An entire thread of clueless babble. Lots of armchair athletes here. :roll:

but we all gotta be respected enough to live at the very least, even when expectations have to change, unless you want dystopia — Enrique

The strong can wipe out the weak anytime they want to, and it will just make them stronger. This is the law of the universe, which supersedes all human laws.

A strong person does not need to respect a weak person. It's the weak person that should be respecting the strong person. But nowadays the weak are all hoarding together and trying to take out the strong. Which is stupid because it wont work, it will just make them weaker.

Par for the course

Hanover already is a dinosaur. He's developed a keen sense of when to not speak his mind lest the velicoraptors tear him a second butt hole.

The strong can wipe out the weak anytime they want to, and it will just make them stronger. This is the law of the universe, which supersedes all human laws.

A strong person does not need to respect a weak person. It's the weak person that should be respecting the strong person. But nowadays the weak are all hoarding together and trying to take out the strong. Which is stupid because it wont work, it will just make them weaker. — hope

How do you define strong vs. weak? Any institution can be dismantled by an angry hoard at any time, so strength isn't wealth or any tangible quality. Seems to me that strength on human terms is the ability to self-organize into collectives, so there is no such thing as a strong or weak individual. "Strong" is just a bigger mob.

so there is no such thing as a strong or weak individual. "Strong" is just a bigger mob. — Enrique

Strong (on a fundamental level) is any pattern that can destroy / consume any other pattern.

Yes the strongest force in a country is the united citizens in that country. Which is the foundation for freedom and rights. Because if you don't give those that strongest force will just come and take them.

clueless babble — jgill

Abstract models often seem like 'babble' to people who prefer a more direct and practical approach.

Abstract models often seem like 'babble' to people who prefer a more direct and practical approach. — hope

Reasonable abstract models would be welcome. Comparing Simone's "twisty" problem with the Blitz in England during WWII? (I suspect this was satire). And "mental health" doesn't mean she needs psychiatric treatment - it's a specific glitch in a dangerous and very complicated performance.

This is not John Wayne territory.

Mental illness is simply the inability to pull your own weight beyond reasonable circumstance. Which includes pretending to be mentally ill to avoid work in front of people who aren't. Violent outbursts in protest of said duty included.

Only thing you can do nowadays is to play the victim like everyone else. Otherwise you will be lynched as a "racist". — hope

In America you get lynched whether you are a racist, or a race.

I think Simone gets positive reviews because fighting mental illness, breast cancer, and childhood altarboy syndrome is "in". Fifty years ago or more, mental disease was swept under the carpet. But we created equal access, and that I applaud, along with trying to eradicate the stigma of mental unhealth. This is in line with the efforts of getting races into professions, and women into male professions. This is all good, because I am a leftist. There was some flack in the eighties, like stories circulating how much of idiots the minority professionals were, but these stories were highly of anecdotal nature, no statistics existed on showing the "inferiority" of black electricians or the superiority of Asian porn stars.

So... this is a trend now, much like lynching black people was a trend in the twenties. I like this present trend, but don't be fooled by it: come a turn in the economy, and people will point a scapegoat faster than you can say "meh-eh-eh-eh-eh". Trends are now predictable, we have enough statistics piled up on that. Some of us like a given trend, some of us hate a given trend.

Coming back to Simone: he or she (I follow sports so little I don't even know his or her gender, race, or citizenship) is mentally ill. She is a darling because she dared to quit; she would be a darling if she continued and she did not quit. She could make no mistake, she would be a darling if she won, lost, quit, or committed suicide. Her fame is not established on quitting. Her fame is established on her mental disease, and that's that. Everything else she does is only a footnote to her mental disease and to her courage to quit, to continue, to win, to lose, to laugh, to cry, to live, to love.

stigma of mental unhealth — god must be atheist

People claim to accept mental illness but then if a guy talks to a girl in the wrong way everyone calls him a creep. So much for accepting mental illness. We seem to have zero acceptance of stupidity or of evil, and often blame mental illness on those things so we can attack it without feeling guilty. Judgmentalism is stronger then acceptance I guess.

It's not possible to accept mental illness when we falsely believe everything is magically fabricated by our free-will. That's a recipe for blame and narcissism.

People claim to accept mental illness but then if a guy talks to a girl in the wrong way everyone calls him a creep. So much for accepting mental illness. We seem to have zero acceptance of stupidity or of evil, and often blame mental illness on those things so we can attack it without feeling guilty. — hope

I more-or-less agree, except that if someone is described that he did something wrong (morally or socially) because of mental disease, we tend to forgive him or her. If someone does something evil without the stigmatizing forgiveness that comes along with mental disease, then we are harsher on the perpetrator.

At least this is the case in my microcosmos of social milieu.

Lots of armchair athletes here — jgill

We are so strong as athletes, that we can lift the very armchair we sit on.

You’d better be careful. Before you know it, you may find yourself being treated as the next dinosaur whom time has passed by. Foucault would have a field day providing a genealogical analysis both of the ‘reasons’ behind the change in values at the Olympics and your moralistic outrage ar those who dont follow the new orthodoxy . It sounds like you’ve latched onto the emancipatory version of critical theory but haven’t yet made your way into thoroughgoing postmodern territory — Joshs

Wtf does this even mean?
Batshit crazy is the best I can come up with.

a strong person does not need to respect a weak person. It's the weak person that should be respecting the strong person. But nowadays the weak are all hoarding together and trying — hope

I kindly object to your position.
The strong are absolutely charged with respecting and caring for the weak.
It is what the strong does. The measure of a society is based upon how we treat the weakest among us.
Those who much was given, much is expected.

I could go on with platitudes but I think I have made my point.

Because some mental problems are fixed with a good kick in the ass.

Problem is we are not good at discerning the difference. Or we don't often want to.

strong are absolutely charged with respecting and caring for the weak. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Sure but they don't have to. The weak better have something good to offer, because if they don't then the strong might just find it better to remove them then help them.

From CNN, Elle Reeve:

She said in morning practice that she had a little bit of the twisties. The twisties are a mysterious phenomenon -- suddenly a gymnast is no longer able to do a twisting skill she's done thousands of times before. Your body just won't cooperate, your brain loses track of where you are in the air. You find out where the ground is when you slam into it.

Coming back to Simone: he or she (I follow sports so little I don't even know his or her gender, race, or citizenship) is mentally ill — god must be atheist

When I get up from a chair too quickly I experience a moment of wooziness. I suppose I am mentally ill. Or maybe I have a mental disease.

Glad you are not at the FAA. Vertigo is a thing.

This is is the first thread I’ve started in months! — Leghorn

How sad. Lacked the courage to do so, perhaps?

But come. Why do you believe that a very accomplished gymnast, who has won many medals already, should have participated and attempted to win more? Is a certain number of medals required in order to show courage enough to satisfy you?

Is it the fact that she complained of mental problems that annoys you? What about physical problems? If she had twisted her ankle would you maintain her failure to compete showed a lack of courage? Would it have been less an indication of a lack of courage if she had said she'd won enough already? What more was she required to do in order to win your respect?

The idea that people should put their lives, physical or mental health or well being on the line in order to engage successfully in athletics is a curious one. I've never thought wars were won on the fabled Playing Fields of Eton, nor was I an avid reader of Tom Brown's School Days; perhaps you do or were. Nobody ever died for dear old Rutgers, as the song goes, and for good reason. There are other things to be courageous about that are far more significant, and I doubt that the example of this young woman will cause the downfall of Western civilization or render us weaklings.

Take courage, poor Leghorn.

If your auto mechanic says don't drive your car until you get it fixed, are you gong to pay attention to the warning? — tim wood

The assumption here is that the soul is no more complicated than a machine, and therefore psychotherapy as simple as putting in a new transmission.

Three things (at least, no doubt many more but at least these three) Simone may be taken to be an expert on, herself, her gymnastics, and what it takes to win. — tim wood

So now suddenly she needs no psychologist, because she is the expert on herself! My impression of Ms. Biles, after listening to several excerpts from her pressers, is that she is a rather simple soul of ordinary intellect, not the deep study Freud would want to be lying on his couch.

Her courage was in revealing her mental health issues because those suffering are often condemned in public as being of weak character — Hanover

Not anymore, Mr. Hanover, if you haven’t noticed. You’re talking about the old days, before “mental health awareness”. Proof of this is the fact that Ms. Biles has been universally supported and applauded for dropping out. I doubt she was unaware of the change in public opinion that had occurred. I think she knew that she would find much sympathy and support afterwards.

your position, if it's truly not racist and not dismissive of mental health issues, needs to be restated because you do come off very poorly in this thread — Hanover

Let me restate it then. The soul used to be conceived of as economy of the virtues and passions, the former aided by reason and ruling over the latter, as parsimony over luxury, temperance over insobriety, chastity over lust, etc,...and courage over fear. This economy is no longer believed in, and its elements have either been renamed or done away with altogether: the soul was replaced by the enigmatic “self”; the passions, generally bad qualities that needed restraining, were renamed “emotions”, which are not bad at all. In fact they ought to be “let out” because if you suppress them they will adversely affect not only your mental-, but even your physical-health.

