Bets on whether Mitchell will bite back on the mic if he wins?

[usernamee]

He did. But just his opinions at the end of the day. If his opinions are simply hating people just because then this could have been fished out easily on jaxxon when he went on there. Or he could have explained why he felt that way. But they went a different route.

Yes the jaxxon guy is a moron

 

[Last Falconry]

bite back at what? being a poorly educated dipshit? has he been wronged somehow?

 

[El Panteron]

Some of you people are fucking brain dead.
Question the system = let's give everything to who already owns everything and shit on minorities, some little rebels you are, so brave and inspiring how you scurry to the masters the second your life turns slightly more inconvenient. The system is really trembling, thanks a lot morons.

 

[Hank Grill]

He's going to sub Lord Silva and the tears here will be fierce.

 

[MMA Maine-iac]

He'll say something stupid but it won't be about THAT something stupid. He'll do a religious spiel or something like he's been doing. He'd have to be dumber than shit to mention Hitler or Nazis post fight.

I can definitely see Bryce in a post fight interview saying trust me guys I'm not a Nazi.

 

[krelianx]

Yep. Complete frauds. Trust the science under the media manufactured pandemic showed us what a scam the industry can be.

And the rest of this is just inflating your own sense of self worth and ego.

All this education but still missing the issue at hand. Why does an extreme minority of individuals need to be brought to the forefront through state and corporate sponsored psychosis in order to push their agenda on the majority? To queer up the nation, that's why.

Academia represents a tiny minority of the population, of which a tiny minority gets to have any public voicing or influence in state and corporate policy. If anything, the issue is not that a minority is deciding for the majority, but that state and corporate interests selectively use and disavow expert knowledge for their own interests.

Why should we listen to academics or experts? I don't know, because they are people who have actually studied the phenomena at hand? Do you seriously think we should delegate the logistics of design and building of infrastructure to people without engineering degrees? Or that we should delegate professional medical care to people without medical degrees?

You think you are somehow emancipated from the brainwashed alliance between corrupt state power and a fraudulent scientific community. But you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed by a pretty standard cookie-cutter right-wing conspiratorial pseudo-libertarian rhetoric, which you reproduce without a morsel of criticism.

Everything you say is a stereotype to the point of caricature:

- There are only two sexes, and gender ideology is a perverse plot to 'queer the nations'.
- Scientific establishment and academia is just a branch of government, fraudulent and self-serving.
- To the extent that scientific knowledge is authoritative in the eyes of the population, it functions like a dogma, thus like a religious cult. Therefore, studying and learning science is not only unnecessary, but positively necessary to escape from indoctrination.
- We need to return to mother nature and to its teachings, which tells us that all these queer things and unintelligible abstractions are deviations, a hoax. (The Earth is flat, can't you see? There is no climate change, look at the trees and birds flying? Also, vaccines don't work, look how I am healthy...)
- The pandemic was a conspiracy woven to control and scare us, like the state always does, making sheep of the population, with the aid of the "scientists" who people blindly trust.

The sad and ironic part of it is that you think this kind of discourse puts you outside the establishment, when you have become simply a puppet of the most idiotic, base kind of conspiratorial thinking around. When you have Eddie Bravo and Bryce Mitchell as your intellectual allies, you should probably think over your assumptions a bit more.

In the end, the conspiratorial rhetoric is effective in catering to disgruntled libertarian types who have lost all trust in institutions, providing them with a sense of false wisdom, supported in nothing but ignorance. That's the sad reality of people like you; you disqualify what you don't and willingly will not, even understand.

 

[tgv976]

Academia represents a tiny minority of the population, of which a tiny minority gets to have any public voicing or influence in state and corporate policy. If anything, the issue is not that a minority is deciding for the majority, but that state and corporate interests selectively use and disavow expert knowledge for their own interests.

Why should we listen to academics or experts? I don't know, because they are people who have actually studied the phenomena at hand? Do you seriously think we should delegate the logistics of design and building of infrastructure to people without engineering degrees? Or that we should delegate professional medical care to people without medical degrees?

You think you are somehow emancipated from the brainwashed alliance between corrupt state power and a fraudulent scientific community. But you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed by a pretty standard cookie-cutter right-wing conspiratorial pseudo-libertarian rhetoric, which you reproduce without a morsel of criticism.

Everything you say is a stereotype to the point of caricature:

- There are only two sexes, and gender ideology is a perverse plot to 'queer the nations'.
- Scientific establishment and academia is just a branch of government, fraudulent and self-serving.
- To the extent that scientific knowledge is authoritative in the eyes of the population, it functions like a dogma, thus like a religious cult. Therefore, studying and learning science is not only unnecessary, but positively necessary to escape from indoctrination.
- We need to return to mother nature and to its teachings, which tells us that all these queer things and unintelligible abstractions are deviations, a hoax. (The Earth is flat, can't you see? There is no climate change, look at the trees and birds flying? Also, vaccines don't work, look how I am healthy...)
- The pandemic was a conspiracy woven to control and scare us, like the state always does, making sheep of the population, with the aid of the "scientists" who people blindly trust.

The sad and ironic part of it is that you think this kind of discourse puts you outside the establishment, when you have become simply a puppet of the most idiotic, base kind of conspiratorial thinking around. When you have Eddie Bravo and Bryce Mitchell as your intellectual allies, you should probably think over your assumptions a bit more.

In the end, the conspiratorial rhetoric is effective in catering to disgruntled libertarian types who have lost all trust in institutions, providing them with a sense of false wisdom, supported in nothing but ignorance. That's the sad reality of people like you; you disqualify what you don't and willingly will not, even understand.

LMAO. What a know-it-all cunt of a post.

For some things, yes. For others no. Nothing is all or nothing despite how much the media engineers things towards extremism. Why even answer since you are ready to write my biography for me? The true sign of an intellectual. Try to fellate yourself while pretending you are better than others because of their beliefs. Ted K was spot on with his analysis and hatred of academic types.

You still fail to address what I keep asking. Why does the state and corporate hierarchy push gay and trans agendas to the masses despite them being such a fringe part of society? Why was this pushed on people who didn't want it? Why was it queering up Germany at the time, the same way it queers up Western countries now with the same type of people leading the charge?

You can spare me the bloviated narcissism this time.

 

[krelianx]

LMAO. What a know-it-all cunt of a post.

For some things, yes. For others no. Nothing is all or nothing despite how much the media engineers things towards extremism. Why even answer since you are ready to write my biography for me? The true sign of an intellectual. Try to fellate yourself while pretending you are better than others because of their beliefs. Ted K was spot on with his analysis and hatred of academic types.

You still fail to address what I keep asking. Why does the state and corporate hierarchy push gay and trans agendas to the masses despite them being such a fringe part of society? Why was this pushed on people who didn't want it? Why was it queering up Germany at the time, the same way it queers up Western countries now with the same type of people leading the charge?

You can spare me the bloviated narcissism this time.

You ask badly formulated questions, which rest on assumptions no one should assume.

- Why does the state and corporate hierarchy push gay and trans agendas to the masses despite them being such a fringe part of society?

Minority rights are important, particularly when legislation leaves segments of the population vulnerable or unprotected, or subject to discrimination. Abolishing slavery was also for a minority of the population, yet it would be stupid to suggest that makes it an unimportant issue.

Are 'trans and gay agendas' being pushed? They are being coherently and consistently advocated for by left wing actors. They are not exclusionary to other concerns, like labor, economics, taxation, border policy, international policy, women's rights, ecology. All of which have been at the center of different actors in state policy: Bernie likes to emphasize health care, working class economic exposure, billionare privilege...

You talk as if queer-trans rights was the center of the debate as opposed to a topic of debate.

Would you say the right "pushes" heteronormative homophobic agenda even though it only pertains to the minority of the population? The right certainly has promoted an "anti-woke" discourse on several fronts, as their recent Presidential mandate for proscribing the use of vocabulary by scientific institutions shows, or even yesterday's speech.

Why the double standard?

If advocating for gay or trans rights is 'pushing an agenda' then all that means is that the left has been militant on this matter. I might disagree with a specific policy or strategy, but to generalize and say this is "pushing an agenda" as if that was bad simply because it pertains to a minority is lazy and stupid.

- Why was it queering up Germany at the time, the same way it queers up Western countries now with the same type of people leading the charge?

What does 'queering' even mean? Turning people into 'queers'? In what sense was Germany 'queering' its population, or is the current West 'queering' anything? The Institute treated and studied phenomena related to non-heterosexuality, which exist, whether you like it or not.

If by queering you mean challenging traditional gender/sexual norms in the wake of new information, then the reason why this is done is because human beings ought to revise their views on the basis of research and scientific understanding. The same reason why teaching evolutionary theory is 'secularizing' our understanding of where we came from.

If you have any reason to argue against the scientific literature on homosexuality and transexuality, or the literature on gender studies, please go on.

But you won't, because you don't actually know anything. You haven't even bothered to learn about that which you presume to criticize. You are proud to be ignorant.

 

[tgv976]

You ask badly formulated questions, which rest on assumptions no one should assume.

- Why does the state and corporate hierarchy push gay and trans agendas to the masses despite them being such a fringe part of society?

Minority rights are important, particularly when legislation leaves segments of the population vulnerable or unprotected, or subject to discrimination. Abolishing slavery was also for a minority of the population, yet it would be stupid to suggest that makes it an unimportant issue.

Are 'trans and gay agendas' being pushed? They are being coherently and consistently advocated for by left wing actors. They are not exclusionary to other concerns, like labor, economics, taxation, border policy, international policy, women's rights, ecology. All of which have been at the center of different actors in state policy: Bernie likes to emphasize health care, working class economic exposure, billionare privilege...

You talk as if queer-trans rights was the center of the debate as opposed to a topic of debate.

Would you say the right "pushes" heteronormative homophobic agenda even though it only pertains to the minority of the population? The right certainly has promoted an "anti-woke" discourse on several fronts, as their recent Presidential mandate for proscribing the use of vocabulary by scientific institutions shows, or even yesterday's speech.

Why the double standard?

If advocating for gay or trans rights is 'pushing an agenda' then all that means is that the left has been militant on this matter. I might disagree with a specific policy or strategy, but to generalize and say this is "pushing an agenda" as if that was bad simply because it pertains to a minority is lazy and stupid.

- Why was it queering up Germany at the time, the same way it queers up Western countries now with the same type of people leading the charge?

What does 'queering' even mean? Turning people into 'queers'? In what sense was Germany 'queering' its population, or is the current West 'queering' anything? The Institute treated and studied phenomena related to non-heterosexuality, which exist, whether you like it or not.

If by queering you mean challenging traditional gender/sexual norms in the wake of new information, then the reason why this is done is because human beings ought to revise their views on the basis of research and scientific understanding. The same reason why teaching evolutionary theory is 'secularizing' our understanding of where we came from.

If you have any reason to argue against the scientific literature on homosexuality and transexuality, or the literature on gender studies, please go on.

But you won't, because you don't actually know anything. You haven't even bothered to learn about that which you presume to criticize. You are proud to be ignorant.

Equating slavery to delusional individuals believing in psychosis. Lol. You're comparing apples and other fruits here. Lol. Yes, pushing fringe psychosis to be normalized in the school systems and in the workplace therefore affecting the majority of the population. Being yourself is one thing. Being required by the schools and the workplace to participate in someone else's insanity is another.

Speaking of minorities, white people are a minority in global population. So where are all the programs that address this and the support structure in non traditionally white countries to support white people there? Only pushed in white western societies to benefit non whites and increase tensions and unfair advantages like DEI. Just like carbon emissions and the climate scam too. Just like racism. Pushed in white western societies meanwhile neglected in the biggest non white offenders out there. Funny how that works and it's clear to see what the agenda is.

I wouldn't say the right pushes any of those made up bullshit terms that just equate to natural behavior. But right wing and left wing politics are pointless when it's all controlled by the same people. Right wing, left wing, same bird running the whole show with different methods on how to achieve the same goal. Central banking is a private corporation controlling the economy in many counties printing currency. Something the ultimate evil German leader from 1930 destroyed and put back into the hands of the German people. No wonder he's so demonized while others committed far worse war crimes, yet no one cares.

You're nothing more than an indoctrinated individual with no opinions of your own since you need a seal of approval accompanying your thoughts. I'd be surprised if you could even tie your shoes without needing 5 books compiled by so-called experts on the correct way to do it. Lol

 

[Ace70 V2]

No way there giving him a live microphone win or lose, surely?

You know they will. Any press is good press unless your name is Sean Combs.