Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What do you think about impact of the phrase 'nothing is impossible if you work hard enough' ?
Replies
-
I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.4
-
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.
You think try your hardest and never give up is defeatist?8 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?7 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.
What?1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.
What?
Wot? lol. I don't get what you're not getting.1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?
But how is saying never give up better than you can do anything? Either is bad advice if it turns out to be something truly impossible.1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
Removing societal barriers? My, that sounds like an awful lot of hard work.
It is. But it can rarely be done by a single person. If only one person is pushing to remove a barrier, do you really think they'll achieve their goal with hard work?
It's a bit like moving a goal post. One person who tries to move it probably won't see their dream come true no matter how hard they work. But a lot of people working to the same ends can get it done.
Exactly. Jackie Robinson didn't become the first black MLB player because he and he alone worked hard. He got there on the backs of many other minority athletes who worked hard but never achieved their goal because they had to wait for society to get on board, which involved not just baseball players but a movement acroos all of society.
There are other criteria to achieving goals than just what you individually do. The fact of the matter is that the NHL is a business. If the fans are uncomfortable with the idea of female players, a woman can work her heiny off and never get to play.
There are also physical factors. Someone mentioned Phelps. He has the perfect body to be a swimmer. He has obviously worked super hard and deserves his success. But if he had been 5'7" with a stocky build and short arms, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that while he may have been able to become a competitive swimmer, he would not have broken world records and become internationally famous and wealthy as a swimmer, no matter how hard he worked and how high he dreamed.
I disagree with this; if there was a female hockey player who could play in the NHL it would be a tremendous draw (I believe that there have been female goalies at the lower minor league levels and the fan support was huge). The reason why they aren't in the NHL isn't because of bias or marketing, it is because female players are not as large, fast, or strong as the males.
As evidence - Manon Rheaume:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manon_Rhéaume
I was at the exhibition game when she played and the arena was filled to capacity - in large to see Manon.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?
But how is saying never give up better than you can do anything? Either is bad advice if it turns out to be something truly impossible.
Then choose different words. I know that you have the power to adjust your phrasing to say what you want. This debate is about who's trying harder or hardest, right? So why not try harder to convey your meaning instead of clinging to a cliche that's not going to say what you want it to say?2 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.
How about "Try the impossible, you might just succeed."
9 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?
But how is saying never give up better than you can do anything? Either is bad advice if it turns out to be something truly impossible.
Except that Edison and Tesla spent years trying and failing at the impossible until each succeeded at the same result with two divergent methods.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.
How about "Try the impossible, you might just succeed."
I've always been a fan of: "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."6 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.
What?
Wot? lol. I don't get what you're not getting.
Alright, before I go any further I have to ask: Are we trying to understand each other or are you trying to score points? Because I have to say that it feels like you aren't listening to what I'm saying and I can't tell if that's me not being clear or you just looking for something to criticize.
But in general, I don't see how trying your hardest means that you wouldn't achieve something great or unexpected? I don't see that phrase as defeatist. And I'm having a hard time understanding how you go there unless you were trying to get there in an attempt to move the goalposts of this conversation yet again.6 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?
But how is saying never give up better than you can do anything? Either is bad advice if it turns out to be something truly impossible.
Except that Edison and Tesla spent years trying and failing at the impossible until each succeeded at the same result with two divergent methods.
Did everyone that never gave up achieve their goals?2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.
How about "Try the impossible, you might just succeed."
I like that, though it is inherently untrue.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?
But how is saying never give up better than you can do anything? Either is bad advice if it turns out to be something truly impossible.
Except that Edison and Tesla spent years trying and failing at the impossible until each succeeded at the same result with two divergent methods.
Did everyone that never gave up achieve their goals?
Do you believe that some goals are impossible or don't you? I'm having a hard time nailing down your actual opinion on the subject.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?
But how is saying never give up better than you can do anything? Either is bad advice if it turns out to be something truly impossible.
Then choose different words. I know that you have the power to adjust your phrasing to say what you want. This debate is about who's trying harder or hardest, right? So why not try harder to convey your meaning instead of clinging to a cliche that's not going to say what you want it to say?
The debate is about our feelings for the phrase 'nothing is impossible if you try hard enough'.1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm finding this funny as kids are typically the most brutally honest of any age - seconded only by the elderly, who have learned not to care what others think. Yet the consensus seems to be that these statements would be stated to children as they have not yet learned to limit themselves.