In this new condition of the soul’s understanding it is little wonder that such perversions as this be heard:

She is a darling because she dared to quit; she would be a darling if she continued and she did not quit — god must be atheist

This modern reorientation of the natural order means there are no losers, just as in our schools scores are no longer kept in ballgames—lest some poor child learn he is inferior to his mate. Losing means you could be labeled a “loser” and suffer shame, the greatest bane to mental health—as every psychologist knows. Such a realignment of the cosmos results in sentiments like this:

Today there is an appreciation that one’s mental and physical well-being is more important than winning at any cost. This reduces the focus on competition and redirects it toward a more balanced concept of excellence. — Joshs

In correcting the excess of “winning at any cost”, we devolved into “not losing, at any cost”.

But come. Why do you believe that a very accomplished gymnast, who has won many medals already, should have participated and attempted to win more? — Ciceronianus the White

Do you think Tom Brady is satisfied with his Super Bowl rings? His perpetual dissatisfaction with how many he has is precisely the reason he has so many.

The idea that people should put their lives, physical or mental health or well being on the line in order to engage successfully in athletics is a curious one. — Ciceronianus the White

Why, your namesake I think knew much better, for I am sure that Marcus Tullius Cicero was very familiar with the athletic contests described in both the Iliad and Aeneid.

and therefore psychotherapy.... So now suddenly she needs no psychologist, — Leghorn

One infers you don't distinguish between psychotherapy and psychology, possibly because you don't know they're different things. No matter, if true then nothing else you write can be worth reading.

@tim wood

Okay. So tell me the difference b/w psychotherapy and psychology, and you will benefit me by eradicating my ignorance—if you are willing to educate someone you are obviously unsympathetic with.

No matter, if true then nothing else you write can be worth reading. — tim wood

How does this follow?

@tim wood

If I’m wrong about one thing, I must be wrong in everything?

My understanding is that she withdrew because she was no longer able to determine her body position relative to where it actually is. This is a legitimate reason to withdraw from such a high level competition, when she lands, if she lands poorly, it can have catastrophic and life long results. The only reason to go forward with this condition in this level of competition would be pride and stupidity. I am not saying she is brave to withdraw, merely pragmatic.

What I find fundamentally racist about the current media narrative is that, for some unknown reason, the media insists on speaking of someone's colour, ethnic origins, or gender as if it is a barrier that they have also overcome.

If I say Claire is an accomplished swimmer is that not enough? Does mentioning that she is also of mixed genetics add to, or demean her? I think it suggests that she is an accomplished swimmer
DESPITE her mixed heritage. And to me, that is the epitome of racist.

nice use of milieu!

If I’m wrong about one thing, I must be wrong in everything? — Leghorn

In a given context, maybe! Maybe a little more respect for content, subject matter and the discussion next time?

Psychotherapy is a specialty. Some psychotherapists are psychologists, if they have a degree in psychology. But some psychiatrists are psychotherapists too, and no psychiatrist has a degree in psychology, unless he or she got one incidentally. And some nurses and social workers. And in the case of all these, none are psychotherapists without additional work. Licensing and what you can legally call yourself differs in different places, but insurance companies pay the degrees.

I am not saying she is brave to withdraw, merely pragmatic. — Book273

And part of this pragmatism is, in my opinion, knowing that she will be universally accepted as a brave advocate of the currently popular mental health movement.

If I say Claire is an accomplished swimmer is that not enough? — Book273

No, it is not. Everyone knows males are more athletically capable than females. That is a genetic difference. Do you think females ought to be pitted against males in athletic competition? Who do you think would win in that case?

Psychotherapy is a specialty. Some psychotherapists are psychologists, if they have a degree in psychology. But some psychiatrists are psychotherapists too, and no psychiatrist has a degree in psychology, unless he or she got one incidentally. And some nurses and social workers. And in the case of all these, none are psychotherapists without additional work. Licensing and what you can legally call yourself differs in different places, but insurance companies pay the degrees. — tim wood

Despite all this talk of licensing and degrees and legalities and insurances, what do all these terms, psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy have in common? Is it not the term psyche, which is the Greek word for soul? If we parsed these out, psychology is “knowledge of the soul”, and psychotherapy is “healing of the soul”. Wouldn’t you expect that he who has knowledge of the soul would also be the one who knows—if anyone does—how to heal it?

She does have the world's most gold medals, and, so, if she wasn't feeling up to the competition for whatever reason, I don't see what the big deal is. Getting the "twisties" isn't some sort of personal triumph, but, were I to be a gymnast, I sure as hell wouldn't be willing to put up that kind of risk should I know that I'm just not feeling up to it. I'm sure that there are some renowned trapeze performers who have nights where they just aren't feeling up to flying through the air. It's probably kind of a bummer to have to know those limits, but it is entirely sensible to.