It was a beautiful Olympic moment, one that will stick in the minds of many, when two 5,000-meter runners from New Zealand and America collided on the track in Rio this week, then helped each other back up and encouraged each other to limp to the finish line even though they had no chance of winning.
Yet the author of the leftist Slate Magazine said he's "starting to hate that moment" because of how much everyone else has praised it as a great example of sportsmanship and Olympic spirit.
While he acknowledged it as "a nice thing," he slammed its significance, saying it was only worth noting if the women had "bridged a social chasm," like if they were Palestinian and Israeli or weren't privileged white people.
In other words, acts of kindness, compassion, and sportsmanship played out on live television on the world's stage are no big deal if it's just two women helping each other. Perhaps if they were lesbian, Muslim, homeless, and/or ethnic minorities, the Slate author would have considered the act praiseworthy. If it doesn't push a liberal social agenda, then I guess we should pay it no mind.
The author also attacked athletic accomplishments in general, writing, "We should be very leery of efforts to depict athletic gumption as somehow 'good and righteous,' to impute morality and character to actions on the field of play, as if the decision to finish or withdraw from a race holds any broader social implications."
Again, the Slate author exposes the leftist mindset that sports is only useful if they push a liberal social agenda. Simply having hard work, diligence, gumption, and sacrifice lead to victory and inspiring others to do more with their lives is no longer enough of an accomplishment in itself for some on the Left.
What do you think of this?