Also interesting how certain people tend to think of their personal experiences in expanding dimensions - personal struggles, obstacles overcome, tales of triumph and misery...but think of others as single dimension characters, in this case "privileged".
I think most of us seem to be defining ourselves as privileged in some ways, no?
I know I think I am in some ways (and not in some other ways that I overcame). Acknowledging that in some ways I am lucky doesn't seem negative.
For me the key is to focus on not giving up in your own life, but also not assuming that because something came naturally to you (or was something you chose to work at or enjoyed working at or wanted to pursue or even felt like you HAD to pursue) doesn't mean that everyone would have been equally capable.
I do think our expectations are often too low of others in general, so would agree with that argument, but I do think people have different natural capacities and how we are raised makes a big difference in what our capacities are too. That I saw people living in a particular way and valuing certain things (work, education), was helpful for me and I picked up related skills despite a really problematic upbringing in some other ways.
I used to volunteer at a program aimed at helping kids from an underprivileged background get GEDs or jobs or both, and with the job thing it was amazing how they didn't often have the skills to SEE opportunities or to know how to get them. Teaching these skills was also possible, but they ARE skills/knowledge that is learned, things we learn from the people around us in many cases.
I find the concept of privilege especially useless simply due to the subjective nature. Everyone is privileged and everyone is not privileged.
Sure, I agree, but I think the whole thing is colored (especially for younger folks, probably) by the whole "check your privilege thing." IMO, recognizing that you have some advantages that not everyone else shares, that you benefit from a whole lot of things you might just assume as a given is part of empathy and also being grateful for what you have, a reality check. It's not some political statement (and again, I'm certainly not resenting what privileges others have, or circumstances if people find that a more comfortable term).Knowing what we now know of weight management I question the concept of things coming "naturally". Certainly there's a matter of interest in an area, but are elite athletes/academics a result of "natural" ability or a result of time and effort?
Both. You don't get to be an elite violinist (say, get a job with a major symphony) without practicing an insane amount and a truly tremendous amount of dedication and hard work. It would be dumb to say that's a matter of luck. But also not everyone has the ability to achieve that, if only they'd done the work.
There is a lot of luck involved getting into major symphony. There are tons of very talented musicians with equivalent or better skills than those who get in who for various reasons never have the opportunity to play in one.
Yep. I'm a writer trying to get my first novel published and creative businesses are just as much about luck as they are about talent. I would love to be a NYT best-selling author one day. Is it impossible that I'll get there? Probably not. But the odds aren't good in my favor. I don't think it's pessimistic or insulting to say that this is a thing I want but it may never happen if the stars don't align in my favor. I could work non-stop towards this goal, let my health and mental well-being go to *kitten* trying to get it, and still not have that spark of pure luck hit me. So instead I work towards it the best that I can, I take care of myself, I enjoy hobbies and the company of friends, I keep my day job, and I accept that some things don't happen for everyone. I can take myself as far as I can take myself, but some things are out of my hands.
I agree. I'm a professional flutist with a B.Music degree. Out of everyone I went to school with maybe 2-3 now play in professional ensembles. The ones who are still involved in music mostly are freelance performers and/or have a private music studio or teach in schools. Connections make a big difference as well. Who you studied with surprisingly opens (or closes) doors. I studied with someone in high school who had a bad reputation as being a jerk (it was true. He was very emotionally abusive to me) and it hurt my chances pre university. I was even told after the fact that my university usually never accepts anyone with him (audition is more important than grades to get in) so I was lucky. I have never and will never get to play in a professional symphony (flute competition is insane as there are so many flutists for very little jobs) but before I was ill I played many gigs as a freelancer. I'm one of those that didn't naturally have the talent (if I had to do one of those which instrument is best for you based on physical attributes tests they do I would definitely not have been given flute as my jaw structure is completely wrong for it) but I had the passion and worked incredibly hard to the point of major over use injuries. I doubt if I worked harder that I would have ever gotten into one without getting a break or connections or anything.1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?
But how is saying never give up better than you can do anything? Either is bad advice if it turns out to be something truly impossible.
Except that Edison and Tesla spent years trying and failing at the impossible until each succeeded at the same result with two divergent methods.
Did everyone that never gave up achieve their goals?
Do you believe that some goals are impossible or don't you? I'm having a hard time nailing down your actual opinion on the subject.
Yes of course.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.
How about "Try the impossible, you might just succeed."
I've always been a fan of: "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."
/agree Anything that ends up raising the bar and as @stanmann571 put it - "Stay hungry"
The underlying division in this thread seems to be a perception of lowering expectations based upon ad absurdum/straw-man examples and raising the bar.3 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.
I don't see that as defeatist at all.
In fact, recognizing that some things are worthwhile even if you will never get part of what you want (a best-selling novel or a Booker Prize or a seat on the CSO or to play quarterback for the Bears (not that anyone would reasonably want that!)) is IMO mature. Doesn't mean don't try or do your best or achieve.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?
But how is saying never give up better than you can do anything? Either is bad advice if it turns out to be something truly impossible.
Then choose different words. I know that you have the power to adjust your phrasing to say what you want. This debate is about who's trying harder or hardest, right? So why not try harder to convey your meaning instead of clinging to a cliche that's not going to say what you want it to say?
The debate is about our feelings for the phrase 'nothing is impossible if you try hard enough'.
My feelings are that it's a cliche that feels empowering to some people and doesn't to others. When I'm trying to lift someone up I try to avoid phrases that are 1. trite and 2. just as likely to make them feel bad as it is to make them feel good. Your feelings seem to be that if someone doesn't find the phrase empowering they need "help" and everyone should just use whatever inaccurate cliches they want as long as they feel good with no concern for others. Is that about right?3 -
diannethegeek wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.
How about "Try the impossible, you might just succeed."
I've always been a fan of: "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."
Yeah, that's a good one.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?
But how is saying never give up better than you can do anything? Either is bad advice if it turns out to be something truly impossible.
Then choose different words. I know that you have the power to adjust your phrasing to say what you want. This debate is about who's trying harder or hardest, right? So why not try harder to convey your meaning instead of clinging to a cliche that's not going to say what you want it to say?
The debate is about our feelings for the phrase 'nothing is impossible if you try hard enough'.
My feelings are that it's a cliche that feels empowering to some people and doesn't to others. When I'm trying to lift someone up I try to avoid phrases that are 1. trite and 2. just as likely to make them feel bad as it is to make them feel good. Your feelings seem to be that if someone doesn't find the phrase empowering they need "help" and everyone should just use whatever inaccurate cliches they want as long as they feel good with no concern for others. Is that about right?
Now you are just trying to bait me I think. You know perfectly well I never suggested anything even close to that.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?
But how is saying never give up better than you can do anything? Either is bad advice if it turns out to be something truly impossible.
Then choose different words. I know that you have the power to adjust your phrasing to say what you want. This debate is about who's trying harder or hardest, right? So why not try harder to convey your meaning instead of clinging to a cliche that's not going to say what you want it to say?
The debate is about our feelings for the phrase 'nothing is impossible if you try hard enough'.
My feelings are that it's a cliche that feels empowering to some people and doesn't to others. When I'm trying to lift someone up I try to avoid phrases that are 1. trite and 2. just as likely to make them feel bad as it is to make them feel good. Your feelings seem to be that if someone doesn't find the phrase empowering they need "help" and everyone should just use whatever inaccurate cliches they want as long as they feel good with no concern for others. Is that about right?
Now you are just trying to bait me I think. You know perfectly well I never suggested anything even close to that.
Honestly, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. You've made a lot of one-line statements in this debate and I honestly cannot narrow down whether you think this is a good phrase or a bad one. I included the message I've taken from your posts so far in the hope that you can correct or expand any points that I'm not getting.1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?
But how is saying never give up better than you can do anything? Either is bad advice if it turns out to be something truly impossible.
Then choose different words. I know that you have the power to adjust your phrasing to say what you want. This debate is about who's trying harder or hardest, right? So why not try harder to convey your meaning instead of clinging to a cliche that's not going to say what you want it to say?
The debate is about our feelings for the phrase 'nothing is impossible if you try hard enough'.
My feelings are that it's a cliche that feels empowering to some people and doesn't to others. When I'm trying to lift someone up I try to avoid phrases that are 1. trite and 2. just as likely to make them feel bad as it is to make them feel good. Your feelings seem to be that if someone doesn't find the phrase empowering they need "help" and everyone should just use whatever inaccurate cliches they want as long as they feel good with no concern for others. Is that about right?
Now you are just trying to bait me I think. You know perfectly well I never suggested anything even close to that.
Honestly, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. You've made a lot of one-line statements in this debate and I honestly cannot narrow down whether you think this is a good phrase or a bad one. I included the message I've taken from your posts so far in the hope that you can correct or expand any points that I'm not getting.
I don't have a problem with the phrase. I'm sure some hear it and think "Yeah, right." and others find it inspiring and likely most fall somewhere in between. I think this of just about every phrase.
