Quote:
Originally Posted by aaeamdar
It seems to me that there are two eminently reasonable arguments to be made for keeping the song:
1. "I acknowledge that the song is in conflict with the ideals of gracious professionalism, and I really don't care, because GP has no meaning for me."
2. "I acknowledge that the song is in conflict with the ideals of gracious professionalism, and I do care, but I choose to look the other way, considering the fact that most of the song is unobjectionable."
|
I choose #3: "What ungraciousness? What lack of professionalism? I don't see how it's putting down anybody who didn't end up in first place."
We are the champions. We put forth the effort to face our challenges and try to overcome our limits. Regardless of the outcome of the competition, we did our best, and we're not losers!
Quote:
|
To me, both the words ("No time for losers") and the tone/notes (a clear reference to the "nanny nanny boo boo" child's taunt) indicate a lack of respect for one's opponent which is counter to the spirit of gracious professionalism.
|
What tone/notes are you alluding to? I don't recognize the "nanny nanny boo boo" reference. [edit]I looked it up, and it's from a song released in 2004. Queen's "We are the Champions" is from 1977, ten times as long ago. I think you have your belief about which is a reference to which backwards, even granting that such a reference exists (I didn't see one, but I have never heard the Le Tigre song).[/edit] Maybe there's something in your personal history that makes you extraordinarily sensitive to this particular song? It sounds like you see the phrase "no time for losers" as dismissive instead of inspiring. (I once had a protracted and heated online discussion with someone for whom the word "patronizing" evoked extremely bad emotions. Once I discovered where he was coming from, and once he discovered that it didn't mean quite what he thought it did, things made much more sense to both of us.)