The Politics of CrossFit

By Russell Berger and Dan Freedman

In Rest Day/Theory

November 15, 2008

PDF Article

Both Russell Berger and Dan Freedman are impressed with the overall quality of the rest day discussions posted on CrossFit. Russell, a former Ranger, noticed both the impact a fitness website was having on his thinking and an increasing number of complaints about the political rest day links.

I started paying attention to the CrossFit website four years ago. From the very beginning, CrossFit was built on mold-breaking, counter-culture methodology. One of the cornerstones of CrossFit was its analytical and objective approach to fitness. Establishment, theory, and speculation were cast aside and replaced with workouts that produced results. Recently, I’ve noticed more and more complaints about the less-noticeable information posted alongside the Workout of the Day. Right-leaning political commentary, articles, and studies are occasionally popping up on rest-day postings. To some this is a perverse and offensive combination....If an ideological affiliation had to be applied to CrossFit, it would almost certainly be the "Libertarian method" of fitness. Individual responsibility reigns, and everyone is held to the same standards of performance. Can you blame Coach Glassman for extending ideas that work so effectively in the fitness world to a larger model? Is it CrossFit's fault for seeing the parallels between a grass-roots fitness methodology and a free and effective society?

Dan, a former TV news director, doesn’t agree that appreciating the real world benefits of CrossFit necessitates a particular political view.

My beef? Some CrossFitters have a reflexive prejudice. They are in love with simple-minded perversity. They seem to think that if most people favor something, it must be wrong. But it ain’t necessarily so. Here’s the ultimate bit of contrarianism: sometimes the conventional wisdom is right. Sometimes expert opinion is well founded....In the fitness realm, who could argue against hard work or individual responsibility? But does it really follow that lax regulation of financial markets is a good idea? Could isolation exercises have a place in rehab programs? Might it be okay to eat bananas after all? Could raising taxes on the top 1% be sound economic policy?

Their full arguments are in the article. And, as always, if you have something to say, Post thoughts to Comments.

Free Download


45 Comments on “The Politics of CrossFit”


Joey Lajoie wrote …

Great article. I can say the there have been articles posted that I do disagree with but it is my choice to take it as gospel or to read it at all. Besides, I like to be offended from time to time. It encourages me to think objectively and gives me the opportunity to voice my opinion as an individual. Something that I hope Crossfit has helped us all to gain the confidence to do.


wrote …


Free your mind, and your ass will follow


Free your ass, and your mind will follow


wrote …

Toronto! I've been crossfitting by myself at the U of T (the real one up north) gym.


Cody Limbaugh wrote …

I think my favorite point of both sides of this article is that they both aknowledge the fact that this site is owned by the Glassmans and they can do what ever the hell they want, debate is good and if you don't like it then you have the right to piss off.


wrote …

I have to disagree on the libertarian hypothesis here. There is too much war-mongering Bush nut-huggers to fit the libertarian bill. I would say that the philosophy of objectivism is alive and well in our community, but 'libertarian' does not necessarily follow from it.

We have to be careful about what is libertarian and what is something else. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds that maximum freedom should be allowed to all people given that they do not infringe upon the rights of others, and in American parlance those rights are typically held to be the few equally numerated rights from the Constitution. As any libertarian will tell you, the party and the philosophy paints a broad stroke. Howeverer, the greater number of libertarians, and the party platform, are against the War on Terror, (and most wars for that matter) both the domestic and foreign policies.

Objectivism is an ethical and epistomological theory that certainly holds empiricism, self-interest, and reason as the ideals to morality and truth. The logic of it follows that people who are free from restrictions are most likely to be able to act morally. Many Libertarians hold objectivist views for this reason, but as I've pointed out before, there is little in the way of party unity when it comes to libertarians.

