Your older brother keeps asking when you'll "bring someone normal" home, seven times, years after you already came out — how many times do you correct the same comment before you stop showing up?

Colonel ReyesSo this crossed my desk earlier: Your older brother keeps asking when you'll "bring someone normal" home, seven times, years after you already came out — how many times do you correct the same comment before you stop showing up. What's your first instinct on it?

HutchYou don't count the corrections, you count the visits. Imagine a sister who stops driving over for Sunday dinner because every plate gets cleared off before she even sits down; that’s when the house starts feeling less like family and more like a checkpoint. The result isn't that she learned her lesson, it's that nobody shows up anymore.

Colonel ReyesSeven times is the problem, not the silence. If a soldier reports the same breach seven times and gets the same shrug back, he doesn’t quit the unit, he files a formal complaint. Stopping shows up just means accepting that his report goes nowhere.

HutchFiling a complaint doesn't fix the fact that he still has to eat dinner across from the guy who called him abnormal. In my book, the only metric that matters is whether the table feels safe enough to sit at, not how many times he raised his hand. Sure, that worked great on paper.

Colonel ReyesPicture a recruit who flags a safety hazard three times and gets ignored; walking away doesn't clear his record, it just leaves the hazard unaddressed for everyone else. The outcome of the household might be quiet, but the procedural failure remains unfixed until the behavior actually changes. Hutch's focus on comfort ignores that ignoring the rule sets the precedent for the rest of the group.

HutchPicture a neighbor who fixes the same fence post four times while the dog keeps digging under it, yet the street still looks fine to anyone passing by. The post being straight doesn't matter if the yard is still torn up where people actually walk. That “precedent” you’re talking about stays theoretical until someone actually hurts themselves in the mess left behind. Sure, worked great on paper.

Colonel ReyesA straight fence post is irrelevant if the foundation is cracked. Fix the digger, not the wood. Procedure demands addressing the root cause, not patching symptoms.

HutchGetting the root cause nailed is exactly where I’d start too. But saying “fix the digger” assumes the neighbor will let you put a leash on him without blowing up the whole street. In real houses, changing the person doing the digging usually costs more than just stopping the visits. Sure, worked great on paper.

Colonel ReyesChanging the person is often impossible, but pretending the rule violation didn’t happen is a choice we make. Most units have a protocol for when a member refuses to stand down; you escalate to command rather than letting the chaos continue unchecked. We need to ask what the actual escalation path looks like here, since withdrawing is just abandoning the process.

HutchEscalating to command sounds a lot like calling the landlord because the tenants are arguing; the building still stands, but now there’s a third party judging your plumbing choices while you wait outside. The only metric that survives contact with reality is whether the door actually closes after you leave, not whether you filed the right form first. Sure, worked great on paper.

Colonel ReyesLeaving the room doesn't end the duty cycle, it just suspends it indefinitely. Say a junior NCO stops reporting abuse because the chain of command is broken; the victim isn't protected, they're just waiting for the next incident with no witness. You can't audit a system that voluntarily went offline before the review started.

HutchWaiting for the next incident means the victim spends every holiday bracing for impact. The door staying shut protects the kid, not the paperwork. Sure, worked great on paper.

Colonel ReyesBracing for impact is a symptom, not a treatment plan. You don't discharge a patient because they're scared of surgery; you get them into the OR. Stopping the visits leaves the underlying dysfunction untreated, which guarantees the next incident happens exactly the same way.

HutchDischarging a patient because they’re terrified of the knife might save their life today, even if the scar heals crooked. You can’t force someone to stay in the ER long enough to fix the hospital; sometimes getting out the front door is the only medicine that sticks. Sure, worked great on paper."

Colonel ReyesWalking out the front door skips the step that actually prevents the next crisis. You can't treat the wound until you stop the bleeding, and leaving mid-procedure guarantees the infection spreads. The report has to exist before the silence does.

HutchBleeding stops when the person causing it backs off, not when you file another report against a brick wall. Seven years of corrections proves the brother isn't listening, so keeping the door open just invites the eighth comment. Sure, worked great on paper.

Colonel ReyesInviting the eighth comment without a documented refusal record makes the withdrawal look like abandonment, not protection. You claim he isn't listening, but without a formal notice serving as proof, the burden of safety stays entirely on the person walking away. That’s the gap between surviving the visit and actually resolving the breach.