@LimboKid -
Sarcasm aside, that is not at all what I wrote. I was strictly responding to what you said: “Don’t know enough about fencing, but those kids always act more privileged and better than everyone else because they play “physical chess”. Since this is not true, and since you acknowledge that you don’t know enough about fencing, then your comment is either ignorant (i.e., you don’t know), prejudiced (i.e., you have a preconceived perception of fencers as privileged, entitled kids), or both. This in no way denies your right to voice your opinion. It simply exercises mine to respond.
My point about doing a “Google search” is that you are clearly unfamiliar with the metrics of NCAA fencing programs. You probably Googled results for Stanford and Brown fencing and assumed their relatively unsuccessful performances as a justification for terminating these programs. This is not big college sports. These are student-athletes at the best schools in the country. As I pointed out, the mantra for these schools is not win at any cost. It is to excel in your academics, drive toward your post-graduate goals, but be well-rounded through sports. It is not about forming one’s own opinion - By all means, do so. However, forming that opinion via a superficial Google search or reference to Wikipedia does not make you an expert or even remotely aware of a sport you yourself profess to not know enough about.
To what claims are you referring? By definition, a “non-fencer athlete” would not be dying to be on a fencing team. Leaving aside whether I subscribe to the popularity-sports linkage you make, believe me, since you cede me expertise, fencers on top NCAA teams are very popular. Have you ever attended a major NCAA Regionals tournament? An NCAA Fencing national championship? Talk to me about enthusiasm and support after you have attended a few of those. No one is claiming that fencing is on a par with football or basketball for substantial attendance beyond parents, family and friends (and of course other fencers). This is not what these programs are about. Calling them “money losing machines” is silly. In almost all cases, all college sports, other than football, lose money. The fact is that most competitive NCAA fencing teams pay their own way. At top programs there is mega-alumni support. Multi-million dollar facilities have been built, at Penn, Columbia, and at other schools based on this support.
Pardon me if I think that referring to fencing kids as privileged and entitled, citing totally unsubstantiated possible corruption at these programs, and generally demonstrating a lack of understanding of the fencing culture, is belittling. You are free to share your opinion. Your outside perspective, however, is a double-edged sword (ha - get it?). You may bring some objective, practical viewpoint, but you also lack a deep understanding (perhaps even a superficial understanding) of the sport and its unique community. Citing facts without context or an understanding of their significance, is not a useful way to discuss this issue. Of course, the “fact” is that neither Stanford nor Brown were particularly competitive NCAA fencing programs. But these programs were in place and had a purpose beyond winning NCAA titles. This is inherent in the culture of fencing and something you clearly do not understand.
Clearly, no one has closed this forum to you. I don’t know what you mean by a “safe space.” Posts invite responses. Simply because you don’t like the response, does not mean that your safe space was violated. There were ways in which to craft your post that were less offensive to those of us who are one of, or who may be the parents or coaches of “those kids always act(ing) more privileged and better than everyone else.”