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' ?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
"Nothing is impossible if you work hard enough". I think my elementary aged kids could get a lot out of this. It also appears that it could be useful in youth sports environments. Maybe as a pep-talk for parolees shortly before they are discharged from prison? Beyond that, I can't see any way that this would be useful.
I listen to a lot of audiobooks during the course of commuting back and forth to work, and I am at the point where I can hardly make myself listen to the self-help genre anymore. Usually, this format is a narrative of a person (not revealing the name), the struggles they endured, the huge success they found, and then the big reveal of who it was. It is always someone very accomplished like Thomas Edison, Michael Jordan, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Steve Jobs, etc. Queue the dramatic voice: "And that young man grew up to be...Franklin Delano Roosevelt!"
As an adult, I find it to be completely useless, inapplicable, and unmotivating. It is great that Jordan overcame getting cut by his high school coach and became the greatest basketball player ever: how does that actually help me? I am more responsive to life-hacks and practical advice on how to objectively improve what I'm doing, not the dramatic "nothing is impossible" mantra that lacks clarity and applicability in my life.9 -
As with nearly all things, context is critical.
Who's saying it?
To whom?
About what?
A friend that has gone through similar struggles and accomplished a (at least fairly) reasonable goal, trying to motivate his/her friend, whom it seems should be able to obtain that goal? Fine.
One of the elite, that has always found something easy, telling someone without the physical gifts this? That'll likely just sound condescending.2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »"Nothing is impossible if you work hard enough". I think my elementary aged kids could get a lot out of this. It also appears that it could be useful in youth sports environments. Maybe as a pep-talk for parolees shortly before they are discharged from prison? Beyond that, I can't see any way that this would be useful.
I listen to a lot of audiobooks during the course of commuting back and forth to work, and I am at the point where I can hardly make myself listen to the self-help genre anymore. Usually, this format is a narrative of a person (not revealing the name), the struggles they endured, the huge success they found, and then the big reveal of who it was. It is always someone very accomplished like Thomas Edison, Michael Jordan, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Steve Jobs, etc. Queue the dramatic voice: "And that young man grew up to be...Franklin Delano Roosevelt!"
As an adult, I find it to be completely useless, inapplicable, and unmotivating. It is great that Jordan overcame getting cut by his high school coach and became the greatest basketball player ever: how does that actually help me? I am more responsive to life-hacks and practical advice on how to objectively improve what I'm doing, not the dramatic "nothing is impossible" mantra that lacks clarity and applicability in my life.
I couldn't put my finger on why motivational phrases don't resonate with me and I think this may be part of it. They're too generic and lack practicality. It's like they're being spoken from above, and expect me to take action based on a feeling. Feelings don't last, and then what? No game plan, no realistic perspective, and then like a friend of mine, you're trying to wiggle yourself out of debt because you've jumped into something without a gameplan riding on motivation because "nothing is impossible".5 -
As a child who always had physical disabilities that are are not obvious (you can’t see them) and who had a cousin who was dyslexic before anyone knew much about dyslexia I’ll just say this and then shut up and go away.
Phrases like this one were among the most emotionally destructive things said to us as children. We knew they were not true, yet were shamed for ‘not working hard enough’, for being lazy etc. Our normal siblings held up as proof that anything was possible and our lack of trying as being the fault of our failures.
It is always worthwhile to give your best - but some of us have always understood that many things, even things 99% of the population take for granted, are in fact actually impossible for us.
I am very careful in how I motivate children. Casual words such as these can be devastating even if the intent was kind.10 -
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: »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?
Does it matter whether it causes many/most people anxiety? I suspect it doesn't cause a majority of people anxiety. But I also don't give a tick how many people it hurts if I can minimize it by choosing different words. It costs me nothing and is better writing if I can avoid the cliche. And it has the added benefit of not hurting people (or not hurting as many -- I recognize that in large groups you can't please everyone).
And honestly, I wouldn't use a phrase like "never give up" in its place unless I was trying to be funny (and then I'd most likely quote Galaxy Quest or Buzz Lightyear). I'm not a positive catch phrases kind of person. I reached for a quick alternative and if you don't find it useful then don't use it. The point was to demonstrate that there are alternatives.
Everyone on this board has at least some grasp of the English language. Some of us better than others, obviously (that's not a dig, I'm referring to people for whom English is a second or third language), but we all get to choose which kind of support we give. I don't know why you are so interested in picking apart my arguments on this topic, but everyone gets to choose whether or not they use this phrase. I'm not the galactic arbiter of all language. Use it. Don't use it. But once people come out -- like they have on this thread -- and say that they don't find it a useful phrase or find it a harmful one, then you get to choose whether or not to reconsider using it.
*shrug* That's all I've got. I choose not to use it. I gave some of my reasons why. I find it to be more harmful than helpful. I gave some of my reasons why. Others have done the same. If you want to continue to dig into my psyche on this matter, I'm not sure you'll find anything deeper than that.4 -
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
In this case I would argue that the goal was not to integrate the NHL, but to entertain and to promote the NHL and hockey in general to a broader audience. To that end this goal was certainly achieved. For Miss Rheaume her place in history was made. NHL viewership was at an all time high in the early 90s.
0 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »Wow, I did not expect to be in the minority on this one. That's a perfectly positive phrase and I've found it to be mostly true. The other variant I've heard once was "If someone REALLY wants to do something, that person is going to do it REALLY well." I'm not sure if intelligence, dedication, and strong work ethic counts as 'privilege.'
There are an awful lot of other privileges, the lack of which can make achieving the promise of this phrase logistically improbable.
Besides the fact that the bolded are not privileges...
Depends on who you ask.
No...
Yeah, it does. Many people assert that the ability/willingness to hustle and keep at something are a sign of privilege.
Whoa, this blows my mind. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but how is not being a lazy quitter a privilege?
There's a big yawning gulf of a spectrum between being a lazy quitter and being a dedicated hustler.
At some places on that spectrum, things like physical and mental disabilities can impact one's ability and or willingness to hustle. Not having such a physical or mental impairment is privilege.3 -
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: »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?
Does it matter whether it causes many/most people anxiety? I suspect it doesn't cause a majority of people anxiety. But I also don't give a tick how many people it hurts if I can minimize it by choosing different words. It costs me nothing and is better writing if I can avoid the cliche. And it has the added benefit of not hurting people (or not hurting as many -- I recognize that in large groups you can't please everyone).
And honestly, I wouldn't use a phrase like "never give up" in its place unless I was trying to be funny (and then I'd most likely quote Galaxy Quest or Buzz Lightyear). I'm not a positive catch phrases kind of person. I reached for a quick alternative and if you don't find it useful then don't use it. The point was to demonstrate that there are alternatives.
Everyone on this board has at least some grasp of the English language. Some of us better than others, obviously (that's not a dig, I'm referring to people for whom English is a second or third language), but we all get to choose which kind of support we give. I don't know why you are so interested in picking apart my arguments on this topic, but everyone gets to choose whether or not they use this phrase. I'm not the galactic arbiter of all language. Use it. Don't use it. But once people come out -- like they have on this thread -- and say that they don't find it a useful phrase or find it a harmful one, then you get to choose whether or not to reconsider using it.
*shrug* That's all I've got. I choose not to use it. I gave some of my reasons why. I find it to be more harmful than helpful. I gave some of my reasons why. Others have done the same. If you want to continue to dig into my psyche on this matter, I'm not sure you'll find anything deeper than that.
Yeah, I think it being a common cause of anxiety does matter in the context of the discussion we've been having. Because anything can cause someone anxiety. But expecting a simple single phrase to cause anxiety seems odd.
I don't use the phrase either. At least I can't remember ever using it. That wasn't what was asked.1 -
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.
Could it be that men are privileged in this situation?4 -
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."
Another thing I tell my son is, "you never know what you are capable of until you try..."3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions