a foreign tribal transplant at odds with western civilization both culturally and politically.
     
    Now, you wouldn't be a racist, would you, Old Sport?

    https://worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhP1DyZh3Tzg3WIgBD

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-u1B-pPl_c

    Replies: @Talha, @V. K. Ovelund

    wrote:

    As well he’s an African tribal involved (even if it is at a very low level of organization) with an anti-civilizational racial chauvinist organization (BLM). He’s a savage in the truest sense; a foreign tribal transplant at odds with western civilization both culturally and politically.

    , with what part of the quoted passage do you disagree? Why?

    You wrote:

    Now, you wouldn’t be a racist, would you, Old Sport?

    I see. This is not an argument, but if you are merely trying to insult the man, you’re not trying hard enough. Try “white supremacist” next time. More syllables.

    • Replies: @Truth
    @V. K. Ovelund

    No, he cited the "Thuggish" behavior of two MMA fighters, without citing the much more "thuggish behavior of two MMA fighters with a lack of melanin, including the most popular MMA fighter in the world, so I am simply asking "why".

    , @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    This is not an argument

    I think that it is. If we accept that being racist is contrary to the morals of our society, then behavior that violates that norm can be condemned as unacceptable because it is injurious to the body politic.

  54. @Chrisnonymous
    @iffen

    Exercise is not the same as physical striving. You should read Manning's Against the Grain. Most of it is moderately written polemic against industrial agriculture, but the sections on hunting reveal some of what is lost in a Pinkerian world. Actually, come to think of it, you can get a similar sense from the last part of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma--the part in which he reveals the psychological aspect of hunting that he wss not expecting.

    Joe Rogan is not an intellectual, but his lifestyle including jujutsu and hunting for his own meat is kind of ideal. People have forgotten that physical striving used to be an accepted adjunct of intellectual striving. You can see this in the 19th-century artifacts we still have in our culture, like Boy Scouts (which teaches boys that both physical and intellectual development are aspects of virtue) and the Olympics, which was ultimately born out of the idea that amateur sport was a universal important aspect of life, not a niche for highly trained specialists, as it has become. I add to those examples the sport judo, which was founded by a gentleman to be a study for modeen men in a modern society.

    I would like all professors and intellectuals to have at least one experience of hunting and killing an animal in their lives and to practice some form of physical discipline that requires exertion, training, and performance. Not cutting sugar cane.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen, @Twinkie

    I would like all professors and intellectuals to have at least one experience of hunting and killing an animal in their lives and to practice some form of physical discipline that requires exertion, training, and performance. Not cutting sugar cane.

    I would like all professors and intellectuals to have a few years’ experience in digging ditches and cleaning toilets. I think it would do them the world of good.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @dfordoom


    I would like all professors and intellectuals to have a few years’ experience in digging ditches and cleaning toilets.
     
    Yes, and also splitting rocks! ; D
  55. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Truth

    @Athletic and Whitesplosive wrote:


    As well he’s an African tribal involved (even if it is at a very low level of organization) with an anti-civilizational racial chauvinist organization (BLM). He’s a savage in the truest sense; a foreign tribal transplant at odds with western civilization both culturally and politically.
     
    @Truth, with what part of the quoted passage do you disagree? Why?

    You wrote:


    Now, you wouldn’t be a racist, would you, Old Sport?
     
    I see. This is not an argument, but if you are merely trying to insult the man, you're not trying hard enough. Try “white supremacist” next time. More syllables.

    Replies: @Truth, @iffen

    No, he cited the “Thuggish” behavior of two MMA fighters, without citing the much more “thuggish behavior of two MMA fighters with a lack of melanin, including the most popular MMA fighter in the world, so I am simply asking “why”.

  56. @dfordoom
    @Chrisnonymous


    I would like all professors and intellectuals to have at least one experience of hunting and killing an animal in their lives and to practice some form of physical discipline that requires exertion, training, and performance. Not cutting sugar cane.
     
    I would like all professors and intellectuals to have a few years' experience in digging ditches and cleaning toilets. I think it would do them the world of good.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    I would like all professors and intellectuals to have a few years’ experience in digging ditches and cleaning toilets.

    Yes, and also splitting rocks! ; D

  57. @Chrisnonymous
    @iffen

    Exercise is not the same as physical striving. You should read Manning's Against the Grain. Most of it is moderately written polemic against industrial agriculture, but the sections on hunting reveal some of what is lost in a Pinkerian world. Actually, come to think of it, you can get a similar sense from the last part of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma--the part in which he reveals the psychological aspect of hunting that he wss not expecting.

    Joe Rogan is not an intellectual, but his lifestyle including jujutsu and hunting for his own meat is kind of ideal. People have forgotten that physical striving used to be an accepted adjunct of intellectual striving. You can see this in the 19th-century artifacts we still have in our culture, like Boy Scouts (which teaches boys that both physical and intellectual development are aspects of virtue) and the Olympics, which was ultimately born out of the idea that amateur sport was a universal important aspect of life, not a niche for highly trained specialists, as it has become. I add to those examples the sport judo, which was founded by a gentleman to be a study for modeen men in a modern society.

    I would like all professors and intellectuals to have at least one experience of hunting and killing an animal in their lives and to practice some form of physical discipline that requires exertion, training, and performance. Not cutting sugar cane.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen, @Twinkie

    Interesting perspective, but I’m not sure that hunting is scalable for urban society. You do understand what the trend line is for hunting, and eating meat for that matter, is? If we suffer a triple sweep the downslope of that line is going to accelerate.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @iffen

    Hunting is not scalable for everybody, but hunting once a lifetime or maybe even once every few years is scalable for the elites.

    Ultimately, there are simply too many people. iSteve blog on Unz is all "whoa, whoa, four billion Africans?" but the reality is more like "whoa, whoa, four billion people?"

    Immigration in America and Europe? Stop it NOW.

    Population in Africa, China, India, and the South Pacific? Let it DIE.

    I know, I know... I am such a bad person. People like me are always beyond the pale until the SHTF.

  58. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Truth

    @Athletic and Whitesplosive wrote:


    As well he’s an African tribal involved (even if it is at a very low level of organization) with an anti-civilizational racial chauvinist organization (BLM). He’s a savage in the truest sense; a foreign tribal transplant at odds with western civilization both culturally and politically.
     
    @Truth, with what part of the quoted passage do you disagree? Why?

    You wrote:


    Now, you wouldn’t be a racist, would you, Old Sport?
     
    I see. This is not an argument, but if you are merely trying to insult the man, you're not trying hard enough. Try “white supremacist” next time. More syllables.

    Replies: @Truth, @iffen

    This is not an argument

    I think that it is. If we accept that being racist is contrary to the morals of our society, then behavior that violates that norm can be condemned as unacceptable because it is injurious to the body politic.

  59. @iffen
    @Chrisnonymous

    Interesting perspective, but I'm not sure that hunting is scalable for urban society. You do understand what the trend line is for hunting, and eating meat for that matter, is? If we suffer a triple sweep the downslope of that line is going to accelerate.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Hunting is not scalable for everybody, but hunting once a lifetime or maybe even once every few years is scalable for the elites.

    Ultimately, there are simply too many people. iSteve blog on Unz is all “whoa, whoa, four billion Africans?” but the reality is more like “whoa, whoa, four billion people?”

    Immigration in America and Europe? Stop it NOW.

    Population in Africa, China, India, and the South Pacific? Let it DIE.

    I know, I know… I am such a bad person. People like me are always beyond the pale until the SHTF.

  60. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Twinkie


    As much as Israel Adesanya’s personality is grating, I don’t know of any thuggish, degenerate, or savage things he has done.
     
    While as far as degenerate behaviour, he is an obvious sexual pervert and that was before the aforementioned dry-humping episode. As well he's an African tribal involved (even if it is at a very low level of organization) with an anti-civilizational racial chauvinist organization (BLM). He's a savage in the truest sense; a foreign tribal transplant at odds with western civilization both culturally and politically.

    ...were prone to varying levels of skullduggery and freak show matches. For all the criticisms against the UFC (and I have many), it is singularly responsible for turning mixed martial art into a professional, regulated, if highly entertainment-oriented, sport.
     
    While there were certainly fixed fights, the pervasiveness of fight fixing and other things of that nature I believe are severely overblown (partially by the UFC media presence, which had an interest in their competitors being seen as crooks). Virtually none of these fixed fights had any relevance to the top end of the division (barring maybe the one Mark Coleman was involved in? He was on his way down already iirc), and a fixed fight is pretty damn obvious 99% of the time.

    And regarding "freakshows" with big weight discrepancies, I don't see the real issue. Seeing openweight as absurd is the type of corporate commodification that I think is everything wrong with it becoming a more "legitimate" sport. Traditionally all martial arts were openweight, since at root they were the art of cultivating martial prowess. Being much bigger and stronger is an "unfair" advantage in a commodified sport, but in the sense of cultivating martial prowess it's just called being a better fighter. Hence why in antiquity wrestling and pankration were seen as the "heavy" events; the big guys dominated and if small guys couldn't compete, sorry but you're just not as good.

    Though martial arts have become pure unarmed sport they began as practical skills (especially when they still included weapons training); in the personal realm people who want to rob or kill you aren't interested in a "fair" fight, in the realm of warefare even less so. If you want to keep your life you better be prepared to fight for it against whoever you run into, whether he's 3 feet tall or 8. I appreciate the little guys getting more of a chance to compete and show their skills, but that openweight is basically extinct is a real shame. It's cut the sport off from the structure and theory that birthed it and the fighting traditions themselves.

    Replies: @Truth, @Twinkie

    the aforementioned dry-humping episode

    That was very unsportsmanlike and crass, but it was a gesture. I don’t think that’s any different than poor conduct of other fighters such as Michael Bisping (who fouled his opponent and then spit into the corner of his opponent, etc.).

    the pervasiveness of fight fixing and other things of that nature I believe are severely overblown

    It’s not overblown. Foreign fighters were routinely offered money to throw fights against local talent. There was no drug testing. Foreign fighters sometimes didn’t know who the opponent was until arriving in Japan. Gangsters were implicated in the operations.

    Traditionally all martial arts were openweight… Hence why in antiquity wrestling and pankration were seen as the “heavy” events; the big guys dominated and if small guys couldn’t compete, sorry but you’re just not as good.

    Weight classes exist for a reason. And the specifics of Ancient Greek Pankration are spotty at best.

    in the personal realm people who want to rob or kill you aren’t interested in a “fair” fight, in the realm of warefare even less so. If you want to keep your life you better be prepared to fight for it against whoever you run into, whether he’s 3 feet tall or 8.

    Weapons, esp. projectile weapons, change everything. Using the lack of weight classes in real combat as an argument for having freak show matchups in athletic contests is… well, pretty nonsensical in my view.

  61. @Chrisnonymous
    @iffen

    Exercise is not the same as physical striving. You should read Manning's Against the Grain. Most of it is moderately written polemic against industrial agriculture, but the sections on hunting reveal some of what is lost in a Pinkerian world. Actually, come to think of it, you can get a similar sense from the last part of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma--the part in which he reveals the psychological aspect of hunting that he wss not expecting.

    Joe Rogan is not an intellectual, but his lifestyle including jujutsu and hunting for his own meat is kind of ideal. People have forgotten that physical striving used to be an accepted adjunct of intellectual striving. You can see this in the 19th-century artifacts we still have in our culture, like Boy Scouts (which teaches boys that both physical and intellectual development are aspects of virtue) and the Olympics, which was ultimately born out of the idea that amateur sport was a universal important aspect of life, not a niche for highly trained specialists, as it has become. I add to those examples the sport judo, which was founded by a gentleman to be a study for modeen men in a modern society.

