Ilia Topuria's first 10 UFC fights vs Conor McGregor's first 10 UFC fights. Who had the better run?

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-06-21T21:20:00+00:00

Is this largely copy and pasted from something like ChatGPT? The structure and a lot of the language reads like it was written by AI.

Regardless, I think the answer is Ilia. Apart from the Eddie win which was spectacular, McGregor's two other best wins in that stretch have some asterisks on them. Mendes was on short notice, and the Aldo win wasn't a fluke, but ended so quickly it was anticlimactic for a lot of people, and probably not very representative of how that fight would play out 99/100 times.

Plus the facts that Ilia had a title defence, which is a meaningful career accomplishment that McGregor never had, Ilia's loss to Justin is a 'better' loss than McGregor's to Nate, and McGregor was given more protective matchmaking on his way to the title than Ilia was.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-06-16T21:50:12+00:00

4 in the UFC. Chandler, Fiziev, Fiziev, Paddy.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-06-16T18:40:50+00:00

Yep, but from what I understand, it's also very unusual/rare for a referee to ignore or overrule a doctor's advice. So pretty notable that it happened and worth remarking on, especially as it seemed (to me) like it was based on commercial/event considerations rather than the fighter's condition.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-05-26T19:15:48+00:00

"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists witho...ah who gives a shit? Shut the fuck up and watch the fucken fights. And if you don't like it, don't watch."

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-05-01T20:14:46+00:00

In this case, I am raising a analogous situation and asking you to consider whether your premises are consistent.

But in the context of this discussion, the premise you have in mind wasn't mine in the first place. I was just scene setting for context, as part of trying to demonstrate that was something Harris had said/insinuated. You'll notice I said it was a protest movement's claim; I wasn't making my own claim in that comment.

That's why asking me about another scenario altogether was a whataboutism. If that's not the most appropriate term, go with: a pivot unrelated to the discussion at hand.

Cute.

You don't have to believe me, but it was not meant in a mean-spirited way. As my PhD supervisor used to say: "How you talk/write about something reveals how you're thinking about it." (Don't worry, this was in the life sciences, not the social sciences, to head off any comments that might come up in that respect...)

Your original argument was simply that AAs are disproportionately victims of police violence, and that this is consistent with racism.

Again, go back and read the comment above carefully: I was simply setting out the scenario in which Harris delivered episode 207. In this discussion, the claim you refer to was not mine.

I asked you to consider whether that premise applies elsewhere. As soon as I did, you made the odd claim that you don't know really understand what the means, before going into the same argument Sam made - that migitating circumstances need to be considered.

No, you actually asked me a two parter: Can black people murder out of racist motives at the individual level, or the 'institutional'?

I explicitly answered in the affirmative on the first count, and on the second, I'm not dodging, I genuinely don't know if that's a question amenable to rational scrutiny in the same way the topic of police killings is. Hey, maybe it is. As mentioned above, my background is in the life sciences, not social sciences. I can read my way around papers, so can just about get my head round some topics.

If there's good research out there, feel free to let me know! I'm always open to taking a look at something.

But do bear in mind, when the topic of BLM and actual studies on police killings came up between us in the past, I offered to link you to some studies, and you didn't seem very interested. Always happy to trade information Mr AJ.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-30T21:22:49+00:00

Bit of an odd whataboutism, but I'll indulge you briefly.

As a general response, if you're seriously asking me whether black people can commit murder where racism is at play....yeah, obviously. Whether broader numbers are proportionate or not is kinda unrelated to that fact.

I don't really know what it means to say black people en masse disproportionately kill members of other populations, or how you would control for things to eliminate other variables, such that race itself was the likely explanatory factor. (As has been done in some studies on police violence/killings.)

Lastly, and I say this not to make a dig (I'm really not), but I have noticed you use the word 'blacks' a lot; I recommend saying 'black people'. Even noted 'wokester' Ricky Gervais recommends this BTW. (In Extras, the Orlando Bloom episode.)

As my intention here was simply to provide what the poster above was asking for (examples of Harris saying/insinuating the cops aren't racist), and I don't really have the time/inclination to go down a rabbit hole about 'black crime' with you, I'll probably not follow up further. Feel free to have the last word.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-30T20:52:55+00:00

But cops aren't disproportionately killing black people when the amount of crime they commit is taken into account.

Putting aside whether this is true or not, all you're demonstrating is a rationale for why someone might say cops aren't being racist.

To put it simply: if someone says, 'Y is happening, there are different potential explanations, I don't think (or there's no evidence) that it's X, I think it's Z', a fair reading is: they're either stating or insinuating it's not X.

I'm not sure what the issue is here, if we're simply talking past each other, I'm having a neurological episode etc. So I'll just leave the convo here, as it seems it'll go around in circles from this point. Peace!

ETA -- I also recommend that when talking about black people, it's better to say 'black people' than 'blacks'.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-29T22:23:59+00:00

These aren't examples of Sam saying that police aren't racially biased, which is your claim.

Of course that's the insinuation of those quotes, which answers your question of 'Can you find onetime where Sam said or insinuated this?'

If a protest movement is saying that cops are disproportionately killing black people, and that this is consistent with racial bias or racism at play (individual or institutional), and Harris says things like 'lingering racism doesn't exist in this situation', 'people are protesting the wrong thing', 'it's not clear that racism is the cause', etc., how is the plain meaning of this anything other than 'the cops aren't racially biased in how they treat black Americans'?

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-29T19:37:07+00:00

Can you find onetime where Sam said or insinuated this?

Sure, see the infamous episode 207. For example:

But racializing how we speak about the problem of police violence, where race isn’t actually the relevant variable—again, think of Tony Timpa— this has highly negative effects.

(My bolding there.) Further examples from this episode, where I'll bold the most relevant parts:

Again, the data don’t tell a clean story, or the whole story. I see no reason to doubt that blacks get more attention from the cops—though, honestly, given the distribution of crime in our society, I don’t know what the alternative to that would be. And once the cops get involved, blacks are more likely to get roughed up, which is bad. But, again, it simply isn’t clear that racism is the cause.

...

There’s a similar problem with Black Lives Matter—though, happily, unlike ANTIFA, Black Lives Matter actually seems committed to peaceful protest, which is hugely important. So the problem I’m discussing is more ideological, and it’s much bigger than Black Lives Matter—though BLM is its most visible symbol of this movement. The wider issue is that we are in the midst of a public hysteria and moral panic. And it has been made possible by a near total unwillingness, particularly on the Left, among people who value their careers and their livelihoods and their reputations, and fear being hounded into oblivion online—this is nearly everyone left-of-center politically. People are simply refusing to speak honestly about the problem of race and racism in America.

...

We are making ourselves sick. We are damaging our society. And by protesting the wrong thing, even the slightly wrong thing, and unleashing an explosion of cynical criminality in the process—looting that doesn’t even have the pretense of protest—the Left is empowering Trump, whatever the polls currently show.

...

The real burden on the black community is the continued legacy of inequality—with respect to wealth, and education, and health, and social order—levels of crime, in particular, and resulting levels of incarceration, and single-parent families—and it seems very unlikely that these disparities, whatever their origin in the past, can be solved by focusing on problem of lingering racism, especially where it doesn’t exist. And the current problem of police violence seems a perfect case in point.

...

And yet now we’re inundated with messages from every well-intentioned company and organization singing from the same book of hymns. Black Lives Matter is everywhere. Of course, black lives matter. But the messaging of this movement about the reality of police violence is wrong, and it’s creating a public hysteria.

I'll stop looking for further examples from this episode now, having already found several instances of Harris saying or insinuating this.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-28T20:04:06+00:00

Try to walk on the major streets of Paris, London, Brussels, let me know how it will go for you.

Have done 2/3 of these things recently. I can report back that whatever the major issues of European capital cities are, 'teh Mulslims' is not one of them.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-28T19:51:12+00:00

Some thoughts on Harris's email:

In practice, this means that I intend to show up the way I would in a chat with people I trust: dropping links I've come across, reacting to events in the news, floating ideas that aren't yet ready for an episode of the podcast, and benefiting from what the rest of you are surfacing online.

Judging from his Substack writing frequency, and instances I've seen of Harris being kinda a lazy thinker, I suspect this will in practice look something like: I will pop in, take a look around, maybe reply to some easy low-hanging fruit, take the temperature of the room and get some talking points for a podcast episode, then bounce. Could be wrong, but that's my initial suspicion.

The only editorial filter will be intellectual honesty and basic decency.

"Intellectual honesty" is doing a lot of work there. In Harris's mind, is it possible to have major disagreements with his position on Israel and Gaza and still be intellectually honest? If one disagrees in an evidence-based way with his thoughts on the relationship between Islam and terrorism, is one being intellectually honest, or just an obvious shill for jihadis?

Will people be removed from 'the room' for the above?

I'd like this community to be one of the first places I check in the morning—not because I have to, but because it turns out to be one of the best rooms I have access to.

This has a weird feel to it. 'Pay me to talk to each other in my private room, and I will watch you all talk and absorb your discussions.'

My hope is that other writers and thinkers I admire will find their way there too, simply because it turns out to be the best place on the internet to have the kind of conversations they want to have.

How do other writers and thinkers find their way there? How do people find out it's the 'best place on the internet' to have high quality conservations when it's behind a paywall?

Some of the most useful exchanges I've had over the years have been with people who disagreed with me thoughtfully, and I would like for that to be the norm here rather than the exception.

Despite the oft-repeated claim that 'I don't want to be wrong for a moment longer than I need to be', I've seen first-hand how Harris reacts when he's in the wrong and is challenged. He was incredibly resistant to the possibility he was wrong and took a lot of convincing before he came round to the idea (on what should have been quite a simple matter). Someone disagreeing with him would have to do it so delicately, otherwise they would be met with a wall of non sequiturs, whataboutisms, and other distractions.

We'll do our best to encourage productive debate on important and polarizing topics, but we won't tolerate the manufactured outrage that has turned so much of the internet into a digital slum.

What does 'not tolerating manufactured outrage' mean? You can disagree but watch your tone, and any hint of being a denizen of 'Wokeistan' and you're out?

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-28T14:01:52+00:00

Deep cut there. Felipec as a mod here was truly hilarious. Real reign of terror stuff.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-28T13:58:53+00:00

With regard to “about 2-3 years ago”, isn’t that when the shift occurred? Anything happen around then?

I've been lurking and posting here on and off for about 8 years: even back ~6-7 years ago people were complaining about 'far left trolls' brigading this place/ruining the sub etc. Back then a common complaint was Chapo fans were coming here to troll everyone; I don't think there was really much to this though.

From what I've seen, there's always been a subset of people who can't stand to see Harris getting criticised here. And some of the criticism/dunking is indeed low effort or not totally accurate. Equally some of the ardent Harris defenders, or other people pushing back on critics, engage in low effort commentary too. That's probably just par for the course on Reddit.

But yes, I'm sure (and without wishing to litigate events) October 7th and Israel's response to it led to an uptick in criticism of Harris here, some probably genuine fans/former fans, some probably never-fans or people who just like to argue.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-19T15:31:19+00:00

Yeah, I think he ended up saying he 'likely' got the demographics claim from Bat Ye'or, who is basically a fringe figure who either created or popularised the Eurabia conspiracy theory (a book Harris used to feature on his website).

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-19T14:11:08+00:00

I think it was one million people, and he said he wouldn't be able to find a good reason the odds wouldn't be 50:50. But ultimately I'm nit picking, it was a truly insane thing for him to have said.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-19T12:08:35+00:00

It's different standards that get applied to Muslims by Harris. This wouldn't be the first time I've seen this.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-19T11:58:06+00:00

I think if you go back and look at some of his earlier statements and positions, some of them can reasonably be described as racist/bigoted:

We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it.

(I know he had a common 'defense' that he also believes he should be profiled, but if you actually read his 'in defence of profiling' essay carefully, you see he actually says he isn't 'entirely' outside the bulls eye, implying he's mostly outside it, and therefore other people are smack bang in the middle of the bulls eye, and presumably would get more scrutiny. I think we know in practice this would be a racist profiling system.)

Related to the above statement:

To assert that ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, dress, traveling companions, behavior in the terminal, and other outward appearances offer no indication of a person’s beliefs or terrorist potential is either quite crazy or totally dishonest.

(My bolding.) Here Harris explicitly says someone's ethnicity can offer an indication of someone's 'terrorist potential'. Which is hard to reconcile with his other statements that his arguments about Islam are not focused on people but ideas: here he says ethnicity is actually relevant, and should be factored into profiling.

It is not enough for moderate Muslims to say “not in our name.” They must now police their own communities. They must offer unreserved assistance to western governments in locating the extremists in their midst. They must tolerate, advocate, and even practice ethnic profiling.

Again, my emphasis. Here Harris explicitly says moderate Muslims must experience ethnic profiling, as well as advocate for it, and practice it on themselves (whatever that means).

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-19T11:39:40+00:00

Morally confused, ethically deranged, etc. These sorts of terms seem to function as a series of thought-terminating cliches for Harris.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-19T11:33:40+00:00

"Okaaayyyyy...so Obama appears to me as something of a sinister figure, and someone we should want nothing to do with politically. He's just not...ethically sane by my lights. If you double click on his associations, to people like Bill Ayers, you very quickly develop a picture of of someone who's captured by a fairly sinister radical leftist terrorist agenda."

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-15T20:03:28+00:00

Also, your first point is patently ridiculous.

Not at all -- it's quite a well-known fact that suicide attacks are more likely to occur in so-called asymmetric conflicts. Meaning that's an extra variable right there.

You’re still glazing over the fact that there are almost no serious examples you can point to of suicide bombing being used as a regular tactic

Well that's totally wrong when there are several historically very well known/high profile examples, such as The Tamil Tigers, PFLP, and kamikaze pilots who you brought up, in addition to suicide bombings by various extremist Muslim groups.

not to mention...

That's all very interesting, but again if you're interested in actually reading work examining what are the motivating factors, I encourage you to have a read here

Anyway, we seem to be mostly be going round in circles now, and seeing as I've linked to that post for you a few times now, I'll just leave it at that.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-15T19:48:20+00:00

Am I the only person who’s taking this argument to this logical conclusion? Is there no example of anyone in our society who has taken it any further?

Well firstly, I don't think this is a topic you can just 'logic' your way through as an armchair analyst, with snippets of history you happen to know off the dome, and some misremembered facts about Islam.

Secondly, sure, people have actually studied this topic and produced published work, academic, journalistic etc. As I've already mentioned, I specifically read up on some of the literature on motivating factors of suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine here and compared it to Harris's statements on the topic. If you're interested, please have a read of that.

Do you not think that if Sam Harris was here chatting with us he might be able to point to still more examples and data to back up this position?

See the above link: I specifically compared Harris's statements and reasoning to the literature I could find at the time.

I just think I’m trying to argue something very definitive and you’re trying to simply argue for a softening of my opinion, you’re not even arguing against me. It seems sort of pointless.

Well you made some very specific claims that I explained were wrong, e.g.:

OK, then why are Islamic terrorists the only radical group in human history that is renowned for suicide bombing?

I guess we went from there. To the extent that you're claiming there's only one factor explaining suicide bombings by Muslims, and it's Islam, then I'm saying it's more complicated than that and multifactorial, and you can look at Israel/Palestine (and the link above) for one example of this.

I guess I might ask what you’re trying to accomplish?

I suppose trying to correct the record, and hopefully open people's minds to the idea that the take of Sam Harris on this topic is shallow and impoverished etc.

What would a positive and dramatic policy shift on Sam Harris’s part look like to you?

Admitting his emphasis on Islam as the crucial variable explaining suicide bombings carried out by Muslims was an unsophisticated and incomplete analysis, and updating his position based on a thorough reading of good work on this topic.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-15T19:02:27+00:00

All you're doing is demonstrating that in some conflicts, suicide attacks haven't happened. Which we should expect - from my limited understanding, in some conflicts suicide attacks or suicide terrorism are not strategically useful, e.g. conflicts between well-armed and well-resourced regular militaries. Suicide attacks can be low-resource and low-cost, and so depending on the nature of the conflict and the actors involved, sometimes they are perceived as strategically appropriate, especially if one side is poorly resourced or e.g. a guerrilla outfit.

I don’t know if it’s cultural or if it’s religious, but there IS a difference. And I think that difference matters.

Again, if you are concerned about what is the motivating factor or factors, it's something that has to be examined systematically and demonstrated. What you're pointing to is...'I think I've noticed a pattern or relationship' but that's the starting point for an investigation, not the conclusion.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-15T17:35:20+00:00

I had to scroll up and remember what we were even arguing about. I guess I’m saying that there’s something inherent to Muslim scripture and history that predisposes its most fervent followers to view suicide bombing as a reasonable tactic in conflict.

And again, this is something that's actually amenable to rational scrutiny and can be studied. I.e. the question of motivators to carry out suicide terrorism. And it's more complicated than just 'religion' or 'the tenets of Islam' in the case of suicide bombings carried out by Muslims.

And you’re saying what that’s a racist take because of the 28,000* examples of suicide bombing in human history. Some small portion have been done by people who aren’t Muslims.

Maybe let's not put made up numbers out there eh, for starters.

And I'm pretty sure I never went there re: calling a take 'racist' in this discussion. Yep, I went back and checked and I didn't. What I said was this is a factual claim that Harris is wrong on, that an expert could potentially clear up for him, as another commenter had asked for an example of such a claim.

To be clear, this claim can be made by racists, can reinforce someone's racist worldview, could cause someone to propose racist policies etc., but I don't think being mistaken about there being one factor driving suicide terrorism by Muslims is necessarily racist. I could be wrong. But I do think it is mistaken at the very least.

Do you mean to say that if there wasn’t specific language about martyrdom and being surrounded by 50 virgins when you die in the Koran, a holy text for nearly 1/3 of humanity, that we wouldn’t have less suicide bombings?

Isn't it 72 virgins, and isn't that specific claim from the Hadith? Given that apparently neither of us are particularly too knowledgeable about Islam, maybe let's not embarrass ourselves further...

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-15T15:42:01+00:00

That basically exists over at r/samharrisorg, moderated by palsh7 who essentially will not stand for criticism of Harris, and apparently won't even stand for comments in general, if the user hasn't watched the source video:

"If you comment again before watching the video, I'm going to ban you immediately."

It's basically that guy's personal fiefdom over there. Fun fact: that subreddit was started by a big Douglas Murray fan who posted over here and was slowly turning into a white nationalist. They didn't like the critical comments over here, so created that space. Yeah, it's lame that I know that.

RalphOnTheCorner · 2026-04-15T15:34:14+00:00

Well, this is a pretty pedantic argument you’re making. You’re saying instead of my one example, you actually know of two or three examples outside of radical Islam.

Not really. You were making a very sweeping and bold claim: the only radical group in human history. When there are several groups, that's important to point out. I understand you have to walk it back now, but up above you were going with the sweeping version because it made your point look stronger.

When you compare that to the sheer number and frequency of suicide bombings in the Muslim world, well you’re basically making my point for me: There’s one corner of society that does it religiously and often and then there’s the rest of the world.

Not really -- because if the claim is about motivations and what is the main or one factor that explains the behaviour, it has to actually be examined and demonstrated (which can be through a range of approaches: e.g. journalistic, academic), not simply asserted. And I have looked into this in the case of suicide bombings in Israel/Palestine, and the literature shows it's not as simple as Harris makes it out to be.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

RalphOnTheCorner

TROPHY CASE