Posts by Sandra Johnson58

Noah Roberts46 said:I don't know, man... I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Like, is there actually a difference between grinding out a 9-to-5 and being a pro fighter in the cage? Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I guess they're kind of the same thing. You show up every single day, right? Even when you don't want to. Even when your body feels like trash or your boss is being a total nightmare. It’s that same grind. You go into the office—or the gym, whatever—and you just put your head down and deal with it. It's all about showing up when things suck. And the pressure? Man, that's real. Whether you're staring down a guy like Mike Tyson in the octagon or you're sitting in a high-stakes meeting at Goldman Sachs trying not to mess up a huge presentation... it's that same feeling in your gut. That "don't screw this up" sensation. I guess it really just comes down to discipline. You can't just decide to be great on Tuesdays. You gotta do the boring, repetitive stuff every single day if you want to actually get somewhere. It's pretty heavy when you think about it, I guess. Just life, you know? 🥱

Look, I didn't say it was easy. Far from it. It’s grueling work—lots of sacrifices and honestly, just straight-up bleeding. But at the end of the day, every fighter chose this path on their own. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head and forced them into the cage. Just because you make a living getting punched in the face doesn't mean you automatically deserve a massive payday.

Noah Roberts46 said:So, you sign that shitty exclusive contract at the start because, let's be real, there isn't really any other choice. Once you make it, you're basically stuck fighting under those same terms for your next few bouts. If you aren't feeling it? Lol, like, go join another organization then? I guess... but look, even Georges St-Pierre has been retired for five years and he's still sidelined. Whatever, man. You deserve way more than that.

Nobody signs those long-term deals right out of the gate because, let's be real, the UFC isn't exactly handing out massive paychecks to the newcomers. I guess you could call them "rookie contracts" at a decent amount, but most fighters end up walking away from the money since they don't really bring enough heat or quality to the cage. I remember Rosholt—that guy had like a 7-2 record, but after he lost to Nelson, he basically got the boot because he was just boring as hell and the brass wasn't making any money off him. After that first contract is up, a ton of guys go all in too fast and screw themselves, but honestly, that's on them. bluemason3 actually made a good point earlier: it’s on the fighters to make sure they don't sign away too many fights at once. And if GSP really did sign some stupid deal with the UFC, then man, what was he thinking? That's why you hire lawyers, you know? There's no way he signed something like that when he first joined the roster. Like I said, you only get what you're willing to fight for.

Noah Roberts46 said:Man, look at the NBA... every single sport has exploded lately. Player salaries are through the roof, whether you're talking soccer, boxing, or just any major global sport. It’s crazy how much money is flowing in. But UFC? I swear, nobody can actually explain to me why that hasn't happened yet. Like, okay, maybe WWE counts, but we're talking about actual sports here, right? 🤦

There’s honestly nothing to explain here. You’re starting from a totally flawed premise—basically thinking that just because other sports evolved a certain way, the UFC has to follow suit (not that the UFC is even a sport, it's an organization, let's be real). I mean, who cares how things went down in soccer or boxing or whatever? It shouldn't matter. The UFC isn't obligated to give fighters anything more than what was actually agreed upon in their contracts. If fighters aren't happy with how things are right now, it's not like they don't have options. They can just walk away when their deals are up, or maybe, I don't know, they could act like NBA players and start a union to fight for better rights and a "fairer" split of the money.
I mean, the WWE thing was just mentioned because the UFC uses that kind of business model, and honestly? If you're a great entertainer, you'll probably make way more money doing scripted matches than actual fights. Like, ten mil a year beats five mil, right? Not to mention how much less blood you have to spill to get paid. Actually, I guess five mil from wrestling might even be better than ten from real fights if you really think about it.😁

Noah Roberts46 said:Look, let's not beat around the bush, we'll just have to wait and see how long this lasts. Even now, their biggest stars aren't fighting nearly as much. I mean, Franjo does one fight against Tyson Fury and he's already made more than he would in his next five fights in the UFC, so we'll just see what happens with everyone else.

Look, fighters aren't gonna fight more if they're getting paid more, especially the top guys. It’s actually gonna be the exact opposite. These people don't fight because they love getting treated like a punching bag, it's all about the money. The more cash they pull from a single fight, the less they have to compete. The big names make the most dough, so naturally, they don't need to step into the ring 3 or 4 times a year—and if they got even more money, they'd fight even less if that's even possible. I mean, why grind through 25 fights in a career when you can do 10 for the same amount of cash? As for Francis Ngannou and boxing... man, I have no clue where people get the idea that Francis is an interesting matchup for Tyson Fury. He could probably make way more fighting Usyk or Joshua. Knowing how boxing contracts work, he'd definitely land four fights there. A fight against Whyte would probably bring him more money than a fight with Francis. And Francis isn't Conor McGregor, who—besides being a solid fighter—was loud, controversial, and hated... basically everything you need to sell a ton of PPVs.

Most heavyweight fights are honestly about as exciting as two bulls locking horns and just shoving each other back and forth—it's basically a total yawn fest. I guess Francis falls into that boring fighter category too. The guy is strong as a rhino and has that brutal knockout power, but his fighting style? Just uninspiring. His charisma is basically nonexistent, and even outside the cage, he’s kind of a bore, just like Stipe Miocic. People like that can't pull in massive money like Floyd Mayweather Jr. and then whine about how they deserve more, especially since the UFC made a ridiculous amount off them.
Every company I’ve ever worked for made way more off me than they paid me, but hey, I was fine with the cash because, at the time, there wasn't anywhere else paying better. Plus, my downtime spent just chilling at home is worth a hell of a lot to me.
Basically, you get what you can fight for. If you aren't happy with how a company—in this case, the UFC—treats you, you're free to walk away and find luck somewhere else. Go join Bellator, ONE, PFL, or some boxing leagues; go try to make more money there, but man, don't sit around whining, like, "Give me more, I earned it."🙂
Mirko Filipović, regardless of how you look at it, was always straight up. He didn't cry about his contract after signing it. Sure, he was stingy during negotiations and always tried to squeeze out every cent, which is totally fair and makes sense, but once the ink was dry, he didn't go around weeping that the UFC or Pride FC made ten times more off him than they paid him.
He knew that, at that point, he couldn't get more money anywhere else, and I think Francis knows that too. Honestly, boxing isn't really an option for him. He doesn't strike me as a top-tier boxer, even by MMA standards; I mean, maybe it's just me, but it feels like they invented boxing just because fighters are technically worse than Deontay Wilder. Or maybe I'm just tripping.
Also, fighting some famous YouTuber isn't happening either. I mean, come on, there aren't many world-famous YouTube celebs who are 6'4" and 260+ pounds looking to box a guy who could probably knock out a horse with one shot.🤣
Maybe he could try WWE🤷 but I don't really see him as much of a showman.
Bottom line, losing Francis won't hurt Dan's status at all, no matter how much some people are freaking out or hoping he'll finally jump ship. In a year, it'll be like Rosholt leaving. Dan clashed with Conor McGregor and Jon Jones, who are way bigger names, and I don't see his position being shaken one bit.
It'll be easier for people once they realize that for the bosses at the UFC—and honestly, the bosses at any organization—this business model is what matters. They don't want to be like the NBA or boxing where the stars hold all the leverage; they want to be more like WWE.
The reason other organizations sometimes offer better deals is just to lure fighters in, not because they actually care about strengthening fighters' rights. They obviously use that as a marketing weapon against the UFC later, but if they were in the UFC's shoes, they'd do the exact same thing.
Honestly, I don't feel bad for any of these fighters, whether they're at the top or the bottom. I don't see why anyone should stress over whether they get paid big or not. These are all people who voluntarily chose this lifestyle. If they end up with permanent health issues because of that choice, well, tough luck. Two-year-olds get cancer; life isn't fair.

Noah Perez5 said:Goodness gracious, the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party teaming up to govern.

The Republican Party really does seem capable of anything, doesn't it?

Though, I guess it might finally explain why that rather decadent Libertarian Party managed to emerge from bankruptcy back on October 7th, 2021.

Listen, man...🤣Honestly, the only real difference between them is their "ideology," but that’s just for show. It's all an act, I guess. At the end of the day, both sides are just looking to grab as much cash and power as they can, and let's be real—that kind of stuff goes best with the Republican Party.

Matthew Young35 said:Let them burn it all. You aren't wrong.
They were burning books across Germany in 1936, and what happened? Nothing. The German government didn't go around locking everyone up for it.

Man, you absolutely crushed them with that logic. Seriously, just join a local debate club or something, I bet you'd be a world champ in no time.

Anthony Jackson2 said:What SR is talking about is a situation specific to Germany—it doesn't apply anywhere else.

Yeah—kind of like an eight-year-old with blue hair meeting a priest.

It’s the same story in other places too, especially over in England and Sweden, where if you even try to offer some constructive criticism, certain groups just lose their minds and start crying about racism or xenophobia. It's honestly ridiculous. I mean, there’s actually a woman sitting in the UK Parliament whose takes on victims of gang rapes aren't exactly great, either. Seriously.

Anthony Jackson2 said:What SR is talking about is a situation specific to Germany—it doesn't apply anywhere else.

Yeah—kind of like an eight-year-old with blue hair meeting a priest.

🤣
That’s a pretty funny thought, I guess, but it feels like a bit of a stretch to say that applies to everyone.

Anthony Jackson2 said:Give me a break—in the US, they pulled an artistic depiction of Snow White because it supposedly offended Christian sensibilities. What exactly are you talking about? 🤣

And honestly, Vecchio hit the nail on the head in that post—it’s like, what's happening right here in our own backyard shouldn't be used as the yardstick for the entire continent, you know?

What a joke, honestly. They're just lighting whatever they feel like. I mean, they were already doing this back in 2016 over in some random part of the Midwest or something involving KBKK.

wiredfalcon2 said:In our society, sexual crimes are still basically taboo—meaning if it doesn't escalate to full-blown rape involving physical injury or extreme violations of freedom, women usually just endure it and move on. You don't necessarily go to a celebrity athlete's room looking for trouble. Stories I've heard from former roommates and friends clearly show how these things play out: you go on a date, everything seems fine, you end up in a room, kissing, everything's cool, foreplay, all good, penetration starts, all good—then suddenly, without any prior agreement, the guy starts choking, hitting, being overly aggressive, or slapping (not necessarily all at once, just giving examples) because that's what turns him on. And they find themselves in a spot where they initially agreed to sex, but not *that* kind of sex, and frankly, the guy doesn't give a damn. They get scared and just "go through the motions" until it's over so he doesn't get even more violent, and then afterward, you're left feeling violated and confused about what actually happened. Now, someone might say, "What did she expect when sleeping with just anyone?" while those same people will cry about her being "frigid" or whatever because she didn't give in by the fifth date (because she learned from past experiences).

I wouldn't easily believe someone accusing a wealthy person either, but through my work in journalism and personal experiences with acquaintances and friends, I've realized this is a very common occurrence. Whether someone is rich or not is irrelevant to whether they'll do it or not. The difference is that when it's not a wealthy person, it stays under the radar or goes unreported. Besides, there's a massive risk for her in making a false accusation too—if it turns out to be fake, she's permanently disgraced, not to mention the insane legal costs involved.

What legal options do women even have in cases like the ones mentioned above? Like, can they file a rape charge? Or is it just considered some kind of assault or physical abuse?

wiredfalcon2 said:In our society, sexual crimes are still basically taboo—meaning if it doesn't escalate to full-blown rape involving physical injury or extreme violations of freedom, women usually just endure it and move on. You don't necessarily go to a celebrity athlete's room looking for trouble. Stories I've heard from former roommates and friends clearly show how these things play out: you go on a date, everything seems fine, you end up in a room, kissing, everything's cool, foreplay, all good, penetration starts, all good—then suddenly, without any prior agreement, the guy starts choking, hitting, being overly aggressive, or slapping (not necessarily all at once, just giving examples) because that's what turns him on. And they find themselves in a spot where they initially agreed to sex, but not *that* kind of sex, and frankly, the guy doesn't give a damn. They get scared and just "go through the motions" until it's over so he doesn't get even more violent, and then afterward, you're left feeling violated and confused about what actually happened. Now, someone might say, "What did she expect when sleeping with just anyone?" while those same people will cry about her being "frigid" or whatever because she didn't give in by the fifth date (because she learned from past experiences).

I wouldn't easily believe someone accusing a wealthy person either, but through my work in journalism and personal experiences with acquaintances and friends, I've realized this is a very common occurrence. Whether someone is rich or not is irrelevant to whether they'll do it or not. The difference is that when it's not a wealthy person, it stays under the radar or goes unreported. Besides, there's a massive risk for her in making a false accusation too—if it turns out to be fake, she's permanently disgraced, not to mention the insane legal costs involved.

Neymar is basically the ultimate example of what happens when a woman gets too bold with accusations and it ends up being a total disaster.

Peter Thompson4 said:Look, you actually have to vote for her instead of just sitting there acting all high and mighty like, "Oh, they're all too weak, they won't win anyway." Just vote for someone else, literally anyone! Because honestly, who could possibly screw things up more than this current lot? They need to be out of power, and they damn well can't stay up there.

Look, I only vote when there’s actually someone worth picking. If there isn't? I'm voting for Chuck Norris. I don't do that whole "vote for the lesser of two evils" thing—I think that's just a super stupid way to look at it, personally. I usually try to set aside some actual time before any election to dig through the party platforms if there's even one that catches my eye.

brightpilot6 said:I never actually claimed that they wouldn't receive anything; I simply made the point about which elections truly carry weight. If it meant securing a significantly better outcome in the next cycle, both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party would likely agree to lose these elections in a heartbeat, wouldn't they?

I mean, unless some real third party finally steps up and becomes a serious contender—which doesn't look likely anytime soon—these elections feel pretty much like any other, you know?

brightpilot6 said:In all seriousness, my first instinct is that this coordinated effort to undermine the candidate's reputation is coming straight from the political left.

Everyone is busy throwing stones at one another; some claim the Republican nominee is merely a puppet controlled by the establishment elite, while others paint him as nothing more than a traitorous opportunist who abandoned his roots.

Honestly, the only thing I’m actually looking forward to in this election cycle is seeing one of these three "heavyweights" get knocked out in the primary. Wouldn't it be the ultimate circus if the two most polarized figures ended up facing off in the general? It would be like watching heaven and earth collide. 🙏

The real fight, regardless of what happens here, will be during the next midterm elections.

🤣
Yeah, a fight... and honestly, the Republican Party is basically starting with a massive handicap.😁

What the hell is even going on here? I log on and immediately get hit with these intense debates about global warming, extinction, morality, the environment, and whatever else. Honestly, the average guy—you know, the typical consumer, basically an idiot—couldn't care less about the planet or its future.
If the world were to end tomorrow, the only way he’d give a damn is if Lucifer himself guaranteed him he could still surf the web on his new iPhone 13 and order stuff from Amazon in hell. If that was on the table, the average consumer would probably agree to have a cactus shoved up their ass every single day just to make it happen.
Since people like that are the majority and everyone just caters to them, I don't see any point in stressing myself out over some "higher purpose," because the masses will just swallow you whole anyway. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming to be some genius. Personally, I recycle everything like Jeff Goldblum in that movie where he’s playing aliens, and I use my stuff until it literally falls apart, which makes people look at me like I'm a total weirdo.
I used to actually care about all this stuff, but then I just started thinking, "Hey, as long as I'm good right now, who cares?" Once I'm dead, everything can just go straight to hell. After I'm gone, a comet could hit the planet for all I care.
If the believers are right, I'll have bigger things to worry about, like an eternal BBQ, and if they aren't right... well, KBKK. 🤣

Larry Fox5 said:You’re comparing apples to oranges here. You're basically trying to justify why being a criminal pays better. Give me a break. 🤣.

It's not some unique American trait that criminals (at least this kind) find it "easier" to rake in more cash than highly respected, well-paid professionals.

Look, being a criminal absolutely pays if you've got a massive safety net behind you—kind of like how all those big shots in high-level positions at state-run companies back home have. That kind of corruption happens everywhere, whether it's right here in the States, or in Germany, or China. It’s just... I don't know, they've got more experience and they're probably a bit smarter, so they're just better at hiding the tracks.

I don't really know what you guys are even talking about, but honestly, the guy seems totally legit☕.

So, Orbán basically just wiped the floor with the opposition over in Canada. Looks like he snagged another two-thirds majority in Parliament or something. I mean, look, I’m not exactly his biggest fan, but man... I’m kind of loving this win just because now I get to sit back and listen to a bunch of idiots cry about how the guy is somehow worse than Hitler. It's honestly hilarious.🤣

Matthew Young35 said:It isn't just a mess; it's a complete disaster.

And while we're on the subject, what exactly are we going to do about the spread of fake news?

Look, you could call it theft, I guess, but honestly, the only ones who can really complain are Facebook and nobody else. They’re basically the only victims here, though I don't know if "victim" is the right word since they knew what was happening, let it slide, and actually made money off it.
The whole "fake news" term and the concept behind it... man, it just drives me crazy. Some genius thought they were being super clever by rebranding it as something "new," but honestly, it’s about as new as political corruption in D.C. Every single smear campaign is just a way to dump fake news to trash an opponent and flip voters against them. And retractions? If they even bother to publish them, they don't scream it from the rooftops—they just bury them somewhere deep in the back pages where nobody looks.
Depending on whatever vibe the news outlets or TV stations have, they’re all out there running smear campaigns, trying to dig up any dirty laundry they can find. And if they can't find any? Well, maybe they should just make some up. It’s the same deal with ads, political rallies, and those campaign promises that—in what we call one of the most developed democracies—only actually get fulfilled like 33 to 50 percent of the time.
Politicians have been playing dirty to get into power since forever. False election promises aren't technically "fake news," but they're still lies meant to get an edge over the competition. Those guys at Cambridge Analytica? Honestly, they’re pretty damn good at digging up dirt or just creating it, but they don't just pull it out of thin air. They send out agents to target opposing candidates. These agents offer bribes and record everything, so if the candidate takes the bait, boom—they've got enough to leak.
The whole thing hinges on whether someone bites, I guess. And if they do bite, maybe they should get a medal for exposing high-level corruption? Also, they use honey traps, which obviously isn't moral, but it's not like anyone is forcing them to go along with it. Plus, how people view that stuff really depends on the country and local culture. Of course, the candidate they're working for might be even worse, but hey, they hired the better players.
Hillary didn't lose because of Russian interference, or data harvesting, or racism—it was because she was just unpopular. After the election, everyone was talking about how much people disliked her, even though she got more total votes than Trump. But she didn't get those votes because of her; she got them because of Trump and his outbursts. People weren't voting *for* her, they were voting *against* him.
Also, she had the most expensive campaign ever. She was praised everywhere in the media, and every big celebrity was lobbying for her—though I bet that only reaches the people who aren't paying attention. Now, without all that help, she’s less popular than Trump, and it’s pretty bad; it’s a mess globally. She blames everything except herself for the loss. Blames the racists, the bigots, even the people who voted for Jill Stein or skipped her because she messed with Bernie. If you want to know why people don't like her, just look at her video on Gaddafi. He wasn't a saint, but at least the people there lived normally. Now, after they brought "democracy" there, they've got twenty different factions fighting within the country, selling people into slavery, or doing these sick things where they castrate people for fun and force them to fight each other like a sport.

Matthew Young35 said:Well, for heaven's sake... The difference is that the data was STOLEN.

Look, I guess Obama was doing data mining back then too, it's just that Facebook actually let them do it back then. They had this app where voters would basically give permission for their info to be used—and it included their friends' info too, since they were consenting on their behalf. I think Obama's campaign manager even bragged about how they totally leveraged that stuff during the 2012 election at a TED talk. It wasn't exactly the same situation, but yeah, it was all about harvesting data.
But honestly? There's no theft involved because Facebook is a private company. They have these Terms of Service that everyone just clicks "accept" on without ever actually reading. And in those terms, people basically agree to let them use their personal info to provide a "better" service. Check out this quote from the New York Times—pay attention to the bold part.

the data was collected through an app called thisisyourdigitallife, built by academic Aleksandr Kogan, separately from his work at Cambridge University. Through his company Global Science Research (GSR), in collaboration with Cambridge Analytica, hundreds of thousands of users were paid to take a personality test and agreed to have their data collected for academic use.

However, the app also collected the information of the test-takers’ Facebook friends, leading to the accumulation of a data pool tens of millions-strong. Facebook’s “platform policy” allowed only collection of friends’ data to improve user experience in the app and barred it being sold on or used for advertising.

Like I said, Facebook allows data collection, they just don't allow people to sell it. Maybe the only ones who could actually sue are Facebook themselves, though I don't know if they'd even want to, since it wasn't really a theft—just a violation of some informal agreements.

Matthew Young35 said:How can anyone possibly deny it when we’re staring down the barrel of stolen data and a coordinated flood of fake news?

What should we even make of this? Should we just call him incredibly gifted?

The leader steals, peddles fake news, and then acts like the victim the moment someone actually calls them out on it. Is that really how we're playing this?

Seriously, still nobody is actually answering my question. Like, what’s even the difference between an online smear campaign and the old-school stuff you see on TV or in tabloids? With traditional media, if they lie about you, the retraction gets buried on page 28 or aired during some random news segment after midnight. But online? It's different. There isn't really a difference in the *intent*, it's just that modern tech gives individuals this insane level of access. What Cambridge Analytica pulled was a massive breach of trust, period. And honestly, I feel like the only ones who might actually sue them are Meta, and even then, maybe only if they feel like staying in the headlines for this scandal. They basically allow all this data harvesting and targeted ad creation—they even do it themselves!—but then they act surprised when people ask to have their data deleted. There weren't even any real contracts in place; everything was just handled under the table, which is exactly how they got screwed over. I mean, sure, the guy who built that personality test found a loophole in the algorithm and exploited it, even though it broke the rules, but at the end of the day... it's still Facebook's fault.😁

Justin James10 said:Regarding James Anderson5's take on German colonies:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...FhPl8j3YVlZ6a7

As for the telecom industry? Honestly, shouldn't the priority have been breaking up that monopoly to foster real competition, rather than just selling off the whole thing along with the infrastructure in one giant piece?

It’s honestly the same deal as what happened with the banks. They should’ve just sold them off along with their debts, instead of using our tax dollars to bail them out before selling them later. Though, gosh, when you look at how everything else in this country is running lately, maybe it’s probably for the best that they got rid of them.

Paul Sanders5 said:I mean, back in the day, India was probably the richest prize any European nation ever laid eyes on, but the British played it smart. They didn't try to micromanage everything with a massive standing army or shove their own people into every single job from the top down. Instead, they just picked a handful of local maharajas, decked them out in gear, and bought off the elite 😁 Let’s be real, India is way too massive for any single European power to actually keep under control—the population there has always been bigger than all of Europe combined.

If you want a deep dive, look up the Dutch East India Company. Seriously, they were basically the world's first true multinational corporation, complete with their own private military, and they were richer than most actual countries 😁 Think of them as if Apple, Microsoft, and ExxonMobil had a baby 😁

That wasn't even an English invention, honestly. It was more like the Mughals or whoever they were called. They started the whole thing, and the British just copied the playbook. Even the Brits had their own East India Company that worked on the same vibe as the Dutch version.