    I would like all professors and intellectuals to have at least one experience of hunting and killing an animal in their lives and to practice some form of physical discipline that requires exertion, training, and performance. Not cutting sugar cane.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen, @Twinkie

    I add to those examples the sport judo, which was founded by a gentleman to be a study for modeen men in a modern society.

    Kano Jigoro was foremost an educator who wanted to refine traditional Jujutsu into a codified and scientific fighting system AND a tool for bettering both the body and spirit of the student. Hence the two mottos of Judo are: “Maximum efficiency (minimum effort)” and “mutual benefit.”

    Judo is really a product of cross-cultural pollination. Kano transformed Asian traditions with Western educational and scientific methodology, and created one of the finest (perhaps the best) unarmed fighting system(s) that quickly went on to defeat all comers in the Tokyo Metroploitan Police contests, became an Olympic sport, and birthed Russian Sambo and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and by extension mixed martial arts.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
  62. @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    Hardly surprising since [Medieval] societies were more violent than the most blighted urban areas of modern America.
     
    This is not true. Medieval urban murder rates were comparable to murder rates in modern cities.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/us/historical-study-of-homicide-and-cities-surprises-the-experts.html
    From the article:
    "Studies of London in the first half of the 14th century determined a homicide rate of 36 to 52 per 100,000 people per year.
    By contrast, the 1993 homicide rate in New York City was 25.9 per 100,000."

    NY has since famously improved, but, e.g., Baltimore's rate was 56 per 100,00 as of 2018.

    However, even this is misleading because of the vastly improved medical technology we now have at our disposal. As the article notes, even a minor knife wound was often fatal in the middle ages. Today you can be shot or stabbed right through the torso and the odds are still good you'll survive and thus not be counted as a "murder." So taking that into account, it as actually reasonable to conclude that medieval cities were far *less* violent than our own, although both were/are much more violent than 19th century cities with their incredibly harsh judicial system.

    Intellectuals like Pinker have been falsely propagandizing about how 'bad' the middle ages were for centuries, so it's always good to take them with a grain of salt and read primary sources when possible.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    What would the murder rate have been in London if handguns were widely available?

  63. @Twinkie

    Today, football dwarfs baseball and the UFC towers over boxing. Our entertainment got more violent while our society became less so.
     
    Although football is more popular than baseball as a spectator sport, the former has all but collapsed as a participation sport among middle class (and up) families as the danger of brain trauma has become widely known. I suspect football's popularity will decline considerably in the future as fewer youngsters play it growing up (in contrast, soccer is likely to become even more popular as a spectator sport in the U.S. as the pool of young participants grows ever more).

    Also, while the UFC/mixed martial art is considered to be "bloodier" than boxing by casual fans, it is, in fact, much less dangerous to the combatants than boxing. Historically, boxing has had many more deaths (there has been only a handful of deaths in MMA, mostly in unsanctioned or poorly regulated events). In general, boxers receive many more, repeated and highly concussive blows to the head (made possible by heavily taped hands and padded gloves), which more often leads to deaths and crippling injuries. Moreover, the rules of boxing - of allowing knocked down opponents to be given a respite of a standing 8-count - makes possible for all-but-defeated foes to regain some semblance of sense, fight on, and go on receive even more punishing blows after already being badly hurt (in the head). Boxing rounds are also shorter while the overall duration of matches much longer, which lead to, again, boxers receiving many more concussive blows to the head. All of these factors make boxing far more lethal and dangerous to the participants.

    Meanwhile, MMA is far more multi-faceted (striking with hands/forearms, elbows, knees, and shins/feet, standing grappling, ground grappling, submissions/strangles/joint-locks), and there are many ways to win while minimally damaging one's opponents with submissions. For that matter, in MMA it is considered perfectly honorable to concede defeat when caught in a submission (while suffering little to no injury). Meanwhile "quitting" is looked upon distastefully in boxing, in which boxers are reluctant to concede defeat mid-match and corners tend not to throw in the towel.

    That said, you are absolute right that popular entertainment is far more violent today than in yesteryears (just not in the example you cited above). When I was growing up 50 years ago, TV/film violence was very "cartoonish" - characters who were "shot" simply fell down dramatically and "died." Starting with the 80's, the violence level in films started to rise dramatically and today's cinematic depictions of violence are far bloodier and more graphic. Such portrayals were nonexistent on TV when I was growing up, but are commonplace today on TV, not just on film.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Truth, @Audacious Epigone

    Also, while the UFC/mixed martial art is considered to be “bloodier” than boxing by casual fans, it is, in fact, much less dangerous to the combatants than boxing.

    Points well taken.

    The perception of MMA being more violent than boxing is enough for it to work for the purposes of this post, I think.

  64. @Twinkie
    @fnn


    gloved boxing is particularly dangerous because it emphasizes blows to the head with the padded hand.
     
    Bare knuckle fighting has made a small comeback recently and people are re-learning why boxing used to be the way it was before gloves became mandatory. Power punches to the head were far rarer - hands being brittle, they tend to break easily upon being slammed into one of the hardest parts of the human body, the cranium. Parrying and defensive footwork were much more important, because it was difficult to "cover up" adequately without the larger, padded gloves.

    Boxing matches in the old days of bare knuckles often ended because participants became too bloodied up from lacerations - perhaps not a pretty sight, but far less damaging to the health of the boxers than receiving heavy, thudding, concussive blows to the head from tightly wrapped and gloved fists thrown with a great deal of power.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Is football going to lose helmets on the same line of thinking?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Audacious Epigone

    Helmets provide protection to the head. Boxing gloves don’t protect your opponent’s head (though it does reduce incidences of lacerations) - they are designed to protect your brittle fist (along with hand wrapping), so that you can throw harder punches to your opponent’s head.

    It’s a very commonly held misconception among people with no experience in boxing or any kind of punching that gloves exist for opponent’s safety. It’s actually the opposite. Boxers who are not used to fighting without gloves almost always break their fists the first time they throw punches at someone’s head. It’s simple biology - hands evolved to grasp things, not to be slammed into a very hard object such as a cranium. They WILL break upon impact unless wrapped and protected with padding.

  65. @anon
    The HRC's assessment of evidence from the USG, civil society organizations, and UN special procedures probably trumps the public's parochial law'norder notions. And from the synoptic and objective viewpoint of the HRC, violence is among the most urgent US derelictions, meriting intensive review. For one thing, the HRC pays attention to state violence, which has steadily escalated in terms of both capacity and practice. Furthermore, the HRC notices regression to premodern notions like torture and stand your ground.

    It's odd, and stereotypically American/right, that you're talking about violence but the evidence you turn to pertains to property crime. Lucky for you - you don't know what violence is.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Property damage is aggression. It retroactively steals time away from the creators of the property, turning them into unwilling slaves constructing a thing for the enjoyment or catharsis of the thing’s destroyer.

  66. @Audacious Epigone
    @Twinkie

    Is football going to lose helmets on the same line of thinking?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Helmets provide protection to the head. Boxing gloves don’t protect your opponent’s head (though it does reduce incidences of lacerations) – they are designed to protect your brittle fist (along with hand wrapping), so that you can throw harder punches to your opponent’s head.

    It’s a very commonly held misconception among people with no experience in boxing or any kind of punching that gloves exist for opponent’s safety. It’s actually the opposite. Boxers who are not used to fighting without gloves almost always break their fists the first time they throw punches at someone’s head. It’s simple biology – hands evolved to grasp things, not to be slammed into a very hard object such as a cranium. They WILL break upon impact unless wrapped and protected with padding.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS