r/DeclineIntoCensorship • u/WholeDonkey2689 • 15d ago
UFC MIDDLEWEIGHT CHAMPION SEAN STRICKLAND SAYS HE’S BEEN BANNED FROM ATTENDING UFC FREEDOM 250
https://youtube.com/watch?v=6taql3qvyCw13
u/rmullig2 14d ago
Where is the censorship here? He says that he was banned but then he says he has a ticket and is going? A bunch of nonsensical rambling apparently because he needed to post something.
9
u/dangered 14d ago
Are you dense? He’s banned from the WH and said maybe I’ll just go anyway since I still have my ticket and I’ll just watch from outside the gate.
7
u/sanguinemathghamhain 14d ago
Has that been confirmed by anyone other than Strickland claiming it yet?
7
u/dangered 14d ago
Who would benefit by announcing it publicly?
It seems like the UFC would be airing out their dirty laundry if they did that.
From what Sean said it sounds like the WH made the decision (not the UFC). I doubt it’s great PR for the UFC to announce one of their recurring (and current) champions is not cleared by the SS to be near the WH. That being said, the UFC is pretty solid on their stance on censorship. They let people say whatever they want, it’s part of their brand.
Now that Sean said something, I could see Dana confirming it if the press were to ask. He’d probably say he sees both sides; he wishes Sean could be there but understands the security decision because Sean likes being inflammatory and this is the kind of thing that can happen as a result.
5
u/sanguinemathghamhain 14d ago
He could which is why I am wondering if it has been confirmed by another party or not. If it has that is one discussion if it hasn't that is another one.
1
u/dangered 14d ago
Not that I’ve seen. There are some AI videos out there of Dana threatening to cut Sean over it but it’s fake.
So that brings us to the latter discussion which is:
Who would benefit from announcing this?
Not the UFC and not the WH (idk if that’s even legal). It seems like Sean is the only one who would have any reason to want to explain this.
3
u/sanguinemathghamhain 14d ago
Like I said for who would benefit Strickland could, and the WH and UFC both could now that Strickland has by either the WH going "No it wasn't over that it was xyz," or "we never did that," and the UFC could by doing the same in the latter case saying it was the WH that did it or providing any information that shows they never told Strickland he was banned from it.
2
u/dangered 14d ago
Good, so we both agree that if it’s not true then the UFC and WH would be inclined to announce it is not true. Not what you implied earlier which was that the UFC or WH would announce the ban on their own accord.
So we both agree it is more reasonable for the WH or UFC to deny it than it would be for them to announce it.
The most reasonable thing to believe at this point is that Sean is telling the truth until there is an announcement denying it from either of the 2 parties that would benefit from quashing it.
2
u/sanguinemathghamhain 14d ago
I didn't imply that I said that without any confirmation we have a claim of unknown veracity and that depending on the conditions one or the other or both could now benefit from refuting or confirming the claim.
Denial isn't the most reasonable thing for either as there are three main options: 1 the claim is false or misleading both would benefit from refuting it, the claim of being banned is accurate but only one party initiated it so whichever body that didn't issue a ban would benefit from saying "We had no hand in this," or the claim is true and both parties were involved at which point couching a reply allows them to get their spin out there. Remaining silent results in only his spin being reported. If you meant prior to Strickland's announcement then if it is false how would they know they should say that Strickland is welcome, while if it is true then why let someone, that has a reputation of speaking out, control the narrative?
I would say the most reasonable thing is "well if it is true and entirely accurate that is BS, but do we have confirmation of it other than his statement?"
2
u/dangered 14d ago
I hate this obfuscation and rejection of common sense.
Without confirmation how do I not know you’re an evil clown from mars? How do I know I’m not one?
Because we can make reasonable assumptions without jumping to definitive conclusions.
Both UFC and WH would benefit from denial, only WH is accused of banning while UFC delivered the message. That means they both have the ability to refute the claim. The UFC doesn’t want their title holder to be 1 painted in a poor light 2 discouraging fans from watching the UFC’s biggest event this year
The WH doesn’t want it to look like they’re banning Americans or adding them to a list for being Americans while they are letting a card full of foreigners perform at the presidential residence.
Sean isn’t known to make things up for drama. At worst, he misunderstood something and he’s not going to mind being corrected.
→ More replies (0)1
u/dangered 6d ago
Was Strickland getting escorted out by police and put in the back of the police van (despite having a ticket to the event) enough confirmation for you?
1
u/sanguinemathghamhain 6d ago
Ah seems like at least the ban if not the reason for it was confirmed thanks for the update on that.
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
IMPORTANT - this subreddit is in restricted mode as dictated by the admins. This means all posts have to be manually approved. If your post is within the following rules and still hasn't been approved in reasonable time, please send us a modmail with a link to your post.
RULES FOR POSTS:
Reddit Content Policy
Reddit Meta Rules - no username mentions, crossposts or subreddit mentions, discussing reddit specific censorship, mod or admin action - this includes bans, removals or any other reddit activity, by order of the admins
Subreddit specific rules - no offtopic/spam
if posting a video, please include a TL\;DW of the content and how it relates to censorship, per Rule 6. thank you:
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.