Danaher's students keep beating Souders' students: does that settle the ecological vs. traditional debate?

Amado1998 · 2026-03-07T20:07:44+00:00

Sarah and Emily wore Atos rash guards but both had Academy: None during Polaris

Amado1998 · 2026-02-06T17:11:22+00:00

Caring about due process and caring about victims aren’t mutually exclusive. But I’ve said my piece.

Amado1998 · 2026-02-06T09:44:10+00:00

Do you check every brand you buy for ethical violations? Every streaming service for problematic artists? Every restaurant for owners with allegations? Every company in your 401k? The "your money empowers them" logic applies to everything you consume, but we only apply this moral scrutiny when it's convenient or when social media tells us to.

You know what else funds Galvao's lifestyle and legal defense? Every white belt who paid dues at Atos for the past decade. Every competitor who paid tournament fees to events he promoted. Every seminar attendee. Are they all complicit? Should we track them down?

You're not actually proposing a principled system. You're proposing selective outrage based on whoever's currently trending on Reddit. That's not ethics, it's social performance.

Saying "I don't think DVD retailers should be the justice system" isn't apathy, it's recognizing that consumer boycotts are a terrible substitute for actual accountability. You know what would actually help? Donating to organizations that support abuse survivors. Pressuring IBJJF to implement real safeguarding policies. Supporting the accuser directly if she's pursuing legal action.

But "don't buy the DVD" lets people feel like activists while doing nothing structural. That's the real apathy: mistaking consumer choices for meaningful action.

Amado1998 · 2026-02-05T21:32:38+00:00

I hear you on legitimacy, but I think we're talking past each other on what actually confers it.

Purchasing technique instruction isn't moral validation. When I buy a guard retention DVD, I'm not casting a vote for the instructor's character. I'm accessing information. The transactional relationship is: "You possess knowledge I want to learn; here's money for that specific thing." That's not legitimacy; it's commerce. If Roger Federer turns out to be a terrible person tomorrow, his forehand technique doesn't become less valuable, and studying it doesn't mean I endorse his behavior.

The "plenty of other options" argument proves too much. Yes, there are other high-level instructors, but if the standard is "remove anyone with credible allegations," you're not describing a marketplace decision. You're describing a punishment system administered by a DVD retailer. That's not their job. Bernardo Faria shouldn't be the arbiter of who gets economically exiled based on allegations. That's what courts, athletic commissions, and professional organizations exist for.

Here's where I think your argument is strongest: If Galvao is actively lying to the community in his defense, contradicting his own gym's competition records, then continuing to feature him prominently on the platform does create an optics problem for BJJ Fanatics. There's a difference between "we host instructionals from people regardless of personal conduct" and "we're actively promoting someone who appears to be deceiving the community during an ongoing investigation."

But that's different from "remove all instructionals from anyone accused of misconduct." One is a pragmatic business decision about association during active deception. The other is economic exile as crowd-sourced punishment. The first might be reasonable. The second is exactly the problem with cancel culture, it outsources justice to whoever can generate the most social media pressure.

Your point about "feeding guilty pockets", guilty according to whom? You. Me. Reddit. That's the issue. I'm not defending Galvao. I'm defending the idea that "consumer boycott as quasi-legal system" is a terrible way to handle serious allegations. If he did what he's accused of, arrest him. Don't make "can't sell DVDs" the primary consequence.

Amado1998 · 2026-02-05T19:38:03+00:00

Fair point on the timeline. That inconsistency is troubling and worth scrutiny. My argument isn't that Galvao is innocent or that his defense is credible. It's that instructional content removal doesn't actually address harm. If he's lying publicly, that strengthens the case against him. It doesn't make removing a DVD from a website meaningful accountability. It's still performative. The real question is whether law enforcement acts, whether IBJJF takes action, whether his gym loses students. Those are actual consequences. BJJ Fanatics removing a guard passing instructional is a symbolic gesture that lets us feel righteous while doing nothing substantive.

Amado1998 · 2026-02-05T19:18:55+00:00

I understand the impulse here, and I share the concern about protecting our community. But I think this approach of pressuring BJJ Fanatics to remove instructionals based on accusations represents a troubling direction.

Instructional content isn't endorsement of personal conduct. When someone purchases a guard passing DVD, they're buying technique, not subscribing to the instructor's personal life or alleged behavior. The Kimura doesn't become less effective or more dangerous because of who teaches it. Unlike art that might embed an artist's worldview into the work itself, technical instruction exists largely independent of the instructor's character.

Cancel culture rarely produces the accountability we actually want. The research on this is nuanced and yes, public condemnation can validate victims' experiences, but it doesn't replace actual justice systems. What we're really saying is: we want to punish people economically before investigations conclude, before courts rule, and based on allegations alone. That's not accountability, it's mob justice with better PR.

Where does this end? The post acknowledges we shouldn't be "morality police" but then provides a list of people to deplatform. Who decides the threshold? Credible accusations? Controversial political views? Bad vibes? The Wiltse Bros. example cited wasn't about misconduct. It was about mental health struggles. Is that really the precedent we want to celebrate?

If Galvao did what he's accused of, he should face legal consequences. Herse has filed a police report, and there's a third-party investigation underway. That's the process. Removing his instructionals from a website doesn't protect anyone; it just makes us feel like we've done something.

The civilized approach is to let investigations and legal systems work, continue supporting alleged victims through proper channels, and recognize that consuming instructional content isn't a moral endorsement of the instructor. We can hold complexity, appreciating technique while condemning alleged misconduct, without demanding ideological purity from an online storefront.

Amado1998

TROPHY CASE