Since we're clearing things up, how exactly does my saying someone getting anxiety over a simple phrase needs help equate to my thinking everyone that doesn't find the phrase empowering needs "help"?1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
Removing societal barriers? My, that sounds like an awful lot of hard work.
It is. But it can rarely be done by a single person. If only one person is pushing to remove a barrier, do you really think they'll achieve their goal with hard work?
It's a bit like moving a goal post. One person who tries to move it probably won't see their dream come true no matter how hard they work. But a lot of people working to the same ends can get it done.
Exactly. Jackie Robinson didn't become the first black MLB player because he and he alone worked hard. He got there on the backs of many other minority athletes who worked hard but never achieved their goal because they had to wait for society to get on board, which involved not just baseball players but a movement acroos all of society.
There are other criteria to achieving goals than just what you individually do. The fact of the matter is that the NHL is a business. If the fans are uncomfortable with the idea of female players, a woman can work her heiny off and never get to play.
There are also physical factors. Someone mentioned Phelps. He has the perfect body to be a swimmer. He has obviously worked super hard and deserves his success. But if he had been 5'7" with a stocky build and short arms, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that while he may have been able to become a competitive swimmer, he would not have broken world records and become internationally famous and wealthy as a swimmer, no matter how hard he worked and how high he dreamed.
I disagree with this; if there was a female hockey player who could play in the NHL it would be a tremendous draw (I believe that there have been female goalies at the lower minor league levels and the fan support was huge). The reason why they aren't in the NHL isn't because of bias or marketing, it is because female players are not as large, fast, or strong as the males.
As evidence - Manon Rheaume:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manon_Rhéaume
I was at the exhibition game when she played and the arena was filled to capacity - in large to see Manon.
Yep, it was a draw for one game and it was a big publicity stunt that got her answering questions about getting her nails done and a Playboy offer she turned down. It also led to discussions about the ridiculousness of women competing in a men's league. About ruining team chemistry and how the male athletes would be at a disadvantage if more women got in because they would be afraid of hurting them. And it would be a waste because the women would only play a few years before they decided to start a family anyway. And where would they change into their uniforms? Not exactly a glowing endorsement for how ready most sports fans were to accept co-ed leagues.
Cam Newton's recent amusement that a woman was interested in routes comes to mind, and based on the dialogue I hear among sports fans and pundits about the WBNA, I don't personally believe that has changed much. Maybe that's just in my little corner of the world though!
Eta: I agree that even the elite female athlete would be at a physical disadvantage in a league like the NHL. Suggesting that would in fact be an impossible goal, no matter how hard she worked
5 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?
But how is saying never give up better than you can do anything? Either is bad advice if it turns out to be something truly impossible.
Then choose different words. I know that you have the power to adjust your phrasing to say what you want. This debate is about who's trying harder or hardest, right? So why not try harder to convey your meaning instead of clinging to a cliche that's not going to say what you want it to say?
The debate is about our feelings for the phrase 'nothing is impossible if you try hard enough'.
My feelings are that it's a cliche that feels empowering to some people and doesn't to others. When I'm trying to lift someone up I try to avoid phrases that are 1. trite and 2. just as likely to make them feel bad as it is to make them feel good. Your feelings seem to be that if someone doesn't find the phrase empowering they need "help" and everyone should just use whatever inaccurate cliches they want as long as they feel good with no concern for others. Is that about right?
Now you are just trying to bait me I think. You know perfectly well I never suggested anything even close to that.
Honestly, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. You've made a lot of one-line statements in this debate and I honestly cannot narrow down whether you think this is a good phrase or a bad one. I included the message I've taken from your posts so far in the hope that you can correct or expand any points that I'm not getting.
I don't have a problem with the phrase. I'm sure some hear it and think "Yeah, right." and others find it inspiring and likely most fall somewhere in between. I think this of just about every phrase.
Since we're clearing things up, how exactly does my saying someone getting anxiety over a simple phrase needs help equate to my thinking everyone that doesn't find the phrase empowering needs "help"?
I'm in the middle of writing a pep talk for a group of writers who will be undertaking the challenge to write a novel in a month next month. So what people find empowering vs. what they find discouraging is much on my mind today. In my experience, based on the people I've talked to who undertake various challenges -- whether it's writing or a new degree or weight loss or whatever -- things that people don't find empower tend to create some degree of anxiety when they're said by someone they perceive to have experience or authority in that particular field. I tried to bring up the anxiety as a part of what makes phrasing like this so useless when you're trying to empower someone who sees you as a figure they'll listen to and you brushed it off as simply them needing help. If I can stop someone from feeling anxiety by being realistic, avoiding platitudes, and telling them the truth about the world, then I'm going to do that and be careful how I phrase things. Your post read to me as though you felt that anyone who finds something to be not empowering, and thus likely feels some anxiety after it's said to them, needs help.2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?
But how is saying never give up better than you can do anything? Either is bad advice if it turns out to be something truly impossible.
Then choose different words. I know that you have the power to adjust your phrasing to say what you want. This debate is about who's trying harder or hardest, right? So why not try harder to convey your meaning instead of clinging to a cliche that's not going to say what you want it to say?
The debate is about our feelings for the phrase 'nothing is impossible if you try hard enough'.
My feelings are that it's a cliche that feels empowering to some people and doesn't to others. When I'm trying to lift someone up I try to avoid phrases that are 1. trite and 2. just as likely to make them feel bad as it is to make them feel good. Your feelings seem to be that if someone doesn't find the phrase empowering they need "help" and everyone should just use whatever inaccurate cliches they want as long as they feel good with no concern for others. Is that about right?
Now you are just trying to bait me I think. You know perfectly well I never suggested anything even close to that.
Honestly, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. You've made a lot of one-line statements in this debate and I honestly cannot narrow down whether you think this is a good phrase or a bad one. I included the message I've taken from your posts so far in the hope that you can correct or expand any points that I'm not getting.
I don't have a problem with the phrase. I'm sure some hear it and think "Yeah, right." and others find it inspiring and likely most fall somewhere in between. I think this of just about every phrase.
Since we're clearing things up, how exactly does my saying someone getting anxiety over a simple phrase needs help equate to my thinking everyone that doesn't find the phrase empowering needs "help"?
I'm in the middle of writing a pep talk for a group of writers who will be undertaking the challenge to write a novel in a month next month. So what people find empowering vs. what they find discouraging is much on my mind today. In my experience, based on the people I've talked to who undertake various challenges -- whether it's writing or a new degree or weight loss or whatever -- things that people don't find empower tend to create some degree of anxiety when they're said by someone they perceive to have experience or authority in that particular field. I tried to bring up the anxiety as a part of what makes phrasing like this so useless when you're trying to empower someone who sees you as a figure they'll listen to and you brushed it off as simply them needing help. If I can stop someone from feeling anxiety by being realistic, avoiding platitudes, and telling them the truth about the world, then I'm going to do that and be careful how I phrase things. Your post read to me as though you felt that anyone who finds something to be not empowering, and thus likely feels some anxiety after it's said to them, needs help.
Just to be clear, do you think this simple little phrase causes many/most people anxiety? Like that would be a common enough thing to make the phrase something that should never be said?
And do you think a figure they'll listen to saying 'never give up' could never cause these same people anxiety?1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »
Since we're clearing things up, how exactly does my saying someone getting anxiety over a simple phrase needs help equate to my thinking everyone that doesn't find the phrase empowering needs "help"?
As I think the anxiety comment was directed at my comment, note that I was being sarcastic. It was more so to put into words the following feelings:
When people are told they can do anything, and when they realize they actually can't, then they have internal struggles that they need to deal with.
The way a person deals with these issues defines who they are and how they live their life.3 -
I also use similar phases with my children, in tones and discussion of encouragement. Children need to keep their eyes open to possibilities and their developing minds need to be encouraged to seek out the possibilities. They have not yet set their adult life in motion.
I also have a teenager with disabilities. Not mental, but physical. He dreamed of military service and as a parent, it was important to redirect his attention to the option of government service in other ways (like DOD for example) without crushing dreams. His very high intellect can be appreciated in places his hearing impairment could be dangerous...He needed to know he could still execute the idea of 'nothing is impossible if you work hard enough' in ways he could not see.
I teach adults with advanced degrees for my job...and this is not generally an adult learner friendly phrase. Many adults have worked hard to get where they are and the phrase tends to imply a lack of appreciation for their personal struggle. We are no longer the wide-eyed children full of possibilities. We have all made choices to go certain directions that pave our road.
There is a time in everyone's life where these phrases make perfect sense...but I think targeting phrases to specific goals is more appropriate for adults. Like "you can make that next weight goal...you got this!". Adults can have lots of desires...
My husband wants to live in the play boy mansion...the idea that if he works hard enough he can achieve that will never be embraced by his wife! His road has been paved with things that will not change. 13
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions