ThreePointTakedown

If you've been in an airport, concert, or large sports venue you've likely shared the bathroom with a trans person. It probably happened without any incident whatsoever. Why do you think that is? Because we just want to go then leave and forget every face that we made uncomfortable eye contact with along the way. Making a big deal of it is what makes it a big deal. If we actually tried to get along this wouldn't be an issue.

What about science says that about people in bathrooms? Are we magnets that repel certain polarities? Nothing about science says what you're trying to say it does. People are allowed in rooms together. Even bathrooms. What you are failing to understand is that people tend to lash out violently when confronted with something they don't understand. Giving them motivation to do so will increase the likelihood of it happening. Your suggestion, I imagine, would be to just keep them out. Alternatively, people can just get over it and move on to things that might actually effect their lives. Will a bathroom incident effect someone's life in any meaningful way? Statistically unlikely. Unless you've been primed to think it is the end all be all of liberal propaganda. That is until next year when this is no longer an issue and the next thing is the liberal apocalypse. But really there is no next thing, its just minorities of different sexual proclivities than the 'norm' or immigrants. You all are so predictable.

And I'm sure a point will be made from the link provided. Not sure a policy had anything to do with the timeline or issues in the case we are discussing. Similar bathroom laws/policies have been debated for years now and still no legit arguments for why they should not be implemented. Has there been a spike in bathroom related crime carried out by trans individuals? Or has there been and continue to be violence perpetuated on trans individuals no matter which bathroom they choose to use? As well as outside said bathrooms? So, just about everywhere.

So you can read minds? That's great. So next you'll tell me why I wrote it the way that I did.

Talk about back-peddle. Did they die shortly after? Yes. Did I say anything about the cause or reason? The answer is 'No'. That you don't want to admit it is on you. You read into it something you wanted to be true. Reassess your methods because they seem flawed. Or ask follow up questions.

Fair point and one that just about everyone can appreciate. In this situation the action is disgusting. Are you attributing something to their character or their morality based upon this action?

And inferring intent you can't prove will go nowhere to help your case.

Did I ever say that was a reason or a cause?

Or think about how unsustainable it is.

What is the real story? Fight happened. Person dies shortly after. Turns out they were bullied. Turns out they had a father that abused them. Which may have led to their actions the next day. It was a tragedy in a state that is going out of its way to marginalize kids in similar circumstances. With representatives that feel confident to call them 'filth'. What part of this story should be recanted?

What happens, perhaps we try to find peaceful solutions to our problems. At the barrel of a gun is a not a great way to orchestrate a lasting peace. Just about everyone has figured that out by now. Resentment and disdain is what is left when you are forced into peace rather then convinced. Do rational actors engage, honestly, in peaceful negotiations? No. That's why I brought up the 'disgust' remark. People that grow to find others as disgusting and less than human are less likely to want to peacefully reside on a planet, let alone the same country/state/county/city as one they feel is subhuman. You probably didn't intend that to come off when using that word but it can be spun that way especially by those already predisposed to seeing it. I feel rhetoric like that should not be taken lightly. We can disagree but referring to someone in a way that takes away their humanity is dangerous and a phenomenon we have seen before. The consequences of allowing it continue and grow is never good. Do I suggest quelling it by force? No. But we need to stop people that engage in this behavior, early. Identify and acknowledge that their ideas may bear fruit but the rhetoric to get there is unacceptable.

As you respond to a post that clearly breaks down how the question was NOT answered. Reading my original question, did it mention anything about legality of actions? No. Just actions that might make J uncomfortable. That J may have meant 'illegal' did not come through in the post that inspired the question. That J changed the verbiage of the statement midstream is something they should address. May it have been a mistake or typo or could it have been J answered a question that they felt may paint the opinion in a better light? Who can say other than the author? But they should if for no other reason then to help quell any confusion. Maintain credibility.

1. I would check your sources. They still need to follow Title IX rules about money spent and roster spots across the department. Which means, the roster is controlled with collaboration from every sport. 2. Fantastic recruiters take 11 years to get their first AA? Then retire less than 10 years later? Second question has less to do with recruiting, I guess. Maybe more to do with handing the reins to more capable hands. Then those hands have a few good years then leave for what they feel is a better gig. Right about the same time the alums from the mid-late 90's start being able contribute more and perhaps begin to exert or insist on a bit more influence on the direction of the program. I always take 'trust me' with a grain of salt. Was it conjecture to say the recruiting classes were of dramatically different sizes prior to and immediately following the hiring of RR? I would say that is spot on accurate and cause for concern to anyone interested in the program.

The question was not about the law, it was about your comfortability level with regards to others' behavior. Please answer the question asked? Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. That they stand tells you nothing of their opinion of what is acceptable during the playing of a national anthem. I have stood for every anthem that has been played at a sporting event I competed in or coached in, with exceptions of logistical mix ups or schedule confusion, yet have had zero concern with anyone not doing what I was doing during the anthem. Sorry if that's disappointing but just as other's actions have no effect on you. Your disappointment or disgust sways me not one bit to your way of thinking. Feeling disgust in another human for an action that has no effect on your life, on the other hand, is something that could lead to negative consequences to society.

Why should anyone alter their behavior in public because it makes you uncomfortable? I think the 'large portion of the public' is smaller than you'd think. I think they are vocal but ultimately a shrinking minority.

Do you care to answer the question considering it was from your comment?

Who deserves a pass? What is the criteria? And, we teach the next generation the coping techniques they will use to handle stress.

Oh this is gonna be great. Tell me what my opinion is on pronoun usage? Who have I attacked for using the wrong pronouns? No one. Do you have examples where this is untrue? Have I been attacked for not using gender specific pronouns while talking about a person? Yes I have. Do the examples you refer to correlate at all? No they don't. But if you disagree I would love to see your explanation. Sorry. To answer your questions. I don't see the irony or the parallel, please explain? Hypocrisy bothers me. You are in favor of freedom but, seemingly, only the kind of freedom that you are comfortable with. That's all. Not abiding by a 'protocol' does nothing to you. Its not personal. No one is pointing at you while they kneel or fail to remove their hat. You are taking offense, personally, to an act(if it is even purposeful, which is a different conversation altogether) being done to the whole. And again, you are not addressing the person responsible. But hoping to get solace from a group of likeminded people. A group that may contain one or more members who feeling sooooo aggrieved and snowflake-ish as to take out their vicitmhood by committing acts of violence. My guess is, that since you cannot 'fix' this situation that someone else will do it for you. There is a word for that.

Its disappointing that you feel its funny someone pointing out the chance of the real harm your words may visit upon someone. For the unforgiveable sin of not sharing your values on a topic that causes no physical harm to anyone! Interesting this topic revolves around the military of all things and that the irony is lost on you. Shocked but at the same time not surprised. Carry on yelling at clouds and putting teenagers in danger!

Yes, that is probably true. Because you were probably brought up to believe that. Would it be true? You have no idea because rather then trying to understand the child's reasons or motivations, you are perfectly comfortable assuming something of them that makes you feel superior and them morally inferior. Who are you talking about? What ilk? People you don't like? Seems as if your examples get more and more outlandish. So much so that I dare say you are making them up or would be hard pressed to admit that you've had first hand experience with each of these situations. The chip bag thing drives me crazy. You're yelling at clouds again with this one. It bothers you. That's frustrating, I know. But your yelling is only that. It serves no purpose but to undercut your point. Freedom needs defending, unfortunately. Using that freedom should not be mocked or derided when it HURTS NO ONE, just because you don't happen to like it. Why is it these issues can't just be a 'self accountability' issue? If you wouldn't do it, then don't. If others do and you don't like it, you can tell them or not associate yourself with them. But you're not doing either of those things. You're yelling to a mob and trying rally support for an issue that hurts no one. And I've mentioned it before, but bringing such fervor to a mob over an imagined slight, there is a greater than 0% chance that someone in the mob that you are yelling to, will go out of their way to hurt your perceived enemy. To sum up: Does your ranting do anything to remedy your feeling of being slighted? No. Does it increase the likelihood of real, physical harm coming to one or more of the 'ilk' you claim is responsible for your hurt feelings? Yes.

Your sources?

Was played at the Vegas tournament at least once. Was cut off half way to get the wrestling started. I thought it was awesome! Partially wanted to hear the whole thing also, paid for the ticket to see wrestling.

Sorry I keep coming back to this but what I see is, 'whatever feels right to me in that situation, is right'. No metric or scale to weigh the harm vs good. You want people to just do what you want them to do when you want them to do it and because.... you say so. Someone said earlier, that's borderline fascism. Perceived disrespect is just that. Perceived. No one is hurt by any of these actions. Just the feelings of people that can't regulate their emotions. Then trying to force their beliefs onto others through guilt and intimidation. Reason goes right out the window. Because they don't have one. If anything, soldiers should be well versed in the 'why' of it all. To know what they are fighting for and how people use those freedoms. If they are not comfortable with that, they can change their mind or un-volunteer.

Fair points. What was the time line of the RTC and the Tirapelle's hiring? I could've sworn it was around the same time for both. Tough situation to be brought into. Learning everything about a new program and balance the exec, athletes, and supporting donors of a new RTC. As much calming insight as you've offered I'll bet there is more to it. Bringing a former HC back after 12 years out of the sport(was he a volunteer for a year? 11 years) is ludicrous on its face. There were obvious concessions that RR was given to right the ship that were not offered to Tirapelle and its laughable that anyone will try to explain it away as 'not panicked'. Huge recruiting classes were brought in the next few years. I wonder if there were Title IX implications for the department? If not, how could those changes in roster size be accounted for? Were extra Warton opportunities offered to potential recruits? Those spots are coveted by every team in the department. Were there backroom deals done to shift those around for a time a la Varsity Blues that broke at a similar time? Someone with knowledge of the system and the right relationships would be a great person to get things moving in the right direction. How did the conversation start, to get Matt on board with coming back after nearly 10 years? Similar circumstances or different?

Would love to see your thoughts. I've been a Tirapelle fan since his brother was at Stanford and love to see such a solid family as ambassadors of the sport. Considering sheer number and quality of athletes each HS, they coach at now, has put out in the last 20 years, they are not enemies I would want to make. I felt that what happened to Alex at Penn was shady. Maybe he was sold an unrealistic expectations or maybe ambition got the better of a first time HC. But something doesn't make sense the way things played out. Or they do, in that a big donor got cold feet a new AD panicked and did the easier thing. A thing that, by the numbers did not pan out. Now they are trying the same plan hoping for the same but different result. Satiate worried donors and pray an old name can spark an uptick in results. Fast forward 7-8 years, do they try it again? Who is left in the barrel to scrape up? Or does Brandon finally get a chance to take over, he's been out of college wrestling long enough to qualify. Who would apply for that position, knowing how they've treated every outside hire in the last 20 years? (a question to be asked in 2032ish)