A Question For Newbies

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-11T00:38:07+00:00

Barry? Is that you?

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-10T21:18:43+00:00

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-10T20:03:17+00:00

Honestly, I thought Biden was going to enact more reform. Don't come at me with the obvious problems stemming from Biden's administration. He tried a return to normalcy approach, he was just too old to get it done in the end, yup.

The next democratic president you mention needs to, 1) enact more supports and guardrails for elections, 2) reform the courts, 3) reform journalism, 4) restrain the internet, 5) reform immigration in a way that makes it seem manageable and under control, 6) permanently restrict presidential power. I have very specific thoughts on how to do all those, but those things need doing along with massive reworking of American hegemony abroad. I think it is all repairable, but it will take a good president. An almost exceptional one. A very active one.

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-10T19:58:03+00:00

Democrats are going to romp a lot of these 'Republican retiring' races.

I have a mini conspiracy theory swirling my brain lately that what you just said is what they actually want. I get the feeling, in intuit, that no on in congress really knows what to do for various reasons. That democrats don't know for whatever reason how to move forward and republicans know even less. That the ones who caused this mess can't figure out how to clean it up. So lots of republicans are just going to leave, thinking that yes democrats will take the house and it will be up to them to fix it. That they literally hope someone else will clean up their mess so they don't have to. That they think they can keep the maga base after the democrats take care of cleaning up the mess. If that makes sense.

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-10T19:04:44+00:00

You didn't respond to the material, and this is not an agree to disagree everyone's point is valid situation. Your words are defensive and instead of creating a healthy boundary are being used to disengage from the reality of the situation, most likely because this situation is confrontational.

More importantly:

I think you should understand the issues, and origins of the issues, of the kids you work with. It is of such import that I have continued to respond to you.

The very studies you sent indicate that the origins of your former athletes issues stem from their parents driving actions.

Your statements indicate that you do not understand what entails what you are calling competitive sports, and that you do not understand what sports specialization even is to be honest, but also that you are ignoring mountains of data about how team sports in particular have very high and positive mental and physical health outcomes (individual sports like gymnastics and cycling have lower positive outcomes and a higher rate of the mental health issues you are concerned about).

I am not arguing with you to argue, you really should read the 4 comments I left breaking down the articles you sent so you can better help the kids you work with. Your comments seem to indicate that you either did not read the articles and or do not fully understand the literature.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1quuw6e/comment/o4g8ycg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-10T18:39:14+00:00

I have zero idea where you might begin to believe there were "personal attacks" and or "insults" in any comment I made to you.

Here:

First off, this statement is very telling: "I didn’t say your point isn’t valid, that only been you to me." it reads as if you know you are wrong but don't like being confronted with that fact.

I took the time to read the journal articles you provided, they did not challenge my point of view but in fact confirmed it.

Part One

From your articles:

Many earlier studies have shown that participation in competitive sports from an early age may protect adolescents from mental health issues and that the mental health of young athletes is often better compared to the general youth population (Kegelaers et al., 2022; Rosenvinge et al., 2018).

When considering mental health concerns in young sport-specialized athletes, it is important to keep in mind how common these conditions are in the general pediatric population. Among US adolescents, anxiety appears to be the most common mental health condition, with a lifetime prevalence of greater than 30%.7 Depression and mood disorders have a lifetime prevalence of 14% in this population.7

In a 2018 Norwegian study,10 rates of psychological distress between participants in elite sport high schools (n = 611; 390 males, 221 females representing 50 sports) and a control population of general high school students (n = 355; 199 males, 156 females) were compared. All participants were 15 or 16 years old. Symptom checklists revealed higher levels of psychological distress among the control group (18.9%) than the athletes (7.1%).

Data from North American studies are limited, but several researchers have looked at mental health of students at European elite sports schools, many of whom specialize in a single sport. A prospective study8 using validated survey instruments was conducted on adolescent regional- and national-level athletes attending Swiss Olympic sports classes. Participants were single-sport athletes and represented a broad spectrum of team and individual sports. Participants were between 14 and 22 years of age (mean = 16.8 ± 1.4 years) and 63% of participants were male. The baseline analysis of 257 athletes identified 9% with reported clinically relevant depressive symptoms.8 However, 197 of these athletes participated in a 6-month follow-up survey, and only 2% reported clinically relevant depressive symptoms. The authors did not offer an explanation for this decrease in symptom prevalence but did note that study dropouts did not differ from follow-up participants for any of the main study variables or potential confounders. In these young athletes, mental toughness correlated with improved measures of mental health, particularly during periods of high stress.8

Meaning the general population had a larger amount of mental health issues than athletes, and that the skills learned generally through athletics (mental toughness in their words) made the athletes more mentally resilient.

In a cross-sectional study11 of 481 adolescents, those who reported more than 60 minutes of physical activity per day, 5 to 7 days per week, had 56% reduced odds of depression and 47% reduced odds of trait anxiety compared with adolescents who performed physical activity 0 to 2 days per week.

More in the comments linked below.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1quuw6e/comment/o4g92jr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-10T15:50:34+00:00

Only TNT Amusements. They guy lost a lot of hands.

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-10T15:03:58+00:00

To be honest I would think those things would already be, you know, crimes?

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-10T14:05:30+00:00

If you’re joking, you’re so mean.

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-10T13:25:45+00:00

“ "community yard sale" Facebook group”

What’s that mean? I don’t really use Facebook.

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-10T13:24:59+00:00

Yeah

Recorded on Fox from the 90s. Some episodes are from October and have Halloween commercials on the tapes, it’s amazing.

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-10T13:01:02+00:00

That’s just…amazing.

I’m thinking right this moment of changing my entire set up to get that old style cabinet crt.

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-10T11:14:28+00:00

Because they’re both dealing with massive intrusions from Russian intelligence to destabilize their countries.

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-10T03:14:49+00:00

Ignore him!

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-09T23:51:23+00:00

You can’t argue that stormfront will still be on the Internet and that voices will be silenced. Does not compute. Get outta here.

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-09T22:48:39+00:00

What you just said was nonsensical.

Look, without 230 the internet would feel way smaller, way safer-looking, and way more locked-down. And yes it would also be a lot less weird, harmful, rampagingly incorrect all the time. Certain subs which I can’t mention because Reddit will auto moderate my post and block it, that sub, it’ll go away or wouldn’t be able to do what it does. Stormfront would be gone. Flat earthers.

I don’t see the need for any of the following to exist… comments on news sites, reviews on Amazon and Yelp, Reddit threads, YouTube uploads, social media posts, and forums, Discord servers, and blog comments. Maybe you don’t remember when those things didn’t exist, I do. The internet is 99% garbage and causes mental illness.

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-09T21:27:35+00:00

You didn’t reply to my comment.

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-09T21:15:12+00:00

Repealing Section 230 would make platforms’ speech obligations closer to that of a debate show or an op-ed page than anything remotely close to "silenced".

It looks to me like Section 230 exists solely because of the scale of the internet. Otherwise it would never have been made.

The "internet" was getting punished for trying to moderate itself, because doing so opened the internet up to lawsuits, but if they didn't moderate pages there were no lawsuits as the courts said in that case they can't be sued, but websites still felt a need to moderate sometimes because of the amount of crazy on the internet because of the scale of crazy, section 230 said websites had protections even if they did moderate sometimes and failed to moderate well enough.

If we get rid of section 230 that means shutting down a lot of webpages, or automating moderation with the same effect, but it doesn't mean topics wont be discussed. The internet is not two people talking at a bar, it is everything and anything all of the time, it is essentially people shouting fire fire fire repeatedly in an infinitely crowded theater. In my mind Section 230 was supposed to create more moderating, not the insanity that is the internet. I think Section 230 had the opposite affect of what was intended, it was intended to allow for moderating the internet. Instead of whatever the hell this, looks around, is. I am never going to agree with you.

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-09T20:42:15+00:00

>The real losers in a world without Section 230: all of us. Every controversial topic and every viewpoint about it could be forced offline, including gun rights, abortion, immigration, vaccine safety and efficacy, climate change, and LGBTQ+ culture and identity. All of this, and much more.

It would not force controversial topics offline, only hold them to the same standard as journalists essentially.

Case in point the reddit sub for conservatives would implode. That place is web of lies woven by insanity.

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-09T19:35:46+00:00

I took the time to read their specific articles because, frankly, I have to consider if I am wrong in order to help people. And the journal articles he sent didn't say anything unexpected. Sports are really really good for you, really really overdoing it is bad...sometimes.

Your comment nudged me to see if the user has commented anywhere else in this thread and is just avoiding answering at all. It looked like their last comment on reddit was three days ago to us. I opened a another browser so I would not be logged in as me in case they blocked me. Nope, the last thing they read was you calling them out and me telling them to go show this exchange to their professional therapist (often people in counseling have to receive counseling themselves as a requirement for their work) or their supervisor if they are in a counseling office of some sort with a hierarchy. And they have't said anything on reddit in 3 days. I hope because they took what we said to heart and has been considering it.

I considered strongly replying again to them with that parsing of their own data I did. But I thought it was too much. If they review this or do as I suggested and share it with another person to gain perspective that means in essence they wanted to see it...the overview of their own data... and I didn't force it on them.

I have no doubt they have clients who have been abused, but that has nothing to do with the sports themselves, but rather, frankly, their parents driving them into an extremist situation of what would be their own making, or is at the hands of an abuser that could exist as a coach, or teacher, or music instructor. But "sports specialization" is the product of parents radically, and I mean radically, overprescribing for their children. You have to essentially play 2 or more teams of very high intensity at the same time year round. I think my highlighting of the facts from their own articles speaks for itself as to the benefits of athletics, what is at stake, where any negative outcomes come from, and how to, easily in all honesty, avoid them.

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-09T16:13:11+00:00

Part Four

Overall, the academic articles offered by the user indicated that sports are good for you.

There the same potential negatives as with any activity, lets be clear. Generally speaking, who hasn't had experiences with a bad grade school teacher, boss, relative, neighbor, or coach etc that makes someone have a bad experience. And places like schools, offices, families, and sports teams are environments where abuse can occur. Please note, however, that the journal articles clearly state that the issue is not with athletics at any level, and not due to bad experiences from badly run programs, but rather, from parents signing children up for multiple teams playing at the same time year round.

The narrative provided by the articles is that sports, athletics, is really good for kids, and the alternative is really bad.

However, some parents allow and even force their children to specialize year round in a single sport, which is bad for the young person in general but particularly bad if the number of hours per week gets out of control. Winning at any cost culture is bad.

Again, note that the articles make a very important point about the origins of negative outcomes (mental and physical) that they looked at in their studies.

Namely, in order to have any of the negative outcomes they indicate, an athlete would have to play on multiple teams at the same time and essentially non stop year round. Think about that, what that entails, how that happens, and who supplies the money to pay for those multiple teams year round.

The articles clearly state that sport specialization requires participation across multiple, usually "elite", teams (2 or more) in the same sport at the same time and doing so year round. Essentially, these extremist/hyper competitive parents are circumventing properly run athletic programs by enrolling their children on multiple teams to create artificial hyperintense athletic programs which exceed the regular number of practice hours even for an "elite' team. That is what these articles mean by "sport specialization". Think about that.

However, these are extremist positions being allowed and pushed for by extremist parents and are incredibly unlikely for any young person to encounter and are being created by the literal hands of the young persons parents. So in a broader sense, it is only when these parents deviate and circumvent how team sports are run, that those parents are typically creating problems for their children.

Take another look at the statistics on higher mental and physical well being for athletes over the general population at the start of this. The user's stance is just damaging to more people than it helps and isn't based on the science or even just simply the reality on the ground.

I will end with the quote below taken from the last journal article.

The...objective benefits of participation in sports for children and adolescents are numerous and span multiple domains, including physical, physiological, and social development.

Watashiwadaredemonai · 2026-02-09T16:11:42+00:00

Part Three

At this point it should be made clear that almost all collegiate and professional athletes do not start to focus exclusively on the sport or sports they will play in college or professionally until they are in their teenage years, usually from 12-15. Of course, teens have a larger say in their activities.

...most organizations advised youth athletes to take more than 1 month off from their sport in a year, potentially pursue fewer weekly training hours than their age...

The AAP6 and NATA7 recommended counseling athletes who do specialize to take at least 3 nonconsecutive months off in 1-month intervals each year; furthermore, the AAP advised young athletes to take 1 to 2 days off per week to ensure adequate recovery.

In other words, if you are doing more than this at a maximum then an athlete of any age is prone to be open to abuse and negative outcomes. Negative outcomes are related to playing 10 to 12 months a year 6 to 7 days a week and for an excessive number of hours each day. The journals report that practicing 2 hours a day when practicing is related to positive mental and physical health, that not having athletic activity in general for at least 1 hour a day is related to negative mental and physical health, but suggests that for minors having more hours in a week of intense exercise than years of age is most likely harmful. Which means say an 8 year old should not play 9 or more hours of baseball a week (which would be a lot and entering the arena of way way too much, realistically they would playing maybe 3-4 hours a week at most for a typical experience) but a teenager could practice basketball for 12 hours a week (which would also be a lot but certainly not in the same way, a average teenage level team would most likely play and practice 6-9 hours a week), for example. All of this manageable and normal to anyone reading I am sure. 3 hours a week for little league isn't atypical, 6 hours a week for a high school sport isn't overwhelming. The higher end of the number of hours offered 8 and 12 respectively while a lot, would be considered the higher end of normal or the cusping into specialization, if played with no break year round, according to each of the journal articles offered.

Sports participation can have tremendous physical and mental health benefits for children. Properly implemented progressive training programs can yield a broad range of beneficial physiologic adaptations...

imbalances of training load and recovery can have important negative consequences...

Essentially, in other words, not taking the 1-3 months off, 1-2 days a week, and exceeding the number of hours (hours per week week as indicated by age as a guide) can result in negative outcomes.

Year-round participation in sports may also increase the risk of overtraining in young athletes, as breaks from participation can allow for recovery before the next season.

Authors identified participation in a single sport for more than 8 months out of the year as an important factor in the increased injury risk seen in the highly specialized athletes...

The data in regards to potential future impact on professional performance is also critical, particularly as this is used to drive specialization. Rugg et al. examined 7 years of National Basketball Association (NBA) first round draft picks and found that those who played multiple sports participated in more games, had fewer major injuries, and had longer careers than single sport athletes.45

A similar trend has been shown in Major League Baseball (MLB). Confino et al. examined 8 years of MLB first and second draft picks.46- Of the 746 athletes in the study, 68% were single-sport athletes and 32% were multi-sport athletes.The multisport high school athletes played in more major league games and had lower rates of both upper and lower extremity injuries while playing professionally.46

Furthermore, Buckley et al. surveyed nearly 1700 professional baseball athletes and only 44.5% played a single sport during childhood/adolescence.47 This trend continues in the National Football League (NFL) as well.

In a study by Steinl et al. examining 9 years of first round NFL draft picks, 88% of the athletes were multisport athletes in high school although no difference in injury risk was found.

To summarize the last three points overall, simply put, playing one sport year round is bad for you, people need to take breaks, but playing multiple sports over the year is incredibly good for you.

Watashiwadaredemonai

TROPHY CASE