Navybone

I purposely stated that the political leadership lacks the ability to do anything. I do not believe this is a guns only issue, or a mental health issue, or a video game issue. It is a complex issue that requires adults willing to talk consider all aspects of the issue. If anything, my comment reflects my frustration with the current approach by leaders in this country to state useless absolutes (ban guns, 2A is sacred…)when it comes to mass killings ( there were 6 today where more than 4 people were killed by gun violence). It gets us nowhere. There is no single solution. This is hard, but hard is ok - that is why they are elected but not sure why you think I am censoring you. I am not.

You are right. I read your post soon after reading Congressman Jackson (Tx) comments where he looks to blame music and video games. It would have been more accurate to say that you could read your comments to imply that you support censorship. Not that you are supporting censorship. apologies for putting words in your mouth

I’ll start my response with this, neither political party has the spine or integrity to address this issue, this violence that is killing children. If not enough that’s been done about mental health since Columbine, 23 years ago, and not enough since Sandy Hook, 10 years ago, what needs to still be done? Just saying mental health is not an answer but an handwave to avoid talking about the issue. It’s a cop-out . And I am no statistician, but to the facts of murders with guns stand up to scrutiny when competing in liberal state versus conservative? Fianlly, do you really think that censorship is the answer, and it is ok so long as it protects the second amendment? The constitution also used to support the practice of slavery, but the country was smart enough to figure out that that part of the constitution needed to be fixed.

That is one take, not a very useful one, but one none the less.

Where do we find such men? I have no doubt that Boy Scouts plays a role in shaping them.

Kudos him for realizing that where he is and where Boy Scouts are going are not in the same place and realizing that it was time for him to go. That is not a cheap shot. It is realization that time changes, and that organizations change. And while his views may be different than mine, it is not intended As a cheap shot.

Good for you realizing that you cannot meet the requirements of Boy Scouts and stepping aside.

We use troop web host for the calendar and sign-up, as well as to help track advancement. It works well and while I am not involved in this part, it seems to update scoutbook well. Not too many bells and whistles, but works.

As an adult, last 4 years. You

There is nothing, anywhere that suggest that a culturally aware, diverse, integrated scouts will be anything like you say. Nothing. Anywhere. and to your point that scouts is only about kids camping out, this is what scouts mission is: The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

There is no flashback. Your example of red heads is absurd. Affinity groups, if integrated well into an organization can be very beneficial and successful in developing a culture of inclusion and belonging. It is a longstanding best practice in large organizations. If you want to have a meeting of only white males, go right ahead. So long as it has the same goals and structure as other affinity groups within Scouts BSA.

While it would be great that just being a scout would be enough, it obviously is not. Otherwise we would have racism, the sex abuse scandals,, or any other issues. But we do, so living in a fantasy world simply is not realistic. maybe you have never been part of an organization where you were in the minority, where you did not have a voice or you were different and it impacted the people you got to know, the roles you could play, the friendships you could make. That is the service these styles of meetings provide. They are not secret cabal to take over scouting, or develop a separate set of rules, or anything. To be honest, if everyone was living up to the scout oath and law, we would not need these meetings for minority groups.

Of course not. It is to provide opportunity for minority groups that do not have or not are comfortable when in a large group when they are a minority. It’s about creating a venue where they have a voice and others like them will be here to meet and talk to. This BUILDs inclusion and acceptance, or the other way around. And you know what, I would bet you would you welcome to attend if you wanted. You want them to feel welcome, right?

Probably because LGBTQ and people of color are minorities within scouting. And having an event detonated to allow them to see that they are not alone, discuss or raises issues particulars to them, or identify opportunities that would increase their participation in scouts. You know, make it more inclusive.

unfortunately, way too many people think PJ Media is actual news and believe what it is post on it. The ability to post anything on the internet without having to ensure that it is true, based on fact or even rhymes with the truth, coupled with such sites only confirming peoples bias is really dangerous. It has become pervasive and contributed to the political discourd that exists today.

I don’t think posting a very biased attack on the MB from some very conservative website is very helpful to the conversation, especially when most of the article is based on supposition about MB could and how it could be manipulated rather than how it is actually written.

More than a little extreme of an example here, no? There is nothing to imply in anything within the CIS MB that an upstander is someone who goes out of his/her way (like miles) to get into a situation (voluntarily) that requires him/her to use a weapon (that the person brought although they were underage) on someone. Are we blowing right past the more likely situation where a scout would see/hear something that would put him/her in a position where they may have to call undesired attention to themselves in an effort to stand up for someone else? I think the discussion is less constructive if we focus on extremes or out-layers rather than reality.

This is not a BSA created term, but one that has been used for years to identify someone who steps up and takes action when they see a wrong. It draws attention to and differentiates between watching and acting. It calls out and encourages a person to step up and takes actions despite what others are doing. For a teen, it can be a challenge to step up against how their peers may be acting, be it in a group or otherwise. What is the issue with taking the time and emphasis to help the Scouts understand what "helps other people at all times"? Knowing what to do is easier for the Scouts when it is something like a medical incident where first aid is required, for example. But it is much different for a teen to stand up and counter what others are saying, especially if it among their peer group or in public. The requirement to discuss what it means to stand up for those who need it is a great discussion topic. For teens, who are looking to fit in with others, there is value in helping them understand why in a situation where no others are standing up to help someone who who is being called out or bullied, it is so important to not simply watch but important to act. It takes courage, it takes risk on their behalf, and not everyone has that. Giving a word to describe that courage, that need for intestinal fortitude, gives the Scouts a way to comprehend what they are being asked to do.

I can't speak to disabled or Indigenous persons, but I find it laughable that you think that there needs to be a white Workforce Resource Group. The efforts of the Workforce Resource Group are distinctly NOT about exclusionary or segregated groups within the workforce. In fact, they are the opposite, about providing support for minorities who may not have a resource to help them integrate into a company or corporate culture. When a majority of the workforce is white, then the structure is already supportive there integration.

I am not saying that i want CRT incorporated into BSA's DEI effort. I do not believe that DEI equals CRT. And it is very capable to have a DEI effort not corrupted by CRT> They training itself was good in that respect. My comment was in response to your "Maybe not yet. Give it some time", which implies that you think CRT will be incorporated in BSA's DEI.

So you do not think that it is worth giving BSA the opportunity to develop and implement a worthwhile DEI program not based on CRT?

The purpose of the workforce groups is to better understand the different cultures and so that BSA can understand there are bias (intentional or unintentional) in the processes or workforce management. I have not seen anything that creates or encourages a group specific paths or efforts that would isolate anyone. Have you?

Did BSA says its DEI programs would be based on CRT? DEI does not equal CRT.

I think the point is that they have the workforce groups becasue people are not treated based on character and individual merit.

Did you get that after completing the training? I would be interested in what issues you had with the training. I thought it was pretty good.