UFC Fight Night: Strickland vs. Imavov

enough talk about Andrew Tate
he ain't real fighter like Nate
aloha
i've seen more combat than Tulsi Gabbard
she joined the reserves to be a politician
no shame. no shame. no shame.
clapped Kamala into remission
changed sides while blaming allies
pretty faces think they'll always be forgiven
fence sitting, more bland than her new fans
talkin' old white man non-seasoned baked chicken
seems my time is spent well
f*cking up these two-timing checks
Prison Mike is Tapology's magician
be my good luahine and listen

* Edited at 01.02.2023, 10:54 AM ET *

How bad is the judging gonna be for this one...? Don't even wanna watch this sport anymore until they give Petr Yan and Ankaleav their belts that they got robbed of. Strickland getting robbed put a bad taste in my mouth as well. I just can't motivate myself to watch this sport anymore. It's obviously biased and corrupt. So sad whats happening to the sport.

kicking like cro cop
you are now reading
the cream of the crop
the final frontier of free speech
pippity pop
you reach i teach

* Edited at 01.02.2023, 2:50 PM ET *

@ baremarasit's clear that you don't understand what the termracistmeans. I specifically addressed this in the post. Islam--indeed, no brand of faith--constitutes a race. Faiths are ideas. They are types of philosophy. Not only is it not illegal for anyone to criticise and mock them as they wish, it is important that this happens.

If you're going to level the charge of racism at me, you're going to need to explain how I meet that definition. In order to do that, you'll need to establish how religion is race. That is, how they are the same thing.

* Edited at 01.02.2023, 3:44 PM ET *

 baremaras  it is not 'widely agreed upon'. What you're describing is only widely agreed upon within a very niche and particularly demented and irresolvable branch of sociology that is not only illogical, but very new, and mostly relegated to places like reddit. Even assuming what you say is true, it wouldstillbe a logical fallacy. Consensus does not amount to objective truth.

Let's say that tomorrow, more people than not began believing that the half-life alpha-decay rate of uranium 225 was two hours, not 95 milliseconds. The former being incorrect and the latter being correct would not change. Reality would grind on regardless of what anyone thought about it.The point being that simply because a lot of people believe something does not make it so. Wouldn't you agree?

Someone may unconvert from Islam. But nobody may unconvert from being Sudanese or Chinese.

Racism is the persecution of individuals based on their inherent and unchangeable characteristics. Or ethnicity. It cannot, definitionally, have its parameters extended beyond these confines to include anything at all, including ideas, and especially not religions.  Religions are simply cosmologies and moral credos. They are belief systems. They are not fundamentally different from political belief systems. It is no more racist to criticise Islam than it is to criticise flat-earth theories.

If I were to follow your line of reasoning (or more accurately lack thereof) to its natural conclusion, you would meet the definition of racism under your own terms, because your usage of the term 'far right-winger' would fall under the very definition of racism that you have provided. I'm not going to do that, however, because I reject that definition because it is predicated on absurdity.

Thanks for playing, though.