Using SCOUTER.COM for a systematic political agenda

[fred8033 1591]

It seems that some topics / posters re-post the same subject but under a slightly different twist to advance a political agenda. I'm all for letting COs choose their leaders. I'm just not for advancing a political position by hijacking the forum by starting a new thread every time the previous thread dies.

 

IMHO, it's the same as the protest rallies outside church during Christmas midnight mass or political acts inside church during a mass celebrating the renewal of marriage vows. (seen both for a few years now)

 

Does anyone correlate thread authoring / branching and user accounts? Just curious.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[The Blancmange 67]

Along the same lines, I wonder what makes people who have no interest in, or are annoyed by a particular line of discussion, continue to open and read threads that fall into that category. This would be particularly true in the case of a sub-forum that carries the following disclaimer: "Those not interested can skip this forum instead of spending time reading unwanted messages to identify content."

[fred8033 1591]

Fair enough.

 

I feel like a schmuch because when I started replying on this board awhile ago, I naively got pulled into one of the thread discussions. Like many, I have strong opinions on the topic. I didn't realize it was just a rehash of the same ongoing discussion for the last several years.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[shortridge 184]

Why does challenging the status quo qualify as advancing a "systematic political agenda"? It's honest, open discussion and debate, which we encourage as part of citizenship.

 

There's a huge difference between the healthy debate that happens here and the protests that you cite. In those cases, outsiders are trying to influence an institution, sometimes on the institution's own property.

 

But here, we're all part of the institution. We are all Scouters. My belief that, say, BSA should abolish its ridiculous anti-gay stance has just as much validity as someone else's view that BSA needs to stand firm and continue to ban gays. We're both allowed to speak our minds. If the institution of Scouting is healthy, it can withstand a little criticism from the inside.

 

The owner of this virtual town square has created the I&P forum for just these types of discussions, and is the only person who can control it. He's chosen not to, thankfully. This isn't a church that Irving owns and can kick us protesters out of.

 

Bottom line, as The Blancmange said: If you don't like a thread, just ignore it.

[Scoutfish 16]

AMEN SHORT!

[moosetracker 132]

I agree, it isn't a "systematic political agenda".. If it is that, we are doing it the wrong way, because aren't we suppose to be systematically turn up the heat on the people who can make the change..

 

I don't think anyone on this board is in the position to make the change.. I think the highest up we get peaking in is Richard B.. Which is pleasent when he does, but except for influenceing maybe a tweak here or there to the medical form, or G2SS.. Not in the position to single handedly strike discrimination of homosexuals off the records.. And wouldn't anyway due to a few rowdy posters..

 

But, we do have a little too much fun with the grumpy old conservatives, just to see their feathers, get ruffled.. It is fun, but maybe 2 or 3 posts in a week are a little too much for them.. Normally we only have this much fun about once a month..(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[Scoutfish 16]

With the exception of one or two threads, I don't see where any of it is political.

 

For or against gays? Personal belief.

For or against WB-21C as opposed to old WB? Personal feeling or belief.

For or against Athiests in BSA? Personal Beliefs.

 

Left and right wing slant, swing, name calling...Personal belief of particular matters as individuals see them based on their own personal bias of what their own party follows.

 

Prsidential and political cvandidates who singlehandedly destroyed the country..which we all know had a deficit of $0.00 the day before that person took office - wether Bush,little Bush, Obama, Reagan,Clinton, that peanut guy from Georgia ? Yeah, that's politics.

 

But the qustion is, if the post reflects or supports what you feel or believe in.....is it still an agenda or is that only reserved for the posts or threads that are against what you believe or support?

 

 

 

 

 

[Scoutfish 16]

Ooops!

 

" But the qustion is, if the post reflects or supports what you feel or believe in.....is it still an agenda or is that only reserved for the posts or threads that are against what you believe or support? "

 

That is a question we ALL should asks ourselves.

[moosetracker 132]

Yeah.. I know on another thread someone was yelling about leaving political debates in the political forum area.. Went right over my head he was talking about me.. Someone asked what would cause an SE to revoke their BSA membership.. I listed a few things, plus the gay & atheist in with the list of things.. Just straight no comments added list.. I thought they were yelling at someone for bring in the subject of Occupy Wall street, or the President.. Until he later directed it to my post..

 

What was political about a straight forward list of what can get your membership revoked I don't know.. (Are we suppose to keep the fact secret or something..) If so, I think the secret is out.

 

 

[fred8033 1591]

Scoutfish - My apologies if my assertion makes you uncomfortable. I'm just pointing out a trend I've noticed.

 

 

- start ----- end

- 2011-10-17 - current - Tough questions (spun from the 2011-10-13 one)

- 2011-10-13 - 2011-10-20 - When will National realize this *IS* affecting membership

- 2011-10-12 - 2011-10-13 - Florida School Board Rejects Grant ...

- .... - ... - (there are a few in here too, I just can't find them quickly)

- 2011-09-27 - 2011-09-30 - Which "lifestyles" are acceptable

- 2011-08-30 - 2011-09-28 - Where does BSA tell us homosexuals are not allowed?

- 2011-08-25 - 2011-09-01 - Potomac Falls woman removed from sons Boy Scout troop

- 2011-08-13 - 2011-08-18 - So a scout tells you ...

 

 

Each overlaps slightly or only has a few days between. I can keep going backward for a very long time through the archives. I just don't have time to search and list each.

 

Many of the people in the discussions are truly discussing it. I'm just noticing a bit of a manipulation (baiting, seeding the discussion, etc). Now I love a good discussion as much as the next person. I love politics and political discussions. And this topic is fascinating and one of the modern day hot button topics. But I feel offended the same way as when a person offers me friendship to only start pitching AMWAY products the next day. Or, a person starts a friendly conversation to only learn later make a political pitch. All of it could be avoided by up front saying "Oh, I'm selling AMWAY." Or, "I'm an representative of the ##### party or political action group."