This feeds right into one of Russell's main assertions about free-market economics, reason, and simple empirical data. I think the free-market ideals of crossfit are, at their basic level, libertarian in nature. I think that the contrarian views of fitness fit the personality types in the libertarian party. But if crossfit is creating a libertarian community or is making folks 'think' like libertarians then we would likely be yielding a lesser number of pro-WOT Bush-loving commandos, which is definitely not the case. I would rewrite this piece and address crossfit rest day articles as being supportive of an objectivist philosophy, and then let the readers decide specifically which side (or quadrant if you are a hardcore libertarian)of the political spectrum they see themselves on.


wrote …

It sure seems that a lot of people are missing the point here. Saying that "there are parallels between CrossFit and Libertarianism" is not the same as saying "CrossFitters tend to be Libertarians". For what it's worth Russell, I think I get where you're coming from and I agree with you.


wrote …

As a matter of fact, I do have a "reflexive prejudice". If you want you can even go as far as to say that I am bigoted against anyone that would have me live my life they way they see fit as opposed to the way that I see fit.

What is this fascination that Liberals have with jacking with nature/my life? I tend to believe that if I walked into a pristine forest long side a Liberal while I was busy admiring the beauty before me the Liberal would be fretting about the forest's imminent demise. Needless to say, the Liberal would then marshal enough like minded zealots to ensure that, through new legislation or activist judges, new programs to protect the forest at my personal expense were enacted. After which I would no longer be able to visit the forest to admire its beauty.

Why do I capitalize the word "Liberal"? Because I have begun to think of it as a religion. So, I capitalize Liberal the same way I capitalize Muslim, Catholic, Jew, or any other organized religion. The thing about this Liberal religion is that it is fascist by nature. If you disagree with a Jew or a Baptist or almost any other person of faith you can agree to disagree and go your separate ways. But disagree with a Liberal and they will go their separate way only to legislate that you live your life the way they think you should. They do this by limiting/eliminating your ability to make personal decisions using your own money by confiscating it under penalty of jail and financial ruin and/or by criminalizing the way you prefer to live your life. Pure fascism and anything but tolerant.

Conservatives differ from Liberals in many ways but at their core a Conservative is just fine with anyone who lives their life the way they want as long as it doesn't impinge upon anyone else's personal freedoms and individual liberties.

If you're a Liberal and the Crossfit comments offend your religious beliefs you are still welcome here. Your comments and thoughts are also welcome here. Just understand that this is our forest. It does not need saving, improving or perfecting. It thrives as is and you can never change that.


wrote …

I think we should be careful to note that Libertarianism, despite how it is often portrayed does not pertain to the "right" any more than it does to the "left". It is a socially liberal, fiscally conservative viewpoint - the combination of the right and left which promotes the greatest freedom, personal responsibility, and as stated above, provides the greatest ability to act as a moral human.


wrote …

I read this site for cutting edge information on physical fitness. I'm not offended by the political discussions, but I find that they are overly simplistic and sometimes laughable. I think it would be a good idea to end the political discussions for the following reasons.
1. I think it is a big intellectual mistake to try draw direct parallels between promoting fitness which is base on the science of human physiology which is fairly well understood, and political philosophy which is based on several social sciences most of which are not very well understood.
2. More importantly, the political discussions may cause people who need good information about fitness to go elsewhere for a variety of reasons.
3. Finally, it's just in bad taste, and gives the site an unprofessional quality.
As for me, I'm going to ignore the really low quality of the political discussions, and focus on the high quality of the physical fitness information. That's the advice I give to everyone I direct to the CrossFit site, and most of those people have told me that it was good advice.


Russell Berger wrote …

Solomon- "Many Libertarians hold objectivist views for this reason, but as I've pointed out before, there is little in the way of party unity when it comes to libertarians."

- You are absolutely right here. Please note that many Libertarians, such as myself, believe that when the dangers of avoiding war threaten our freedoms, then ideology is put aside for need of action. "being anti-war is like being anti-glacier"... (Vonnegut).

Erin- [libertarianism] is a socially liberal, fiscally conservative viewpoint - the combination of the right and left which promotes the greatest freedom, personal responsibility, and as stated above, provides the greatest ability to act as a moral human.

- very well put

And to Ken: One of the major characteristics of Libertarianism is its simplicity. Don't dismiss something because it isn't "complex" enough. Intellectualism isn't a prerequisite for discussion. If you think the quality is low, contribute. I wrote this article for the same reason.


wrote …

Russell- "Please note that many Libertarians, such as myself, believe that when the dangers of avoiding war threaten our freedoms, then ideology is put aside for need of action."

- I'm adopting this sentence as it matches my sentiments and states them more eloquently than I've been able.

