Defending Dana White

Dana White may have finally crossed the line.

In his most recent video blog, White went on a three minute tirade about an article written by Loretta Hunt of Sherdog.

During this tirade, he swears many times, and also calls Hunt, an (expletive) referring to a female dog, and also calls other potential detractors a word that starts with an F and rhymes with maggot.

White has never been hesitant to use swear words in the past. His feuds with radio personality Scott Ferrall, and with former Sherdog editor Josh Gross are well-documented.

So if people are accustomed to White's profane language, why is there so much controversy in this tirade?

Probably because of the misogynistic and homophobic aspects of his speech.

When I found out that one of my close friends is homosexual, I've had to rethink a lot of the things I said and continue to say.

There was once a time when, if there was something that I didn't like, I would say something like, "That's gay," although what I really meant was, "I don't like that."

In this day and age, it is inexcusable for people to describe someone or something as "gay" as an intended insult.

My message to White is this:

You've been trying to promote mixed martial arts as a classy sport.

Calling people f*****s does not help you promote the sport, nor help the image you've tried to build. In fact, such comments may turn away intelligent, progressive, and open-minded people who would otherwise consider themselves fans of the sport of mixed martial arts.

Sure, there may be some bigoted and homophobic fans, who will support your remarks, but if the UFC stands for such things, then count me out.

However, I do believe that despite the poorly chosen words, White may not necessarily harbour ill intent towards women or gay people. As I said, regretfully, many people still use homophobic language without the intention of offending homosexuals.

I hope for any reader of this message to please think next time before you call someone "gay" or a "f**."

Before my friend told me that he was gay, I'd said the word in an offensive way around him. 

In retrospect, I know how much my remarks must have hurt him. Using that kind of language may offend people you don't care about, but you may be surprised who else you are offending.

Finally, now that I have gotten that off of my chest, I do feel it necessary to comment about Hunt's article, although at this point, it's anti-climactic.

Hunt published a damning article about the UFC restricting access to the locker rooms to managers and fighter agents.

This article included a lot of vague descriptions about this practice with no concrete facts.

Furthermore, no person felt confident enough in his/her opinion to attach their name to it.

While I may not be a fan of the UFC's recent power plays, notably the dispute with American Kickboxing Academy, it is shoddy journalism to criticize someone without clear and present facts.

Without any real facts, Hunt's article seemed to be an attempt to attract attention and not an article to expose questionable business practices.

Limiting the number of credentialed persons in locker rooms is a common occurrence for fight promotions. This is nothing out of the ordinary, even in small shows, and has nothing to do with cutting agents out of the equation.

To make a big show of rebellion against such a common and accepted thing as limiting entourages in the locker rooms isn't reasonable. In my opinion,  Hunt was merely attempting to get attention, and should not be applauded for this. 

But if you're going to criticize, keep the language in check.