 

There's a trend in the thread that's more than just discussing the present day hot button topic. That's all I'm trying to point out.

 

If my thread topic makes you uncomfortable, you do not need to read it. It's your choice to open the topic and respond. Feel free to ignore the subject if that suits you. It's the same action you yourself suggested.

 

 

 

 

 

[moosetracker 132]

There is Merlyn who keeps the discussion churning.. He & son are unable to join because they are athiests.. Others are new people to the forum.. Others might be older guys, but you will find it is not the same person all the time, except for Merlyn who will bring us all the news stories on the subject, to start a new thread.

 

[Eamonn 61]

Sure there are a few Forum Members who seem to only pop in every now and then when they want to stir the pot that they have stirred many times before.

I haven't checked the list of how many times each topic has been brought up for a little while. Last time I did I remember thinking it was funny that the Uniform Threads almost doubled the number of Working with Kids threads.

Looking at what was going on in the Forum today, I see that an old thread from 2005 has been re-started. I kinda, sorta flipped through it. Not really reading it, but did look at the names of the people who were active back then.

Some of them are still around but a good many have moved on.

Some were just people who liked to make the odd comment, while others were at times like a dog with a bone on some subjects, once they got it they weren't going to give it up.

Very often a thread will start off heading in one direction and then take on a life of its own, getting so far away from where it was going that the only way to bring it back is to spin off.

There are a few people who just enjoy baiting the other members, some who know that if they post such and such that it will annoy or get a rise out of one or two other regular Forum Members -It happens! -These one or two could opt to take no notice but most times don't!

Much of what is posted is a rehash!

What can be said about uniforms?

I like it.

I don't like it.

It's great.

It stinks.

Everyone should wear it.

Just wear the bits that you want.

A pal of mine is a moderator on another Scouting Forum.

That Forum doesn't allow posts about Girls, God or Gays.

It works for them, but I kinda like that we can talk or not talk about almost any subject. (Even what a rotten job the Moderators are doing!!)

Please don't feel like a "schmuch" -It just isn't worth it!

Feel free to add your two cents, then if the mood moves you stand your ground or just leave it out there. It will either be gone in a day or two or get legs and drive some other poor soul crazy.

Ea

[Scoutfish 16]

Fred, I am not uncomfortable at all. But lets look at your exampoles:

 

- start ----- end

- 2011-10-17 - current - Tough questions (spun from the 2011-10-13 one)

 

 

- 2011-10-13 - 2011-10-20 - When will National realize this *IS* affecting membership

which political side is this about? ZRepublican, democrreatic, or independant?

 

Looks more like a religious or personal belief to me.

 

- 2011-10-12 - 2011-10-13 - Florida School Board Rejects Grant ...

 

Political action based off of peoples personal beliefs.

 

- .... - ... - (there are a few in here too, I just can't find them quickly)

- 2011-09-27 - 2011-09-30 - Which "lifestyles" are acceptable

 

Not political

- 2011-08-30 - 2011-09-28 - Where does BSA tell us homosexuals are not allowed?

 

Actually, a scientific question . Wants specific info, not opoinions or political debate..just hard documented proof.

- 2011-08-25 - 2011-09-01 - Potomac Falls woman removed from sons Boy Scout troop

 

True story, details brought out and sides taken based on personal values and beliefs.

 

- 2011-08-13 - 2011-08-18 - So a scout tells you ...

I'd call this ethics and religion.

 

Thing is, politics don't have very much to do with most of these threads other than that the posters will stick to their own opinions and not be swayed. But isn't that also strong ethics or strong faith?

 

Just because two diferent sides stick to their own belkiefs does not make it political. And since they are personal beliefs..most peole are going to stick with them. That's not politics, that's sticking to your values wether our values are the same or different.

 

Arguements? Absolutely, politics? Nah. There isn't much of a "If they say "A" I will say "B" attitude, and there definantly isn't any of the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" agrements going on.

[skeptic 992]

Moose; Here is your post from the other thread to which I had referred.

 

"The DE should not have the right to remove a volunteer for this.. The Charter Org if they are frustrated with what they might see a an organized mutiny might..

 

The Council should only have the right to remove people due to crimial records of one type or another.. Period..

 

Otherwise it is the charter Orgs unit, and they have the right to choose their volunteers..

 

I would give your Charter Org Rep a jingle, and tell them the story, and get them to put the DE in their place..

 

Edited to add: Oh yeah they also have the right to kick out any homosexuals & atheists.

 

(This message has been edited by moosetracker) "

 

To me, it appeared you were adding the last, edited line, to make sure this area of contention did not get missed; and it should be kept in the other forum, from my perspective. It certainly will not be a reason for dismissal with which "most" executives would need to deal.

 

And, to me, that entire discussion is primarily a political one, as it is pushed mostly by individuals who have axes to grind and agendas to move forward politically. So, I DO SEE IT as a "politically correct" area of confrontation. Hopefully my comments are a bit clearer now.

[Lisabob 13]

Color me amused, every time the majority within some group complains that the minority is somehow abusing its position or misusing the rules, or becoming "dangerous" (my current favorite characterization of the Occupy Wall Street folks - really? dangerous??), whenever the minority speaks up.

 

If you look at the preponderance of politically oriented posts in this forum, I venture to say there are a lot more Republicans, Libertarians, and conservatives here than there are liberal Democrats. So all I can conclude, then, is that we lib Dems make such wonderfully compelling arguments for our side, that everybody else feels intimidated by us. To which I say, excellent