My stance on the rest-day reading suggestions: Thank you to the Glassmans for consistently posting articles that are both informative and provocative (one must recognize this regardless of political slant). I'm sure that this is not always a simple task, and that just as much time and thought likely goes into ensuring a quality posting as into defining the next wod.

I personally enjoy reading the well-stated views that differ from mine. It would be an awfully boring world if we all thought alike.


wrote …

Sky- awfully boring is part of what the world would be, tragically misled would be another. If we didn't have conflicting opinions or points of view, we would never have to come up with arguments and facts that support them. We also may never see the light on some of our points of view because we were unable to see the forrest for the trees.

Russell- awesome points all around.

Ken-smart people didn't start out as knowing more, smart people had to teach them. Yes, some of the responses on the rest day articles are banal and confused, but can you think of a better way of teaching people then to allow them to see where they may have gone wrong? I love the Glassmans, I think that they are forcing us to look at things with a critical eye and judge things based on evidence rather than speculation or opinion. That is a great thing for me, I didn't even understand what that meant until someone smarter than me showed/ told me what my brain was for. If you can't use your brain then you are no better than a sheep, and I don't think that Greg and Lauren want a society of sheep, they are making us better in body and brain, otherwise they would have no one to talk to.


Aaron Shaffer wrote …

I agree with Ken that it gives the site an unprofessional quality. I too am "going to ignore the political discussions and focus on the high quality of the physical fitness information."


wrote …

Russell, thanks for a great piece, made me humbly glad to have been an Alabamian ('raised' in Florence, brother and family in Hville).

I think the parallels to CF and libertarianism may also be seen in the way the Glassman's have 'promulgated the kool aid.' No franchise, just a moderate (damned low, really) fee to affiliate. All info freely available on the web; can be a damned good CFer and not pay a penny to the Glassmans. They assumed at the front end that quality and excellence would attract market attention, not fancy marketeting schemes - thus, no Furey-esque adds all over the place; rather, CF has spread by word of mouth.

Fascinating that CF, a community that was raised on Pukey, welcomes seniors, kids, elite athletes and the best of the best terrorist hunting commandos under the same tent, joined by the same fundamental drive - 'will work hard to live better.' Paul


wrote …

I'm intrigued by the two posters that feel that the articles provided on rest days are in bad taste or otherwise unprofessional. I believe that to be a very flawed opinion, and I wonder on what logic it is based that you be so bold to post it for all to see. Crossfit (as I see it) does not claim to be "professional" as far as the rest day articles. Crossfit claims to be professional as far as exercise. Perhaps you meant that posting provocative rest day articles interfers with the effectiveness of the posted WODs? If this is the case, I disagree. Do you have the ability to compartmentalize the two areas and allow only the exercise portion to benefit you?

Personally, I am of the opinion (no disrespect) that "professional" is just code for "I don't like them, but have no way to stop it." Feel free to prove me wrong.

Crossfit is something that is SHARED with you with no exchange of currency; for you to then claim that something provided to you for free, which you have the right to feely ignore can somehow be unprofessional is extremely odd.


wrote …

I've gotta agree with Ken on the the quality of the discussions, however I draw the line at saying they detract from the site. The site is awesome and no one has to pay the discussions any mind.

But, speaking as a non-American who studied political theory in school (And boy have I had enough of all the arguing), most of the discussions are channeled down the narrow political spectum that is uniquely American. There is a wider world out there that can see a bigger picture folks. Its not always about the evil liberal establishment against the equally evil conservatives.


wrote …

I laughed when I heard that crossfit had been described as a cult, but after reading this article I think some people may in fact have their lips surgically attached to the crossfit ass (a very toned and nice ass, to be sure, probably waxed).

I have libertarian tendencies, but I find that militant libertarians (such as those posting here), like militant socialists, have much more in common than they would care to admit - the personality type is almost identical: fanatical, angry, and their arguments always always seem very selfish and paranoid. In short, they are taking incidental things - like politics - way too seriously. Unfortunately, these fanatics always seem to end up in political power in democracies, while the rest of the world carries on much as it has always done with the simple business of living. The truth is, there is no doctrinal formula that will provide the best answer for every problem - politics is an art, not a science. Doctrinaire libertarians continue to be too cold and indifferent to suffering (although some mistakenly believe their tenets will end suffering) while doctrinaire socialists continue to be too soft, with no clue about human nature.

I also have respect for those in the military and police forces, but I find the intensely paranoid and xenophobic militarism of crossfit distasteful. As that great sage, Chesterton, once said - in a devastating criticism of Nietzche's superman - the great man (or strong man) is not characterized by a hatred for the weak or a dearth of compassion, he is characterised by his magnanimity and levity.

Paranoid siege mentalities, like those which occasionally pop up around this website, reflect a view of the world based on unfounded fears. One almost gets the feeling that some people are doing crossfit in preparation for the apocalypse (I wonder if any fallout shelters have been built yet with a set of rings and a barbell kit). The best thing about crossfit is that it is FUN and makes you feel GREAT.

That said, I do enjoy reading the articles posted to the website, such as this excellent one by Russell. Crossfit rules! Keep up the good work!


wrote …

Great article both people make a valid point, and we should continue to put up articles for debate on it challenges people to think outside the box about the issues and to voice their opinions even though they may be different to someone elses point of view.


replied to comment from Russell Berger


I'm not dismissing Libertarianism at all. I hold it in high regard. But the bottom line is that I come to this site for fitness information. When I want to discuss politics, I'll go some place devoted to politics. I'm just not interested in mixing these two subjects. Also I'm not dinging Libertarianism for being simplistic, I'm dinging the discussions as simplistic.


replied to comment from Paul Vandenbos


You may be correct, maybe my opinion, about the political discussions being unprofessional, is flawed. It is nothing more than my opinion. However if someone came to me for information on a subject on which I'm knowledgeable, I don't think they would appreciate if I tried push my politics on them at the same time. Even if they agreed with what I was saying. I would expect that they might not come back again.
I'm worried that people who come to this site for fitness information might be turned off to what CrossFit has to offer because of the political discussions. When it comes to Politics and Religion, I try to keep my opinions to myself unless someone makes it clear that they would like to hear my opinion.
Perhaps this is just a prejudice of mine. I'm willing to concede that.


wrote …

I personally don't mind my opinion being challenged every now and then. I also think both opinions mentioned in the article are valid ones. If Coach wants to post political articles on his own website, he is free to do so as long as he doesn't mind a few people getting upset. The site is a free service and you don't have to use it if you feel it offends you.

I completely agree with your point about religion and politics and I think a lot of people would do well to take that opinion to heart.


replied to comment from Andrew Johnston

Andrew, I would be curious to know how you define libertarian - most folks cannot do so with any degree of accuracy. There may be an axis on which you could find ardent libertarians being similar to ardent liberals (new meaning of the word), but as regards the utility of govt interventions and justifiable use of the coercive power of the state, these similarities would be few.



Ned Ferguson wrote …

As many have noted, Crossfit has this great web site where everything is free. Consider "tolerating" the occasional opinion piece the price of admission. Doesn't tolerance reign supreme in the minds of Liberals? Oh yeah, it's a one-way ratchet. I can't believe that some people are so offended over the opinions posted that they disavow Crossfit altogether - yet they do. It says more about them and their need for control than it says about Crossfit.


Jeff Barnett wrote …

I greatly enjoyed Russell's article.

Honestly, I did find it strange when I first noticed that from time to time a right-leaning article would be linked from the rest day post. I can also see the point that it may detract from the site. People often just don't want politics mixed into all aspects of life. Right or wrong, that's reality. However, if you're not concerned about marketing a product/service then it's really moot. is private property, and therefore subject to whatever the owner may desire.

I don't participate in the political commenting, mostly because I'm into Crossfit because of its fitness methodology. I used to spend a great deal of time debating politics on internet forums, but found it to be much more laborious than fruitful.


replied to comment from Ned Ferguson


Why would you assume that just "liberals" would be turned off by these discussions? Base on my experience, a lot of people of all political persuasions would be turned off. Usually for reasons that have little or nothing to do with politics. The politics of these posts certainly are not the reason I don't care for them.


Ned Ferguson wrote …

Ken - Point taken. You're right. I made an assumption. Mainly because of a particular complaint I recently read from one of the offended who fit my description.


wrote …

An observation from reading the points of view expressed here-

There is a readiness, and a willingness, to identify wholly with being a 'liberal' or a 'conservative', coupled with a marked lack of flexibility or tolerance toward the 'opposing' viewpoint. All too often I see rational thought suspended in the rush to appear as liberal as possible, i.e. one MUST, by definition, be pro-choice, anti-war, environmentally friendly... you know the drill.

And if one identifies with being a conservative, then it goes without saying that you be anti-abortion, pro-war, all the way with John McCain... etc, etc.

Now maybe there is a significant chunk of the US populace in whom all of these attitudes are encapsulated, holus-bolus, and maybe these people are the only ones motivated to write and rant and express their views... I dunno, but it shows a lack of psychological maturity and an inability to think for onesself when the total package must be swallowed, then regurgitated at every opportunity, in order to feel 'part' of something.

What happened to selectively agreeing and disagreeing with various policies expressed by liberals, conservatives, or what have you?

No-one is ALL right or ALL wrong... No-one has taken a patent out on ethics...
No-one is infallible... No-one is as good, or as bad, as their respective supporters and detractors would have us believe...

This 'all or nothing' parochial mentality, this 'either you're with us or you're against us' attitude, is a recipe for intolerance,closed-minded thinking, and blinkered mouthing of rhetoric in place of considered intelligent discussion, and it's a slippery slope that leads nowhere that you'd really want to end up.

Back to the article...

Claiming that CF somehow is inextricably linked to some sort of political leaning or another, due to it's methodology and philosophy, is drawing a long bow...

Guys, it's just exercise!


wrote …

Paul, I find it hard to believe that anyone would have trouble defining a libertarian, however, on t'other side of the Atlantic the terms liberal and conservative seem to be totally bass-ackwards, so I suppose it is possible.

Libertarian political philosophy is simply that which seeks to maximise the freedom of the individual and limit that of coercive authority, which is deemed to be a necessary evil. In this philosophy the responsibilities of government are usually limited to providing internal and external defense and a stable currency, most would also allow that it should provide public goods which cannot be run profitably. It's economic concomitant is laissez-faire economics a-la Manchester. It's ostensible opposite would be communitarianism.

Unfortunately, things don't always go to plan, and - as Hayek realised when at his best - libertarianism doesn't work very well when society is falling apart. If anyone is interested, the British philosopher John Gray has written extensively on the way the liberal (ie. in the correct sense, which Americans call 'libertarian') project undermines itself when communities are broken on the rock of economic dislocations induced by laissez-faire economics, as witnessed by the disastrous Thatcher/Reagan experiment of the 80s.

Anyways, I like libertarianism and think it is a great ideal, and probably the political ideology I most identify with. But sometimes it's prescriptions do not provide the best solution to the problems. Adam Smith knew this, J.S. Mill knew this, Hayek knew it in his more lucid moments, however some of their modern-day disciples seem to have trouble grasping this fact.


replied to comment from justin shipley

I have to agree with much of what you say Justin. I generally don't get involved with the discussions precisely because they tend toward being binary. For whatever reason, this seems to be common in most of the discussion that I hear coming out of America with regard to politics (on-off, right-wrong, right-left, etc). There doesn’t appear to be space for the possibility that life is grey and varied.

Generally, I believe that this is done by media conditioning although I’m unwilling to claim a conspiracy of the “liberal” press that is owned by “conservative” money. It does seem though that most mass-media forums place all issues in either one camp or the other. Perhaps to avoid the possibility that the citizenry will realize that there is as many ways to view the situation and solve problems as there are people with imaginations?


wrote …

In Australia, voting is compulsory, and you will be fined for not voting, and jailed for not paying the fine.

In your country, voting is not compulsory, and as a result the brightest minds in psychology, marketing, advertising, lobbying, and political spin-doctoring apply the full weight of their respective talents toward convincing the potential voter of the snow-white purity of one side, while casting doubt and aspersion upon everything that the other side stands for.

I am amazed and concerned by the cult of personality that is evident in presidential elections, along with the subsequent personal attacks that are an accepted flip-sde to this adulation.

You are supposed to be voting for a PARTY, not a person, a party with POLICIES that it is actually OK to both agree and disagree with, selectively. And based upon this weighing up of benefits to YOU and YOURS on an individual basis, you vote for the party whose stated policies best support and provide for the standard of living that you wish to enjoy over the next four years or so.

On the topic of the personal attacks alluded to earlier, has no-one heard that making someone else look bad doesn't make you look any better? This is basic schoolyard diplomacy that gets thrown out the window by these 'grown-ups' who are supposedly pillars of society, as well as supposedly being made of the kinda stuff needed to run a nation.

Just like CF, excellence and integrity and truth in the field of politics should, and will, stand out head and shoulders above the surrounding ocean of mediocrity and posturing and outright horsesh*t, without the need for any of us to shout ourselves hoarse (or in this case, type ourselves cramped...) in futile attempts to convince one another of 'our' side's righteousness or the other side's incurable wrongness.


wrote …

Henry Rollins:
But two hundred pounds is always two hundred pounds.


wrote …

Not on the moon Steven, not on the moon...

Apparently Henry Rollins doesn't know the difference between weight and mass :-)


Hello All,

I suppose I may be a day late & dollar short of this whole discussion, but I can't help seeing similarities between the Crossfit philosophy and the very subject of this discussion. Perhaps this was a trick question?

One of the major concepts of Crossfit we can all agree on, and even Coach Glasssman expects on some level, is that the workouts themselves are uncomfortable (I really wanted to say, "they suck until they're over," but "uncomfortable" is the word used by the Coach himself in one of the videos). If we apply the Crossfit philosophy to the rest day discussions, shouldn't they make us a little uncomfortable as well? Is that what happens when you truly workout your mind? Isn't that where growth occurs? Where you are uncomfortable enough to start really asking questions about how you're living your life and the results you're getting? Maybe I'm a lazy bastard, but change doesn't come to my life until something really challenging presents itself, and I have to step up to defend what I've been living, or reexamine it, and make a change.

As far as a political bent, I think the CrossFit Philosophy itself falls somewhere in the middle. Form is extremely important in the workouts. You just can't go around clean & jerking any old way you want, there are certain restrictions involved which may seem like a pain at first, but once accepted and practiced, actually provide a far greater potential for increased weight, speed, safety and fitness. There is a certain amount of freedom of movement of mind and body that is wonderful, but it's not going to move you in a forward direction. That forward direction of bigger, faster, stronger, smarter & even creativity is usually acquired by some form of restriction. There are certain movements the body just can't do; as much as you may try, your knees aren't going to bend the other way. We have a restricted knee movement. How the body's design works with these restrictions is where the true magic of movement comes into play. The "problem," if you want to call it that, in many life philosophies, is that the restrictions are not easily agreed upon. While there is no argument about your knee joint, there is plenty of discussion between humans when it comes to how to live your life. Is there a life philosophy that works a statistically significant amount of time, like Crossfit, higher than 90%? I'm not sure. Depending on who you talk to, you'll get all kinds of ideas. I find myself striving for congruency in my life and I have to see a parallel with life and the CF philosophy in general, whether political or even religious.

CF itself embodies a philosophy somewhere down the middle, a certain amount of restriction leads to a certain amount of freedom enjoyed. I see this same philosophy working in life. You're restricted for 8 hours a day at work, so (hopefully) you can have a certain amount of freedom the rest of the time. We all tend to agree that killing your neighbor is wrong, so that restriction allows us to walk down the street. Trimming a tree properly can actually make it healthier and stronger. I could go on and on with the list, but this is why I find my own personal philosophy falling somewhere very in the middle, realizing that a bit of restriction may be just what I need...whether that's giving up cake & short circuiting lipo-genesis, keeping my hip-fold below my knees in the squat, or walking to the store to shrink my carbon footprint.

Following this thinking, I'm not sure if you could package CF into an established political philosophy, unless there is one that acknowledges healthy restriction leading to a greater degree of freedom. Liberals, don't jump on this because the liberal philosophy of "everything is ok & a right, not an earned privilege" doesn't jive with focused, uncomfortable, restrictive growth. And Conservatives, don't get excited because "let the markets take care of it & no taxes" doesn't jive with focused, uncomfortable, restrictive growth either. Maybe we should start a political party, LifeFit... DC would never be the same!

In my quest for a personal "unity theory" Crossfit seems to work pretty well across many platforms. I think I even read someone applying the Tabata intervals at work, (20 min intense work, 10 min rest), with great results. Can you say that about your life philosophy? Can you apply your life philosophy in other areas of your life and achieve a recordable, repeatable result? Until we find which restrictions work best for our lives as well as our bodies, I'm going to do my best at implementing the Crossfit philosophy in as many areas as I can. I know it's going to be hella-uncomfortable, but hopefully on the other side I'm going to be better prepared for whatever life throws at me.


Mike Whitner wrote …

Alright so I may be way off topic from the looks of things but did anyone else notice that in the sidebar he put the POSE method of running as the CrossFit equivalent of privatizing Social Security? That's classic.


wrote …

re: Pose running and social security privatization

My point was that unpopular ideas aren't necessarily wrong. Each should be considered on its merits.


replied to comment from Daniel Freedman

And by the same token, unpopular ideas aren't necessarily right.


replied to comment from Max Shippee

This is quite a funny idea: that there is somehow a connection between athletics and libertarian political theory. Am I to understand that playing team sports results in a communitarian ideology? Somehow I don't think that abandoning Marxism will increase ones deadlift, however beneficial it might be otherwise. If there were a connection between political ideology and performance in sport, the USA wouldn't be getting their asses handed to them by China and Russia in weightlifting year after year. I also fail to see a connection between the high percentage of Scandinavian strongmen and social-democracy.

I think some of the people around here are in desperate need of some 'non-crossfit' hobbies and reading material. Crossfit is a great way to get fit, but they didn't invent the burpee. Likewise, the rest day articles are interesting, but they cannot be justified scientifically (as crossfit's methods can be). As Max Weber pointed out so astutely, political science can only advise on the best ways to achieve a goal, but it can't tell you which goals or values to prioritize. There is no 'scientific' argument in favour of individual liberty over more communal values. Economic growth and free trade are values which cannot be justified by any scientific argument, they are a matter of taste, Americans tend to favour these values (as do I), but many do not - to the consternation of IMF and World Bank policy wonks and other well-meaning 'saviours'.


replied to comment from Andrew Johnston

I agree that the notion of a connection between athletics and political philosophy is silly.

With one exception, of course. Only Commie fags play soccer. Real men play American football.


wrote …

arguing on the internet is like playing in the special olympics- even if you win you're still a retard. quit bickering and go do the WOD.


replied to comment from Daniel Freedman

Actually, REAL men play rugby. American football is just rugby with pads and a commercial break every 15 seconds.


I wasn't trying to make a connection between athletics and political philosophy... you are right in calling that idea "silly". I was comparing two concepts: Political philosophy and the Crossfit methodology. This is still a stretch of course, but that's beside the point. A connection between the two was drawn when political articles found their way onto the main site. I was just connecting the dots.

I think the purpose of this article went way over some people's heads...I'm not even entirely sure the counter-point article makes any true counter-points. It's almost as if we are ranting about two different subjects.
The fact that the title "it makes you libertarian" was not mine, and was altered without my permission also kind of changes the tone.

The endstate here is that you are free to draw your own conclusions but don't complain about something when you are getting it free.


replied to comment from Russell Berger

"The endstate here is that you are free to draw your own conclusions but don't complain about something when you are getting it free."

I agree wholeheartedly!


replied to comment from Ken Schafer


Do you find NPR's 'All Liberal Things Considered' to add an unprofessional edge to what is supposed to be public radio? Does Time magazines silly slant make it seem tacky? I wonder what your standard for professionalism is and how you apply it in your daily life.


replied to comment from Solomon Sands

Crossfit is the answer to all fitness issues. Anyway you look at this, crossfit that gets it done. The motions and the expertise of individuals is what itis. Follow your heart and do crossfit with an open mind. Jim Thoma Shoreline, Wa


wrote …

Russell my man, brilliant article!

Crossfit business model:

"Crossfit offers everything to athletes that traditional gym comglomerates can not or will not, better overall results in less time."

Gyms are big business, the longer you are inside the more money you want to spend. Make a sugar shake, buy a shirt two sizes to small, catch a glimps at the Yoga class, watch the 300 lbs Oak do 100lbs dumbbell curls.

F-that mess.

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)