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.  

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?  

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.  

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.  
 

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.

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..  

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.  

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.   

23 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I don't think the concern is that GS posted the 5 justices. I think the concern is that the GS took down the post as a result of "woke" pressure because one of the justices was Amy Coney Barrett.

Good point.  But with today’s political division, they were in a no win position. 

most of our focus is on how to work on cooking.  With the advancement and Cooking MBs requirements, have not totally broken the code on group cooking. 

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

The best leadership development in a scouting program doesn’t come from proactive leadership development activities, the leadership development comes from the passive process of repeated observations of behavior. Just from observing others during their activities, scouts learn trust what behavior is acceptable and what is not. It should go without saying that troops that use role modeling for growth aren’t just good  leadership troops, but also well disciplined.

The best advice I heard about leadership was from my department head when I was a brand new Ensign.  He told me to get a small black book that fit in my back pocket.  One one side, write all the leadership traits and styles your admire and the on the other, all the traits and styles you don’t admire.   That passive collection of leadership and management techniques taught me more than any classes or seminars.  And over 20 years in, I have given that advice to many a young officer or sailor, and now to scouts.

regarding authenticity, while still an Ensign, I quickly realized that the sailors in my division could tell when I was up front and honest or when I was trying to sugar coat or “say the right words.”  Bad news delivered straight and honest is more effective than attempting to soften the news.  I am, and have been for a long time, a believer in authenticity as a leadership style.    

I too hope that the President and the First Lady, as well as the two Senators and others who work in and around the President who have tested positive, only experience a mild version of COVID and recover soon.  The country needs them to recover.

It would be easy to take a potshot at the President in this era of partisan politics.  But politics aside, we have to remember that the the President has significant responsibilities to the defense of this nation and its well being, and we need a healthy Leader.   It makes me think of the line in the Scout Oath, “to do my duty to God and my Country.”   Maybe this will be reduce the bitterness of politics today and the focus can be on all our leaders duties to Return to working together to protect our citizens and focus on implementing the safety protocols to reduce the spread of COVID.  If a person as protected as the President can get it, we all can.  
 

wash your hands, avoid large groups, maximize meetings outside rather than indoors, social distance, wear a mask, keep yourself physically strong so you can do your duty.   
 

2 hours ago, David CO said:

A lot of us are playing it pretty loose with the six month requirement during the epidemic and shutdown.  What does it mean to be active during a shutdown?  I don't know.  This is new territory for all of us.  

I wouldn't complain about a SM who isn't doing conferences during a shutdown.  Particularly if the SM has underlying health conditions that would make him a high risk for coronavirus.  

We have been very successful conducting SM conferences and BoR using zoom and other platforms.   While not perfect, These events are not required to be conducted in person.   We can still provide an outlet to Scouts who are motivated or looking for an activity during the period.   Our experience has been positive, from the scouts and their parents. 

17 minutes ago, David CO said:

I wish this wasn't a scout related subject.  I wish BSA had not publicly supported BLM.  But it did.  

This thread gets no where.  BSA has explained its position “We wholeheartedly mean exactly what we said – that we support Black families and Black communities and that Black Lives Matter. This is not a political issue or an endorsement of an organization; it is a human rights issue and one we all have a duty to address. We stand with efforts to address racism and injustice and to promote equality and inclusion.”  but then this thread devolves into a political discussion, not at all addressing racism and what the words and intent of BSA are.
 

i come here to get away from the constant agreements from one side or the other that are a waste of time.  I have given up trying to have a conversation on this thread.  I stopped coming to the site for some time because this was all anyone posted on.   I recently came back, but see nothing has changed.   
 

if I am going to spend time online for fun, it is worth my time figure how to support my son’s troop during COVID.  

12 hours ago, Troop75Eagle said:

The forum has outlived its purpose. 

 

Yep. 

I think Bryan does a fine job explains the BSA position:  “We wholeheartedly mean exactly what we said – that we support Black families and Black communities and that Black Lives Matter. This is not a political issue or an endorsement of an organization; it is a human rights issue and one we all have a duty to address. We stand with efforts to address racism and injustice and to promote equality and inclusion.”

he is talking about human rights, equality, and inclusion.   Why would anyone have a problem with that?   
 

is BLM perfect- no. Are riots ok - no. Is instigating or fomenting violence by left or right wing organizations ok- no.  Is racial inequality on - no.  

13 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

I do not understand that U.S intelligence did officially conclude there was impact.  Which is why I did not say they did.

 

To believe that they did not attempt to access effect seems is to suggest that they are incompetent.

 

We are more than Scouters here.  We are more than BSA Scouting devotees here.  As Americans, we should be interested in whether any foreign nation is impacting our political processes.

Correct, we should be very interested in a foreign (Russia, China) power is. trying to impact our country.  And they are not stopping at the 2016 election, they are trying on this election, did on the 2018 election, and will continue to try to divide this country.  They have done it in other counties, most notably France.

The intent of my post on this was to point out that what you read is not only biased by our media, but but external influences who are trying to further divide this nation. 

1 hour ago, walk in the woods said:

Sorry @Navybone but you dismissed one series of reports based on bias.  When shown a different report from a mainstream media outlet you deflect to Russians?  That's laughable but typical.  Beyond that, anyone who has actually picked up a copy of the SunTimes in the last 10 years knows exactly where their politics lie.

I can see how you might think that had I made a reference to the previous post, but I did not.  
 

my post was about Russian (and Chinese) efforts to divide the American populous as a whole.  But you obviously do not agree with that as a real threat.   , right.  Us intel community is clueless?  Your too smart to fall for it?  

When you are looking at reporting on such issues as protest and BLM, I would ask that you do keep a sharp eye on what is being reported.  This is a great article by NYT on Russian disinformation and an attempt to widen the gulf btwn the political parties.  We have issues in this country, lets not help Russia (or Chinese) attempts to bring us down from within.  Question the reporting, even if it is confirming your own bias. 

About three years ago, when it was BLM versus Blue lives matter in the press all the time, Twitter was able to track the post made by russian trolls and how they would insert them selves into a conversation with a centrist point of view, and then pull it wider to the polar extremes. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/russia-disinformation-election-meddling.html

3 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

Additional thought: The Sun-Times is strongly biased towards liberal causes....

Sun-Times is Left Center.  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=chicago+sun

6 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

August 10, 2020

Black Lives Matter holds rally in Chicago to support those arrested after looting, unrest

“That is reparations,” a BLM organizer said. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance"

Black Lives Matter Chicago issued a statement obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times that read, “The mayor clearly has not learned anything since May, and she would be wise to understand that the people will keep rising up until the [Chicago Police Department] is abolished and our Black communities are fully invested in,” the group said in a statement.

Interesting - I read the actual Sun-Times article, and it attributes the quote to Ariel Atkins, 29, who is not identified as a BLM organizer   Where it is attributed to a BLM organizer is, The Sun, the Washington Times, the NY Post  which are all "strongly biased toward conservative causes" based on Media Bias/Fact Check. 

And she obviously does not understand how reality works and is a fantasy land about how reparations work. 

28 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

Sadly most Americans are too blinded by party fielty to understand the fight of our lives isn't right vs left, it's the individual vs the State.

 

But carry on.

But if BLM or PP were accused of the same crimes, it would be ok to go after them.  Sorry, but The NRA puts itself out there as defending our most valued right in the the second amendment.  But that is wrong, the most valued right is the first amendment, which BLM and PP both try to protect.  

34 minutes ago, thrifty said:

just thinking about reenactments a few days ago.  I love history, enjoyed going to reenactments and historical sites as a child and it was usually cheap for my poor mother.  I've taken my family to several.  I've never owned a confederate flag but I wonder how any event like this can survive in a society that has become intolerant of just about everything.  The gray army gets no insignia?  But then people are still imitating traitors and the wrong side.  Blue army vs blue army?  I'm sure WWII reenactments will probably suffer because of this increased scrutiny too.  Conneaut OH has a very large D-Day reenactment that many troops volunteer at and everyone has a great time while learning.

You do not think there is a difference in conducting a reenactment with some authenticity such as the confederate flag and someone displaying it at work or on their car/NASCAR/on a shirt?

3 hours ago, Troop75Eagle said:

You are a satisfactory apologist for BLM.  I’m sure they would welcome your analysis.  You speak meaningfully for a portion of their reality. For many many others, they and their ilk will become a social rabble eager to disrupt increasingly For disruptions sake.  There will be sighing, shaking of heads, and standing back indifferently as they do their thing as one more instance of an out of control portion of the population.  Not everyone of course, and I make no common cause and have no patience for alt right reactionaries either.  But the actions will increasingly reflect a lack of discipline and sloppy impulse control that garners the reaction, ‘well, what else is new. What did you expect?’ 

One way to look at the current unrest by blacks in this county is to think that if a majority of this group, which makes 13% of our nation, is disenfranchised due to how they are being treated, then maybe this is worth trying to understand, looking at how to solve some of the racism they are encountering, if I can. 
There is also the option of thinking this is not my problem, or it’s not that bad, or even to outright dismiss them and accuse them of being trouble makers.  Who are “they”to make a fuss. These people are exceptionally narrow minded and are absolutely part of the problem.   It is you.  You accuse me of being an apologist. No, I have decided that enough is enough and there is a valid point of discussion.  I do this not because it is easy, but because part of this country’s population is hurting.   It is not an comfortable position for me to take.     What is more comfortable is to bury my head in the sand, deny any issues, mark it up to rabble rousers and anarchists.  Easier to just rely on right wing media and follow however that portray it.  My failure is believing that just because people on this site are part of scouts, that they live or espouse any of the aspects of what scouting teaches our youth.