Quotes About Winners

Quienes ensalzan el ideal meritocrático y lo convierten en el centro de su proyecto político pasan por alto esta cuestión moral, pero también ignoran algo más poderoso desde el punto de vista político: las actitudes muy poco atractivas (desde la perspectiva moral) que la ética meritocrática fomenta, tanto entre los ganadores como entre los perdedores. Entre los primeros promueve la soberbia; entre los segundos, la humillación y el resentimiento.

Among the winners, it generates hubris; among the losers, humiliation and resentment. These moral sentiments are at the heart of the populist uprising against elites. More than a protest against immigrants and outsourcing, the populist complaint is about the tyranny of merit. And the complaint is justified.

But our disagreements about merit are not only about fairness. They are also about how we define success and failure, winning and losing—and about the attitudes the winners should hold toward those less successful than themselves. These are highly charged questions, and we try to avoid them until they force themselves upon us.

En una sociedad desigual, quienes aterrizan en la cima quieren creer que su éxito tiene una justificación moral. En una sociedad meritocrática, eso significa que los ganadores deben creer que se han «ganado» el éxito gracias a su propio talento y esfuerzo.

In an unequal society, those who land on top want to believe their success is morally justified. In a meritocratic society, this means the winners must believe they have earned their success through their own talent and hard work.

Persistence is the difference that separates winners and losers. It is the difference between success and failure. Successful people fail and keep persisting. Unsuccessful people fail once and give up. It is well said that "we fall down, but we get back up again." Failure is not falling down, it's staying down.

how we've now got to be "magnanimous" and not "sore winners," as the prominent conservative columnist George Will put it in his criticism of the mythical gay activists who supposedly took down Eich.

An old racetrack joke reminds you that your program contains all the winners' names. I stare at my typewriter keys with the same thought.

Every morning, Mozasu and his men tinkered with the machines to fix the outcomes - there could only be a few winners and a lot of losers. And yet we played on, because we had hope that we might be the lucky ones. How could you get angry at the ones who wanted to be in the game? …Pachinko was a foolish game, but life was not.

Every morning, Mozasu and his men tinkered with the machines to fix the outcomes—there could only be a few winners and a lot of losers. And yet we played on, because we had hope that we might be the lucky ones. How could you get angry at the ones who wanted to be in the game?

Every morning, Mozasu and his men tinkered with the machines to fix the outcomes – there could only be a few winners and a lot of losers. And yet we played on, because we had hope that we might be the lucky ones. How could you get angry at the ones who wanted to be in the game? Etsuko had failed in this important way – she had not taught her children to hope, to believe in the perhaps absurd possibility that they might win. Pachinko was a foolish game, but life was not.

power has a social function. Its role is not just to enforce domination or to create winners and losers: it also organizes communities, societies, marketplaces, and the world.

Losers sulk; posers talk; winners walk - choose wisely.

Pressure squeezes effort out of winners and excuses out of losers.

Winners see the dream and develop plans while the rest see the obstacles and develop justifications.

Winners hate losing more than changing while others hate changing more than losing.

Winners gather together to fuel hope; losers gossip together to fuel hate.

Most people settle in life with no satisfaction. Winners are satisfied without ever settling.

Two motives urge fans to obsession with their sports. One is the need-—through the appeal of vicarious success—-to identify with winners. The other is to sanction, through pedantry, dogmatism, record-keeping, wise secret knowledge, and pseudo-scholarship, a claim to expertise on the subject. Sports give every man his opportunity to perform as a learned bore and to watch innumerable commentators on TV do the same.

As aspiring "winners" in recovery, we are not interested in defeating anyone. Or even in fighting. We have ceased fighting anything or anyone.10 Our interest lies in creating harmonious interpersonal relationships, in making potentially distressing situations better and in being peacemakers.

I call crony capitalism, where you take money from successful small businesses, spend it in Washington on favored industries, on favored individuals, picking winners and losers in the economy, that's not pro-growth economics. That's not entrepreneurial economics. That's not helping small businesses. That's cronyism, that's corporate welfare.

One senses with so many Democrats who support the Clintons an unspoken sentence: "They're all we have." They're the only big national winners the party has left. I always want to say to them: That's not true, you've got better than that, you've got good people, go look and you will find them.