Comments

  1. says

    i could care less about people who say they could care less when they mean they couldn’t care less.

    #wordsareimportant

    that said, at least it’s a mistake made for a *good* reason.

    although, call me crazy, i’d rather they care enough to actively support rather than pretend we’re in a place where ambivalence should be the proper response.

  2. says

    I guess what’s puzzling is when I hear people talk about how it’ll be “harder” for UFC (or, if you prefer, pro-Football) types to Come Out, because of….uh…”concern to their physical safety”

    um…exsqueeze me? baking powder? if you’re concerned about physical safety in coming out and you’re in those types of professions or hobbies then …. well, no. i remain utterly confused.

    but hey, we have people who can drop into a war zone full of armed guerillas and yet still can’t bring themselves to drop into a local potluck back home with their boyfriend…

  3. GregV says

    I’ve never understood why so many adults use those words nonsensically. It’s the equivalent of him trying to compliment his bride by telling her that “All the world’s princesses could be more beautiful than you.”

    That’s minor though. His intentions are what count, and I appreciate them. Kiwi makes a good point though. I would rather a bus driver tell Rosa Parks that she has as much right as anyone to a seat and that any harrassers will be told that they are not welcome on the bus rather than just telling her that “I don’t particularly care where you sit.”

  4. Bollux says

    @PDX GUY You are correct. Modal verbs like “could”, “should” and “might” often work as counterfactual of counterintentional whether accompanied by negation or not, especially when used in future constructions. “Are you going to clean your room?” “Well, I could.”

    Dana is not using “could” as if he said “I could talk when I was 18 months old.” He is instead issuing a conditional apodosis.

    Both expressions are best taken as idioms of identical meaning at this point. As idioms they transcend the meaning of their constituent parts.

    Modals and idioms are the purview of pragmatics, and caution should be taken when demanding literal truth values for them.

  5. UFFDA says

    BOLLUX – that was great, somehow it made Dana a whole lot sexier, like all those words swelled his bulge up real nice, firming his shorts around his ass, so that I couldn’t care more.

  6. Syrax says

    He is not supporting, he’s just not against, it’s different. I can remember at least two fighters, both Brazilians just like me, saying that MMA was no sport for gays. Minotauro was one IIRC. I don’t think Dana said anything about that.

  7. Henry says

    @Syrax – Surely not caring is actually the end-game. A time when being for or against differences in sexual orientation is a nonsense. I’m taking Dana’s comment as words of support – he doesn’t care either way that someone is gay, or not, because for him it’s completely irrelevant. Exactly as it should be.

    Having said that, I’d love to see a gay guy kick the 10 kinds of crap out of a whole bunch of straight dudes.

  8. Rick Smith says

    Forgive me if I think White’s words are just that, words. White is fine with a gay woman in the sport but if a gay man were to come out in the UFC I doubt White would have the same opinion. Remember when a male fighter fought in Speedos and was ridiculed by White? White actually awarded the opponent bonus money for having to fight a guy wearing a Speedo. This is promotional hype to tap another audience market.

Leave A Reply