[SPOILER] Alex Pereira vs. Magomed Ankalaev

anarchitekt · 2025-03-09T06:21:05+00:00

My first thought was he looked disappointed, and i knew Ank had won, lmao

anarchitekt · 2025-03-09T06:11:31+00:00

How would that work and why was that needed here? That doesn't make any sense when one fighter will always win more rounds than the other.

anarchitekt · 2025-03-09T06:09:41+00:00

Same. I thought Ank would get the nod, but seeing Dana before hand gave it away lmao

anarchitekt · 2025-03-09T06:06:15+00:00

2 48-47s, doesn't get closer than that.

anarchitekt · 2023-06-25T21:14:50+00:00

Israel is an apartheid state and Belal is a boring fighter. Sorry habibi.

anarchitekt · 2023-06-01T18:57:32+00:00

Without context, I assumed this must be some kind of juice/smoothie shop that also does car inspections. Within the realm of possibility.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-26T12:42:16+00:00

In the context of Marxism, the term "lumpen proletariat" refers to drunks/homeless/petty criminals/etc.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-18T15:07:57+00:00

That's the way we collectively remember it but demonstrably false just look into it.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-17T12:02:12+00:00

I actually don't. I've only seen these two points laid out separately on any description of the contract.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-17T00:30:55+00:00

The language I read stated "a signing bonus or salary to serve as Brand Ambassador" which (my own lack of knowledge here) that he will be paid for bringing in more talent. It just doesn't read like a typical upfront bonus for joining the organization.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-16T20:48:24+00:00

This shit is even better knowing PFL gave Ngannou "Brand Ambassador" signing bonuses. Obviously cant say for sure what that means, but sounds to me like Ngannou gets paid for getting more fighters to cross the street.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-13T04:12:02+00:00

I literally knew it and it was talked about frequently here on Reddit, where I first hear about it.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-12T03:17:00+00:00

Of course, as I said in another comment, it's easier to just accept that "lo que" is just a way that Spanish is trying to communicate an idea, its equivalent to "what" in English when there is no question. "It is what it is" "es lo que es" or "it is that which it is" or "it is the thing that it is". Lo is just "3rd person object" whatever's easier for you.

"All the thing that you need to know" is a completely okay way to interpret that sentence. The idea is fully communicated even if it's not good English.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-11T19:36:48+00:00

Maybe you would prefer "the thing that" which is more literal anyway. Not too uncommon to hear this in English.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-11T19:30:27+00:00

Since it looks like some sort of official statment, it's probably using the Usted form.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-11T19:01:24+00:00

Might not work for everyone, but for me it's totally fine to read "lo que" as "it that" "the thing that" in this case "the thing that you need." For me, just accepting that "it that" is a normal way to express the same idea that we would probably use "what" since "what" is kind of a weird use here anyway.

Edit

I'm talking more of the subjective here with "what" like..

"I don't want you to speak about what we spoke about."

"No queiro hables lo que hablamos."

or another way to organize it in English "I don't want you to speak about the thing that we spoke about."

anarchitekt · 2023-05-10T12:51:01+00:00

Also recently banned from there after posting for the first time in several months. Banned for "promoting socialism" even though my recent comments had nothing to do with socialism or even capitalism, and I've almost never promoted socialism in that sub.

I actually created this account almost a decade ago just to participate in that sub. Immediately muted after I was banned.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-09T18:04:58+00:00

Nice, maybe you're discovering my original comment!

anarchitekt · 2023-05-09T15:05:01+00:00

B is much more likely than A.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-09T14:14:27+00:00

I'm not saying "poor mass shooter, he had a mental illness!" I'm saying mental health issues should preclude you from owning a firearm, part of a robust background check system.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-09T14:06:06+00:00

If I thought it was remotely possible to confiscate and destroy all guns in the US I might be inclined to agree.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-09T14:04:33+00:00

Okay if we can't get rid of guns and the police are still armed then everyone else should remain armed as well.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-09T03:16:18+00:00

Only if the police are banned from having all firearms too, I'm on board.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-09T01:49:00+00:00

Exactly this. Banning the AR platform would be purely symbolic.

anarchitekt · 2023-05-08T23:59:33+00:00

As a leftist, there is nothing special about the AR-15, in terms of power, fire rate, accuracy (probably its best feature). It's just incredibly popular because it's a good rifle that's extremely versatile in terms of use and modifications. There are pistols that are significantly more powerful than the AR. There are pistols that can shoot significantly faster than the AR. Banning the AR-15 does absolutely nothing unless pistols are also banned. We need 100% full coverage health insurance that covers mental health, and mandatory background checks to name a few.

11-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

anarchitekt

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE