this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2023
83 points (100.0% liked)

196

18162 readers
136 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
moss@lemmy.blahaj.zone
greembow@lemmy.blahaj.zone
moss@lemmy.world
queue@beehaw.org
funky_rodent@lemmy.blahaj.zone
PeachyMcPeachface@lemmy.blahaj.zone
threegnomes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
greembow@lemmy.world
remotelove@lemmy.ca
Roflmasterbigpimp@feddit.de
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemm.ee
qaz@lemmy.blahaj.zone
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
qaz@lemmy.sdf.org
qaz@lemmy.world
qaz@sh.itjust.works
83
Women wrestlers rule (stream.new)
submitted 2 years ago by FakeGreekGirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] javasux@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

On a complete side note, I really hate the term "talent" when it's used to talk about skills. Calling someone talented is unfairly derisive to both parties involved.

It's insulting the recipient, since it dismisses their skills as some innate ability, and invalidates the months or years of hard work they did to get where they are.

It's also unfairly deprecating to the giver, by reinforcing the notion that you need to be "talented" to do cool things, and that they're just inherently "untalented" and would never be able to do them even if they tried.

But I guess it does work as an excuse for not working toward self-improvement, and alleviates that cognitive dissonance...

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

How do you distinguish between when people say "talent" to mean skills and when they legitimately mean talent?

[–] javasux@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If someone has just started learning to do something and is unexpectedly good at it, you can call that talent.

If you say that someone has a talent for doing something that they've done for a long time and put a lot of practice into, that's when I consider it rude.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What if someone does something for a long time and puts in a lot of practice and they're not as good as/better than other people with similar time & work?

[–] javasux@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Then the average person is going to have a much harder time attributing proficiency to either of those factors, and it's much more appropriate to just compliment their hard work and dedication.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why is it more appropriate?

[–] FakeGreekGirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Because it acknowledges something someone worked for rather than something they were born with.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do you think work is separable from a person's circumstances of birth? Lots of things influence a person's ability to work, chiefly how much money they were born into, but also some people are born with certain abilities that make them more capable of doing work.

Do you think work is more valuable because it somehow comes from a person's character? Is character separable from birth?

And also, what about someone who worked as hard as they could and could only ever achieve a middling career in their chosen field? Do you put their apparent failure down to simply not working hard enough? Do you think that's rude?

[–] IcedCoffeeBitch@beehaw.org 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wait women wrestlers get hate? I don't follow wrestling but I thought they were popular, if maybe a bit sexualized.

[–] FakeGreekGirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They are largely popular, but there are rather vocal segments of the wrestling fanbase that will give them shit for pretty well any reason. Claiming they aren't talented because they aren't attractive. Claiming they aren't talented because they are attractive, and thus only maintain popularity as eye candy. Claiming that female wrestlers in general are inferior athletes to male ones. Claiming that they don't work as hard in their matches, and then when they do turn in great matches, concern trolling over them hitting hard or bleeding (even though they'd never do that to the guys). Just the usual thinly veiled misogyny you see online in a lot of quarters

Nyla Rose (the one who made the comments about "half of you don't think I'm talented because you don't find me attractive") does get it worse than a lot of women wrestlers do, but the lion's share of that is due to transphobia.

[–] IcedCoffeeBitch@beehaw.org 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hmm, doesn't sounds that much different than women in gaming or other sports, sadly

On another note, dang she's trans? She looks so great :D

[–] FakeGreekGirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago

Yeah, she does. And she is very talented.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

i love how toni still had the black and white effect for hers :3

and im so glad that the division is getting more time to shine because they're all amazing but yea nyla is a queen.