I heard a mention of #ConorMcGregor, so I went to read a bit about him, and watched a few minutes of a couple #UFC fights — including that knockout 13 seconds into the match.
Change my mind: if you enjoy watching #MMA, there's something wrong with you.
It is brutal. Am I too sensitive?
@tripu I would not say too sensitive, but not precise enough.
"something wrong with you" is a pretty broad term. I find it problematic to value brutal fights, even if they are fought by rules. But the way you say it, i could agree or disagree depending on the interpretation.
I think paying or encouraging someone to do things that cause severe injury should be a crime. This shit and boxing and American football should not exist.
I am very, very reluctanct to ban anything like that, my default being to err on the side of freedom for consenting adults to do whatever they please.
I'm just surprised that so many people seem to like MMA so much.
(I know it's not the same, I know there are a few important differences, but) it feels to me like bullfighting: I can't understand how someone could enjoy watching _that_.
@Pat @tripu I would add that while this is true, banning little things (-> individual choice involved) that bring some pleasure (no matter how hard it is to understand how or why) to some would have a major ethical problem.
As long as we cannot make notable progress on big things (no or nearly no individual choice: usage of fossil fuels, generally the stuff that drives the climate collapse), it would be unfair. Important here: these "big things" are not bringing joy to most people, only harm.
Sure, it would be realistic to, say, ban smoking and boxing. But it would be quite dystopian to ban those things while not making progress on the others.
I think that the laws and social norms we have guard against most of that.
eg, talking about people involved in MMA, either as participants or as spectators: only adults, consenting explicitly to that, and “in full possession of their mental faculties”.
Someone tricking you into taking poison is committing murder.
When problems get hairy, we implement more guards: higher minimum age (eg, those below 21 can't drink, those with less than two year's experience riding motorbikes can't ride the most powerful ones), mandatory delays (eg, being forced to wait X days before euthanasia, abortion, gender reassignment).
I quite enjoy some of them, when the skills and stakes are high. I can appreciate the abilities of some fighters, the willpower and determination. It's interesting to see different (and very, very difficult) techniques that do not rely at all on bigger muscles or bodies. I wouldn't follow it regularly but when there's a good fight (and there are very good ones) it's fascinating.
I admit I'm probably more sensitive than most to the suffering of others, specifically to graphical depictions.
eg, I simply can't watch [PETA](https://www.peta.org/) videos or films like [Dominion](https://www.dominionmovement.com/).
I think I could watch an MMA fight, but I doubt I would enjoy it — rather the opposite.
Those are very different - I also can't watch videos of "innocent" animals being tortured unnecessarily; on the other hand, an adult human consciously engaging in an activity they thoroughly enjoy, even if they feel pain at some points, can be even inspiring. In that sense an MMA fighter getting KO'd is no different than a marathon runner collapsing. They might not even call that "suffering", so your "sensitivity" would be misguided.
@ImperfectIdea @tripu @Pat I agree that the conscious decision is important, thus i likes pat's points together with the agreement that regulation should happen on the level of organizers/influencers, not the individual.
Ban manipulation that can subdue individual free choice, not the choice itself.
With the running of the bulls, the bulls have no choice - so there is no freedom to protect.
Yes, a fight between two consenting humans is different from a bull killed in the bullring or a goat being thrown from the top of the church bell tower. I acknowledged that difference.
What they have in common though is _a focus on, and a celebration of, violence and pain_. That's what I can't stand (and what I suspect is ethically dubious, at best).
> “_An MMA fighter getting KO'd is no different than a marathon runner collapsing_”
It is _very_ different.
A marathoner collapsing is an unfortunate outcome. Nobody wants that, and nobody feels a bit happier when that happens. (The only very extreme and very unlikely exception: a chaser close behind in the race for whom that other runner collapsing is “good news”).
On the other hand, one of the fighters collapsing and being so badly injured that he can't get up is literally the best situation possible for the other fighter and for everyone and everything supporting him.
A fighter hitting so hard (and so “well”) that he literally kills his opponent immediately is arguably the perfect demonstration of his superiority. Even if fighters were so skilled (and so “kind”) as to calibrate their blows to always keep them just right below the “possibly mortal” level (a very generous assumption), inflicting maximum pain and damage to render their opponent unconscious is THE goal of the whole thing.
I remember #JoeRogan saying something along those lines about his time as a professional fighter (but I can't find the quote now): that his priority as a fighter was to inflict as much damage and pain in another human being as possible, that he was optimising for that and training that skill.
When that maximum pain and damage happens, a fighter is ecstatic, his team cheers, a crowd celebrates, sponsors rub their hands together in happiness. The exact moment when that person gets injured so badly (concussion? brain damage? death?) is replayed, commented on, shown to aspiring fighters, shared and “enjoyed” — sometimes by millions.
As I said, I have no temptation to _ban_ MMA. I think individual freedom wins here.
But I do think people should examine why they enjoy participating in that, or supporting that with their attention or their money — what exactly is at the core of the spectacle, what is being celebrated.
@tripu @ImperfectIdea @Pat That, as a "should", i can completely support.
Said this way, it is what i would wish for as a part of the personality of people i am in contact with.
@tripu @ImperfectIdea @Pat Especially @ImperfectIdea : Would you agree that the examination makes sense? As someone who enjoys the part of fights where there is no death/permanent injury, what is your reason to accept those exist instead of turning your back on those sports?
@admitsWrongIfProven
(I totally forgot about this convo)
My reasons to enjoy it are the same as many other things: human struggle and overcoming of limitations; ambition, body control, discipline. Violence, or even just the threat of violence, is a part of human life, and I find it interesting to see how it can be perfected, with reasonable rules to avoid extreme injuries. I'd say for most fans the actual infliction of pain is secondary to the technical and mechanical parts of it.
@tripu @Pat
@tripu @ImperfectIdea @Pat @admitsWrongIfProven what is your point? Joe Rogan is a hero?
@Greatness @tripu Did you read the whole thread? I am a bit confused by your comment, cannot fathom what you want to say here.
@tripu @ImperfectIdea @Pat It is different, but also connected.
I would argue that running, when done competetively, can drive people to unhealthy extremes - once people start collapsing, the frame is a likely cause of death.
Neglect by organizers is the cause, and spectators accept that. Different is only the delivery mechanism as either direct damage or exhaustion / performance drug use.
@tripu @ImperfectIdea @Pat
Hmm, i see the point, but all examples i can come up with fall under "bread and circuses" as a distraction technique. I would thus see it as a secondary problem, not a root cause.
Sure, it is unpleasant that it is possible to distract people with that. But what i would want to see most is a change in the original stirring of those primal instincts, instead of shaming those that fall prey to it.
@tripu
>" am very, very reluctanct to ban anything like that, my default being to err on the side of freedom for consenting adults to do whatever they please."
Not long ago, I had that exact same position. Let people make their own choices. But I've begun to evolve that position.
If someone with better information, experience, or intelligence knowingly leads someone else to harm themselves, then they are responsible for that harm.
E.g., there is a glass of Koolaid on the table and I know that a third party has put poison in the Koolaid. Another person walks in and I tell them, "Here's some Koolaid for you, drink up."
That's a crime. Many of these situations are like that. They may even disclose that there is poison in the Koolaid, but then dismiss the danger and show many other people drinking it and gaining fame and fortune or whatever, or using other psychological techniques to get them to drink it anyway.
Case #2: Drugs. Everyone knows that smoking tobacco will harm you. Yet millions of people around the world still smoke their first cigarette each year. Why? Because other people with more experience, knowledge and skill use a combination of psychological techniques to trick those naive people into harming themselves.
There are many other analogies along the lines of someone with superior information or experience who can lead others into harming themselves.
@admitsWrongIfProven