Jump to content

Navybone

Members
  • Content Count

    151
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Navybone

  1. 3 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

    "There are real problems with this agenda, however. The first is that it’s dangerous, in exactly the manner it is hypothetically designed to fight. The argument made by those who are truly prejudiced has always been that the differences between groups are so large that discrimination, isolation, segregation and even open conflict–including war and genocide–are necessary, for the safety of whatever group they are part of and are hypothetically protecting. Why is it any less risky for the argument to be made in the reverse manner? The claim that group-based differences are so important that they must take substantive priority during hiring and promotion merely risks validating the opposite claim."

    https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/blog-posts/lie-of-diversity/ 

    This merit badge is a poison that will kill off a portion of what remains of the Boy Scouts of America.

    To state that this merit badge will kill of scouts is quite dramatic.  If scouts survives the child abuse, admitting homosexuals, and girls, this should not be the last chapter.

    However, Jordan Peterson is only one voice in this discussion, and one with a very limited and pointed perspective.  He is the darling of of the conservatives in the media when discussing diversity.  And if we welcome his point of view, should we also then not include the opposite side of the conversation?  

  2. 16 hours ago, fred8033 said:

    Because pushing this badge is offensive.

    Without knowing what the definitions are of diversity, equity, inclusion, and bigotry,  you call this offensive.  Why?  Why are these principles offensive?  
     

    or are there other specific parts of the draft requirements that are offensive?  

  3. 36 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

    So long as they are "different" in a policitcally correct way?  

     I propose that one be polite to everyone.  IS he or she "one"?  Be polite.  No mpore "education" required. 

    Of course that;s naive.  It's impolite to shake hands or eat with the left hand to a traditional Muslim., or to look at their daughter's bare ankles.  Being reprectful turns out to be darned hard in a homogenious society.  I have an Ohio American Flag license plate and my car got keyed with a lrge "PIG" Wednesday in a parking lot.  Perhaps I made someone feel unsafe.  I shudder to think a sticker supprting my son who's a State cop would bring.  After all, "ACAB."

    No "edit" link.

    I agree that everyone should be polite, but we do not life in a utopia.  Look at politics now.  We have a general break downs in basic courtesies in this country. 

    • Upvote 1
  4. 1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Because they view issues related to sexual morals as being entirely in the discretion of the parents? And that even MENTIONING the words "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" crosses that line.

    But that is exactly why this is an important opportunity.  What should a scout do if he/she meets someone who is gay (and they will)? Ignore them, pretend they do not exist?   Pick on them, bully them?  Or maybe accept them as a person with a different view.  This is not about changing anyone’s mind, it’s accepting people for being different than them.  

  5. 4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    I agree. But as noted elsewhere in this thread, there are at least two units (and I know my own committee chair, so there's a third possibly) who are looking at this as sex ed and therefore will be requesting a) waivers or b) that these portions get parental approval/instruction.

    When Adults try to use this to to push one agenda or create obstacles to the MB being implemented, I can not help but wonder why. What do they have against the basic premise or Diversity and inclusion?  Not the liberal or conservative interpretation of the terms, but the idea of treating people fairly, with respect, with equality.  Maybe they also need to earn the MB. 

  6. 16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    It depends.

    First, these laws apply to public schools. Private organizations (like BSA, see Dale case) can require or not require sex ed.

    Second, this all depends on whether you consider even MENTION of sexual orientation or gender identity as "sex education". Someone people will and will then insist that no MBC talk to their kids about sex education.

    There is talking about someone’s sexual orientation or their gender identity sex Ed.  It’s not, this is about respecting their choices.  If the scout wants to learn more, then they need to talk to their parent.  

  7. 4 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

    Also, how does this jive with the Scouter's Code of Conduct?

    "6. I will not discuss or engage in any form of sexual conduct while engaged in Scouting activities. I will refer youth with questions regarding these topics to talk to their parents or spiritual advisor"

    As a parent, I would not want anyone else talking to my kids about topics of sexual orientation and gender identity.  Our public schools don't even tread this ground... 

    Which requirement includes discussing any form of sexual conduct or gender identity other than welcoming them or that generalizations or stereotypes are wrong?  

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  8. 7 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

    This seems like a trivial merit badge to earn.  Basically you do:

    • talk about some stuff around DEI - can probably be done in 30 minutes
    • create and give a presentation - an hour maybe
    • attend a local event - an hour or two depending on the event.

    In the grand scheme of things, this seems pretty simple.

    I do not think it is too hard, but that is OK.  the challenge will be how it is led.  If MB Counselors take a laissez faire or dismissive/negative tone while leading this, then it is not only a wasted opportunity, but could actually strengthen counter-DIE efforts.   

  9. 29 minutes ago, BQZip said:

    That they aren't interested in feedback from PAYING members at large is more than a little disconcerting

    Based on the comments on this site, I think BrianWylie1, who asked the question, was pretty clear in why they looked at a small group on how to implement the merit badge.  I would not assume that the leadership has not seen the response on sites like this and others.

  10. On 11/27/2020 at 3:34 AM, Bowsprit said:

    No, that's equality of opportunity. Equity is very different. I know this seems like splitting hairs, but it is important to properly define the key issue of topic if we're going to discuss it.

    "The terms equality and equity are often used interchangeably; however, they differ in important ways. Equality is typically defined as treating everyone the same and giving everyone access to the same opportunities. Meanwhile, equity refers to proportional representation (by race, class, gender, etc.)"

    It is in fact a Marxist idea, one that has become increasingly popular among people who don't know it is a Marxist idea because they think Equity is a synonym for Equality of opportuinity, the same way you do. Originally Marxism was all about class, but this grew to include any potentially divisive "identity" group in the 60's and 70's.

    The allure of Marxism is that it sounds like everything people say they want, prosperity for all, fair treatment, etc. The effect of Marxism on a population, it turns out, is the exact opposite. But this appeal, being a natural human desire, is intentionally used to lead people in a Marxist direction without the Marxists typically telling those people where they are being led. You see, Lenin's tactics were effective enough to be used around the world and proven to be more effective the more ignorant a population was about Marxism, hence the common term Leninist-Marxist to describe those who use them.

    That is one definition from a scholarly article. Not the normal definition by any means.  Another is the definition Ford uses when they discuss diversity, equity, and inclusion.  And Ford is not a Marxist company.

    ”Equity seeks to ensure fair treatment, equality of opportunity, and fairness in access to information and resources for all. We believe this is only possible in an environment built on respect and dignity.”

    fair treatment, equal opportunity, and fairness are consistent with how BSA operates and the scout law and oath.  There is no reason to believe this definition is not consistent with the BSAs approach to equity.  There is nothing to suggest that the BSA would suddenly  adopt a Marxist philosophy regarding scouting.  

  11. 4 hours ago, Bowsprit said:

     

    Equity is the idea that everyone should get the same outcome regardless of their ability or effort.

    In this context "Diversity" is not what you described. It is a justification for Equity and takes the form of disfavoring individuality, which is how we teach scouts to see other people - as unique individuals - and replaces that with a concept of group identity so that some groups are 'oppressors' and others 'oppressed', which in turn gives direction to Equity in the form of moving resources such as jobs or tax dollars from members of one group to another.

    Inclusion is not about including everyone, it is about choosing who to exclude - namely anyone who disagrees that Equity is a good idea. Inclusion is also about ensuring that ideas which are not supported by sound principles (such as Equity and other things we wouldn't consider "morally straight") are allowed into the culture rather than excluded.

    Ultimately these are Marxist ideas, and Marxism is hugely contentious, mostly because the last 100 years proved these ideas result in millions of dead people. That's not trivial, therefore neither are the concerns about it.

    I do not even know where to start.  Equity is not the idea that everyone should get the same outcome.  Wherever you got your definition, it is a corruption of the idea of fairness and having an opportunity - as in everyone should have the same opportunity.  Same with your definition of inclusion and diversity.   

    BSA has pretty much already articulated what their intent is and how it is absolutely inline with scouting.  There is nothing Marxist (or socialist, or communist).   And if BSA was turning  into a Marxist organization where everyone is made Eagle, I would think adding a new requirement might be the last thing they would do.  Don’t you think they would eliminate requirements....

     

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  12. 1 hour ago, Bowsprit said:

    Maybe you were being tongue in cheek. If not, are they supremacists because they are not being taught the DEI ideology or because someone is teaching them to be supremacists? Plenty of people who disagree with DEI who have not a shred of supremacist feelings in them, and plenty who think anyone who disagrees with the DEI package as commonly understood must by definition be a supremacist of some sort. And BSA want to insert themselves into this mess.

     

    What part of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion would people disagree with?  They would disagree with the ideal of creating a culture that welcomes and respects diverse perspectives?   Do we not want Scouts to be an organization that creates a sense of belonging and builds communities where every person feels respected and valued?  Should scouts not denounces racism, discrimination, inequality and injustice? 

    This is what BSA is saying when they talk about the principles behind the new Merit Badge.  And I would say that if a scout or a scouter does support all these principles, then they are not living up to the values of the Scout Law - Friendly, Curious, Kind, Brave.

  13. 2 hours ago, JoeBob said:

    And furthermore...

    If you try to degrade the quality of comradeship of seven white boys on a patrol campout, because they have no blacks or females; you are lost.  Would you try to argue that seven black sisters would improve their esprit de corps by adding a male cracker to their campfire? 

     

     

    At no point did I degrade the comradeship of seven boys on a patrol camp out because they are all white or male?  But if they excluded scouts based on their skin or religion, then I call into the question the leadership of that patrol and troop, and do call into the question the lessons those scouts are learning.  Because then they are not friendly, courteous, or kind.   

    i am confused by you need to add an ethic slur, even if you are of that ethnicity.  It is neither numerous or of value to the discussion.  More does the use of the term black sisters, unless your intent was specifically to highlight that a large family may be camping.  In that case, it makes no sense.  

     

     

  14. 47 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

    Nope.  I believe in valuing individuals for themselves.  I don't seek out individuals based on their group identity. 

    "I need a black friend."  "Why?"  "Because he's black."  Duh.

    "I need a girl friend." is a different topic...

    Attributing value to people because of their group identity is setting them up for failure.  

    But diversity and inclusion is not saying you need a black friend.  It means that you are willing to work with or be friends with someone who is not just like you.  It is not about quotas either.  In no way is it about attributing value because of their group identity.  
     

    what do you think diversity and inclusion means?  

  15. 1 hour ago, JoeBob said:

    Nope.  I have a very open mind.  In fact, I invite you to convince me.  I ask that you use simple words that an adolescent would understand. (We are talking about a Boy Scout merit badge, right?)  Inherent truths such as Diversity and Inclusion should have no need for cerebral academic studies.  Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, et al. were easily explained in layman's terms without high minded government funded research papers.  These new three ephemeral precepts should be easy, yes?  Go for it.

    Before you dismiss me as an avowed racist chauvinist, know that I have served with / work with blacks, women, and Hispanics.  The color of their skin and their gender were/are irrelevant; they all earned their way into my circle of highly esteemed friends because of who they were and what they could do.

    @Navybone, now it's your turn.

     

    We do not need to make the concepts of diversity and inclusion hard.  Break down diversity for an adolescent:  diversity is recognizing the people with different backgrounds, schools, areas of the county or world bring different point of views and ideas.  It’s like why a person from the south mayneat one meal for the holidays where someone from the Midwest may eat something else.  Or why coca-cola is called soda in some parts of the country, but called pop elsewhere.  
     

    and inclusion is simply allowing others to participate, regardless of their background or where they are from.  It allows them to be part of the patrol and make the troop stronger.

    any of those concepts too hard for an adolescent?  
     

    by your own admission you believe in the concepts of diversity and inclusion at their most basic level.  You included others into your professional,or personal life and based on their actions and performance, were part of the team or social circle. That is what we should be encouraging our scouts.  

  16. 2 hours ago, BQZip said:


    I'm going to break this out piece-by-piece to demonstrate that your entire frame of reference is based on VERY poor assumptions.

    Prager doesn't attempt to come off as an academic institution in any way. They are a Corporate University (no more an academic institution than Disney University or Apple University) 
    https://www.prageru.com/faq/

    LOL. Keep drinking the lefty kool aid. He specifically claims that he is a "Classic British Liberal". While some of his views are right of center, his general tenets are HIGHLY mainstream and WELL backed by research.

    The conclusion is based on facts, not opinion. The research and numerous examples are listed below EACH of PragerU's videos. 

    As explained above, no. No one said or implied that "including a wide ranging group of ideas is bad". 

    I find it crazy that when I don’t agree with very conservative beliefs I am accused of being a liberal or in this case, “drinking the lefty cool aid,” when I am any hit go but a leftist or a conservative.  I strongly believe in giving people opportunity, listening to them if they have good ideas, and building inclusive teams for results, specifically not excluding them if they are different than I am.  I am a believer it some of Patton’s concepts If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.  And have diversity of background, education and thought is a very effective way to not have everyone thinking alike.  
    And you only included part of the quote I attributed to YOUR post.    Here is what you attribute the following to JP:” Diversity" doesn't mean "a wide ranging group of ideas". It means "increased influence by people more generally aligned with leftist ideals" (usually from groups that deem themselves "oppressed").  Your right, no one said wide groups of ideas is bad, be that is not what JP said diversity is.  He says it is increased influence ...with leftist ideals, which is complete BS.  
     

     

  17. 28 minutes ago, BQZip said:
    1. I never claimed they were an academic institute of any kind
    2. dismissing content as a "conservative mouthpiece" and "propaganda" without discussing substance effectively shows you aren't interested in discussing any points that conservatives have. Very convenient for discussions in which you want to dismiss all opposing views
    3. Indeed, they are stating opinions, but I don't see them stating such opinions as facts.
    4. I would HIGHLY dispute that "none are backed but any academic-level research". This speaker in particular, Jordan Peterson, is particularly noted for his highly researched materials/presentations.
    5. "None of its research or writings meet the minimum academic standards." I would dispute that, but they aren't an academic institution either, so...

    You are right, you never claimed that it was an academic institution.  But Prager attempts to come off academic institution, which is obvious, based on its name.  We find ourselves in an era of internet based "facts", and understanding the bias within the source of these facts is often just as important as the facts themselves.  And PragerU has a very strong right leaning bias.  That means it is not neutral in its statements or videos, but promoting a specific agenda.  And in this case, it is against the ideas within diversity or inclusion.  So much totneh point, that is has distorted the ideas behind these statements. 

    - Jordan Peterson is noted for his research, if you are support the ideas that political correctness has gone too far.  His ideas are not mainstream and he considers himself as a conservative.  Again, know the source.  You attribute the following to him: "Diversity" doesn't mean "a wide ranging group of ideas". It means "increased influence by people more generally aligned with leftist ideals" (usually from groups that deem themselves "oppressed").  This is not fact, it is 100% opinion and only supports the idea that including a wide ranging group of ideas is bad.  

    And to be clear, I was calling out PragerU as a source and revealing its bias for anyone who may be unaware.  I was not offering a counterpoint to any to its statements, no matter what I think of them.  I will not convince you otherwise on a message board like this - its imporssible.  All I can do it make sure that there is no doubt on the bias of the source.

     

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 3
  18. 14 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

    Diversity an inclusion are leadership qualities? What about the rest of us?

    You just supported Joebob's point. 

    Barry

    Diversity and Inclusion are not leadership qualities.  Leadership qualities are decision-making, empathy, character, and integrity, to name a few.  There is no "diversity" quality in an individual. Believing in and utilizing diversity and inclusion are very effective approaches or beliefs  to lead and manage teams and organizations.  They are not some left wing agenda item, but based on the idea that individuals have value, and their value is based on their past and experiences, such as how they were raised, education, etc, and that by bringing them in and developing them as effective members of a team, it creates increased likelihood of organizational success and spurs on innovation.  

    If there is effective inclusion, there is no "rest of us", as inclusion would include you.  In face, excluding you would be the opposite of inclusion. 

    This is NOTHING like what JoeBob is saying, and I support nothing he said in that post..  

    • Upvote 1
  19. 11 hours ago, BQZip said:

    Over 2 years ago, PragerU posted a video which warned of the dangers of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion philosophy.
    https://www.prageru.com/video/dangerous-people-are-teaching-your-kids/
    In short:
    "Diversity" doesn't mean "a wide ranging group of ideas". It means "increased influence by people more generally aligned with leftist ideals" (usually from groups that deem themselves "oppressed")
    "Equity" doesn't mean equal opportunity (a laudable goal!), but is instead a focus on equal outcomes, something NO society has EVER come close to achieving. Anything short of it is "evidence" of discriminatory bias; the choices that people make that cause most of these inequities (not all) are merely byproducts of more discrimination.
    "Inclusion" doesn't mean "be open to others joining your group". Instead it generally focuses on identity based quotas in order to achieve the aforementioned malformed concept of equity.
     

    PragerU or Prager University is NOT an academic institute and is nothing more than a very conservative mouth piece.  It has been called out multiple times for stating opinions or propaganda as facts, although none are backed but any academic-level research.  None of its research or writings meet the minimum academic standards.  

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 2
  20. On 11/15/2020 at 11:49 AM, JoeBob said:

    No one can prove that diversity and inclusion  are strengths; they are buzzwords from the left. 

    This may be one of the most concerning things I have ever seen on this site.   There are multiple studies, academic or business related, that illustrate the value and importance of diversity and inclusion.  There are countless successful leadership philosophies the herald the importance of diversity and inclusion.   Honestly, I think you have made up your mind and are not interested in anything actual proof of the values of diversity or inclusion to an organization, a leader, or to an individual.   

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...