Posts by Janko

    All joking and memeing aside, I think Brazil and Russia can't keep their recent level through elimination rounds. Russia felt pressure-free and was thus able to swing freely because they thought they had nothing to lose, Now, after beating USA and China, I think a little hesitation and uncertainty will creep back into the muscles and minds, because they now DO have something to lose. Don't think they'll play in quarters anywhere close to their level against USA, but we'll see. Goncha is bound to remember it's 2021, not 2015.:PFedorovtseva might continue to dominate, though.


    And even if Brazil continues to play as well as they've done so far, it might not be enough for gold, because both USA and Italy have the ability to blow them off the court if they have a good day.

    Im far from being a Djokovic fan (for tennis skills yes, he is just one in the history player; but as a whole athelete, I have my doubts), but you are right. Most of the media twisted Djokovic words and made it look as if his words were intended to Simone Biles. After vball, I follow tennis a lot and for me it was really disgusting how so many journalists (via twitter, fb,, etc) published these news with the clear intention to get clicks + increase the hate towards Novak. Even on TV from different countries, I heard how he was criticised cuz of that speech.


    Btw, sorry for the :offtopic:

    You are a public figure. You say something. A huge media outlet twists your words (perhaps knowingly) and tweets that version on their official twitter account. Seeing the potential for #content and #shittonofclicks, the whole world's press runs with that story. 24 hours later, a journalist from the original media outlet (but not the original author) tweets the apology on his measly little account. Nothing about the correct version on the official twitter page of the outlet.


    Result: 99.9999% of people who heard the story still believe the completely bogus, made-up version of events.


    The wonders of the modern press: you gotta love it.:gone:

    Btw, in case that's the reason you are pissed at him, that statement was NOT a reference to Simone Biles. He was exclusively talking about himself and his campaign for Golden Slam. Shitty tennis editor for L'equipe misattributed the saying, and the whole world's press ran with it, but later didn't even have the courage to correct the record himself; his colleague had to do it:


    Wait, I thought that he has said: "Pressure is privilege. Without pressure there is no professional sport. If you are aiming to be at the top of the game you better start learning how to deal with pressure. And how to cope with those moments on the court but also off". Did I miss something in the way?


    Sorry for the off topic guys, didn't want to extend this, but it would be nice not to leave out such important details if I'm already determined to go off-topic. :gone:

    Yes, you did miss a pretty big thing. Like, what exactly has a "pressure" or "privilege" to do with an injury?

    Just saw that on twitter. What do you guys think about this?


    (off topic: his nephew Djokovic had a meltdown after lose the bronze medal, and broke his racket, not being enough, he give up on bronze medal for mixed doubles leaving his partner behind and losing by WO at OG. #shame)


    He is his uncle only by marriage. They are not related by blood. And he pulled out because of shoulder injury (and physical and mental exhaustion). He also publicly and privately apologised to his partner, Nina Stojanovic. It might or might not be true about his injury, but it would be nice not to leave out such important details if you are already determined to go off-topic.

    I think we can and should judge them, and not have statues of some of them at least.


    But yea we should remember the time as well, WITHOUT using it as an excuse.

    Exactly right.


    When I criticised anachronistically judging people of the past, I really meant for things and opinions that have only in recent decades became socially unacceptable and condemnable like homophobia, transphobia and such, NOT about murder and slavery. But while we are on the subject of slavery, no I don't advocate that we shouldn't criticise slave-owners. Fuck 'em, they were bastards, but you know what? Many people in mid-19th century knew slavery was bad, and it was outlawed in most parts of the world by the time of the American Civil War, so when it comes to American issues with slavery, their ancestors don't even have that excuse of having the shield of ignorance to protect them.;)


    As for Columbus, Cortes and the like, even in their own day, there were many, many contemporary people who condemned them and their actions, both on the moral grounds and on the grounds of inefficiency/incompetence (the latter more so in the case of Columbus). Millions of people did NOT had to die to eradicate human sacrifice (not that altruism was even in the top 20 motives for Columbus/Cortes/Pizzaro). And Aztecs and Incas were always doomed to failure (in the sense of never having the chance of remaining the political and military great powers as soon as Europeans became aware of their presence, and so human sacrifice would have died out in any case). But the invaders acted and treated them unimaginably and needlessly cruelly and for that they fully merit the condemnation, even from just a consequentialist POV.

    I guess those cocky Brazilian fans on twitter got the last laugh...:lol:


    Reviewing the thread, one thing stand most clear to me...and that is that the team that was jinxed the least is Brazil. The only undefeated team is Brazil...coincidence? Somehow, we ALL forgot to jinx them...:rolll:


    Well, that will no longer be the case bwahahahaha:evil::evil::evil:


    Avid, beri, serdar...I expect your cooperation.:P

    I disagree with that. Of course, the geography and the era that a person was born have an effect on her worldview, but I can't consider it as an excuse. There are many scientist or historical figures who are not sexist, homophobic, etc in spite of where and when they were born

    Honest question: how do you know that? Anachronism is a real and valid concept, and for nothing so much as for moralistic judgements. To judge historical figures by modern standards is an exercise in futility. Now, of course, there are degrees; one would hold an early 20th century scientist, say, to a justifiably higher moral standard than a 4th century warlord, but it's still pointless. One can only validly judge people according to widely socially accepted standards of their own day and era (which is precisely why getting as many people as possible acquainted with such issues as systemic racism, implicit bias and identity politics is such an important development of the last 10-15 years).

    I myself have this conflicted view of my favorite players and their attitude towards politics and social issues;


    In a way, I feel betrayed when a volleyball player or an actor says something totally conflicting my world view, on the other hand, as sisko mentioned, most athletes are not the smartest/most educated people. So it feels unfair to expect them to be the most sensitive, activist, progressive people in a way. For instance, I am a huge fan of Naz and Eda. If one day I would see them supporting racist, homophobic politicians, I don't know how I would feel about it. They would be still great volleyball players with all the skills and decorated careers but I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting them anymore. I had that feeling on some of the scientists that I adored while growing up and learned later that they are very misogynistic/sexist (Darwin etc).


    How do you guys feel about that? Can you still support a player, singer, actor, or scientist, knowing they don't share the same vision on social and political issues?

    It's a bit more complicated with historical figures (and by "historical figures", for this purposes, I mean "anyone who died more than 20 years ago"), because everyone in history was at least a little some -ism.:lol: As a history lover, I'm acutely aware just how much most of the young population living today are NOT aware that modern attitudes to race, sex, gender and all kinds of identity issues are very, VERY recent.

    While I'll definitely never be right-wing, I'm also certainly not as leftist as I used to be until a couple of years ago, for a whole variety of reasons I can't be bothered to get into.

    It's partly why I don't post here as much as I used to.

    I echo Sisko's sentiments (all of them), and would just like to express my selfish wish you would post more often (but only if you feel comfortable!). While I lurked around this site years ago, you were one of the members whom I most liked to read, as its clear you have a great love, passion and knowledge of the sport. While it's true this site seems to lean more progressive than is "usual" (then again, what is that?), politics are very rarely discussed and there are basically no fights or arguments about culture wars or identity politics.:win:

    Wow, pretty brave (and awesome) 1st post after a long time off. My respect for that.:win:


    And since it would be a shame that it should go without any answer, I'll go and share a bit of my perspective on awareness of social issues and how it may shape our tastes and likes. It's only a small slice of what you asked, but you asked a pretty broad slew of questions.


    Up until late 2018/early 2019, I would have considered myself an apolitical guy, with next-to-no interest in what is now considered "cultural wars" or social issues. What can you do; a cis straight-passing bi white guy, I was blind to a whole host of privilege that many people who share my signifiers enjoy (yes, despite living in an economically poor country, nobody is going to discriminate against me in my own country and even abroad only in a very broad, anti-East European kind of way that is so little significant it can be ignored for the most part). To make matters, worse, I live in a country that is very, VERY backward as far as awareness and understanding the importance of social and cultural issues, as well as personal identities.


    But then I started following leftist-leaning youtubers, and from there I started to further inform myself about all sorts of topics they covered: implicit bias, systemic bias, systemic racism, the whole nine yards. And it won't be overstating the case to say that it was an eye-opening experience, like exploring a whole new world that was there the whole time but you never knew it. I would like to think it has made me a better person, one who is much more careful about navigating the world and being more aware of the many, many ways we as humans can hurt and oppress each other, even when we don't mean to.


    As far as how it has specifically influenced my view and likes/tastes on volleyball (and the rest of sports), yeah, supporting people who hold abhorrent views is a step I can't quite make any more. I've lost my share of athletes whom I admired due to that, and it sucks, but I much prefer that then to go back living in ignorance.:)

    Please stop it, then he would just as well support Serbia and Russia, which he does not seem to do whatsoever atm. And its frankly obvious for anyone that he is "supporting" rather than supporting them and instead is seeking to jinx em. In virtually all threads up until now the man has proclaimed his stance as an harsh advocate for Italy at the expense of ceaselessly downplaying Turkey NT and its league while taking them hostage as his nemesis par excellence. Why would this so seemingly simple and one-dimensional man characterised by his extreme black and white opinions, all of a sudden, at last turn into some complex figure with such high and noble motivations as described above?

    Believe me, I know he's capable of some exquisite passive-aggressive behaviour, but in this particular case, I think you might be overthinking it.;)

    Janko probably means, how the quaterfinal pairs determined by DOL are positioned relative to A1-B4 and B1-A4. I'm not sure but it is make the most sense to me that is just filling in order. First drawn pair in first half of the draw and second pair in second half.

    Yep, that's the step that is mysterious. How will they determine which pair drawn by lot to put in QF2 and which in QF3. What you are suggesting sound the most logical solution, but it's still conjecture, right?

    First in groups will play against 4th in the opposite group. Second can play against either the 2nd or 3rd, to be determined by lot. As to how exactly the winners of quarterfinals will be paired in semis seem to be a closely guarded state secret, since I've never been able to find anything about that.:lol:

    As for China...I still can't believe what I'm seeing, to be honest. It feels like some sort of dream. It wouldn't be the first time that a favourite for gold fails to live up to the expectations, nor even the first time for team to be overcoached into mental/physical exhaustion and burnout, but for it to happen to THIS team...it feels surreal.


    Btw, it's obvious many haven't watched Serbian match against Kenya, but both Brankica and Busa looked very good. It's only Kenya, of course, but I think it makes one thing very clear. We all thought that, because Milenkovic-Blagojevic started the first 2 matches, that they are now the starting OH duo. But in retrospect (and knowing how Terzic's mind works as I do), it seems he was giving them the chance in those 2 games (against neither the strongest nor the weakest opponents in the group) to show whether they are usable on this level. They showed they aren't...it would also make sense in terms of continuity, because Mihajlovic-Busa has been the starting OH duo ever since 2018.