AwakeEnergyScouter

Well, generally speaking, that also has to be case-by-case, no? Some boats need rocking and now is the time to do it. But not every boat, and not every boat right now. All the combinations of good intention, bad intention, good outcome, and bad outcome occur. The trick is to get better at recognizing both intentions and outcomes. Sometimes being conflict averse is bad. Sometimes it builds harmony that leads to strength and functioning. Without a situation or a context you can't really say if it's good or bad. With a clear and stable mind, we can take the attitude of "first thought, b

So more conflict-averse rather than trying to draw the line between civic and political?

Curious about this. Opposing book bans seems civic to me, as opposed to political because freedom of speech is a bedrock foundation of liberal democracy and the context of book access in community libraries is one in which freedom of speech is appropriately the most salient one, including in historical context. (As opposed to limiting speech to what is scoutlike and consistent with the Scout Law and Oath in BSA contexts, for example.) Wo Bücher brennen... Why don't you think your council's Eagle Board would approve this?

Like Skeptic, all this attention to gender in BSA scouting made me curious about what gender-segregated scouting in Sweden used to be like. Even the words for gender segregated scouting sound antiquated and sepia-toned. It's hard to imagine. But apparently someone wrote a thesis on it recently, and so Scouterna has an information page on it. Since there's a language barrier for all other WOSM NSOs other than Scouts UK, I thought I'd post a translation. "Scout magazine MARCH 8, 2022 When the girls took up scouting That others than boys would be allowed to be part of the Scouts wa

I agree with yknot. This is harsh. Like, taken aback harsh. Adults undermining the sense of worth of a child by communicating that that specific child is unwanted is not the same as not getting what you wanted or an inconvenience. It does real harm to children to hear that adults that have power over them don't think they should be where they are, even though the rules and society at large say it's fine. (As I write that, specific adult faces flash in front of me.) Losing a favorite after-school program isn't like being singled out to be told by adults that there's something bad about

Forgot one of the most important things... Scout-led! Absolute must. Took it for granted while writing.

Indeed a great question! Almost like a goal writing prompt 😄 * Smiling and laughing scouts at all events / no one left out, all scouts "invited to dance" by other scouts * Scouts want to hang out outside scouting because they're friends * Good and excited attendance at all outdoor events, of which camping and hiking are offered monthly and other outdoors life skills (fishing, orienteering, firebuilding and tending, skiing, skating, etc) are offered at least occasionally. Troops should backpack at least a few times a year * Troop goes to camporee/jamboree every year, at leas

An adult leader meeting is different from an open online forum targeted at scouters. If this was a restricted-access forum, then it would be equivalent to an adult leader meeting. This is on the open internet, no authentication required. This forum is indexed by search engines. That's how I found it, scouting-related searches turned up discussion threads here. It's a perpetual adult leader meeting that anyone can walk into. We will never see the scouts "come into the room" and will never know who heard us here. In a physical room, if a scout suddenly walks in and it's a conversation that'

Hopefully he's heard of MBWA or gemba walks.

Appreciating this right here is absolutely key to good online conversation. Everyone is a person living their life, occasionally typing stuff to post here. Not a label or a category. In our cases, a scouter doing scout stuff with scouts, too. A fellow member of the scouting movement. If you wouldn't say something to someone in person, you shouldn't type it, either. The internet doesn't erase speech cause and effect. If you type something hurtful, it's still hurtful. We need to make an extra effort to remember to drop our storylines about people we get to know online if we want to build st

In a US context: Yes, the antonym is conservative. It used to have one clear meaning, but now I just have the same question you asked when I hear it. "What does that mean to you when you say it?" It has so many effective meanings, as does conservative, that they're both becoming useless for communication unless you know the person using them well enough to know what they mean without asking. Both are used as insults both directly and ironically.

I'm pretty sure the account is a human - not you - for multiple reasons. No, I can't prove it, but Occam's Razor suggests it's a human. Not taking what accounts post here seriously because they might be someone posing as a scouter, a troll, or a bot will rapidly destroy any semblance of civil and a scoutlike conversation, and we know that because that's what happens on every chan board. The experiment has been run several times and it always ends in something that's completely against several points of the Scout Law and Oath. For your point to be true, everyone else on the Internet

I asked why the medium matters, this is not a response to what I said and it's a strawman to boot. I agree that it's wrong to dispose of those one does not agree with and that we need to work together. That's not what I'm arguing for. Please don't put words in my mouth. So, why does the medium matter? You never answered. Why doesn't the presence of the youth matter? Isn't that the difference you're pointing at, really? That you can say certain things to other scouters in private, but not in the presence of youth? You do realize this forum is the social equivalent of us stan

I don't know that there's a tactful way to say "your presence here is bad/unwanted". You can deliver it with more or less polish, but "you should be kicked out of this organization" is a fundamentally unfriendly message. Allowing scouts and scouters to tell scouts they shouldn't be in scouting is not a good idea. It creates all kinds of problems in the long run, for both individual scouts and the organization as a whole. Even if the comments aren't targeting a specific youth member, it undermines our value foundation (you only really need to treat some scouts in a friendly and helpful manner)

I'm not sure I understood you correctly. It sounds to me like you're saying that we should let scouts and scouters break any and all parts of the scout law as long as they're experiencing change that's hard for them personally. If scouts are being unkind, unfriendly, etc towards other scouts, then it's on the scouts being targeted to "earn respect" from the aggressors and we scouters shouldn't intervene, not even if the aggressor is another scouter? Or are you talking about changing why some scouts would choose to bully female and LGBTQIA+ scouts, but not actually the question of what to