So This Happened

[ianwilkins 366]

Gosh! Seems to have kicked off a bit!

 

Snowflake?

 

It is a common tactic of people who do not share my CO's religion and moral values to paint my scouts as being weaker or less masculine.  

 

I don't believe for one minute that good moral values make a scout into a wimp.

 

I'm sorry you've chosen to take that interpretation. I'm a fellow scout, you are my brother*, rest assured I meant no offence. Having moral values, and trying to "do your best" to be true to them, it is not the easy path we, or our scouts, have chosen.

 

* Or as we now say in the UK, "part of the worldwide family of scouting".

 

Ok, here we have the term "special snowflake", as it was first used in this thread, which has caused this recent discussion of the term "snowflake."  Notice that Ian did not call any youth, or category of youth, a "snowflake" - at least not how I interpreted it.  I thought he was referring to the attitude of certain PARENTS who believe that their son is a "special snowflake" - in other words, overprotective parents who micromanage their sons' childhood, because they think their son is so fragile and that if he comes into contact with a situation that is too "hot", he will melt.  Hence, snowflake.  People have been using that term in this forum, almost always in THAT way, for many years.  I am not sure where the "special" part came from - maybe it's just for emphasis.  (Now that I think about it, I have also seen references to certain parents being overprotective of their "fragile flower", which is the same idea, so maybe it is a question of alliteration.)

 

This is what I meant. This is exactly what I meant. My beef is with the parents that do this sort of thing. The same ones that go barrelling into school to castigate the teacher when their kid gets disciplined. Professional offence takers. The ones that look at you with a worried expression when you tell them of some activity..."but won't there be X there?"... "But Y might happen?" Like we're trying to trying to take their child and get them deliberately maimed by wolves or something.

 

Son comes home from a campout with a hooters visor, you might ask him about it, in the context of the weekend, "working there were they?" "nice people?" "glad you had a good time". He sticks it in his room somewhere, maybe on the head of a big teddy that really should have gone to the charity shop by now, and that's that.

 

Sorry I seem to have pushed buttons.

 

Ian

[Sentinel947 1205]

Its important to note that there are regional uses of some phrases.

 

In my generation and area, special snowflake would mostly be used sarcastically.

[Back Pack 431]

This place confuses me. Did we really just spend a few pages talking about whether we could or couldn't use the term special snowflake? I thought the use was pretty clear. Is is one of those overly politically correct forums?

[RememberSchiff 3669]

Its important to note that there are regional uses of some phrases.

 

In my generation and area, special snowflake would mostly be used sarcastically.

 

Yes as I understand, hooters in Britain are car horns.

 

I have not found an answer to my earlier question. I suspect corporate/organization sponsor employees are being exempted by Council from the usual volunteer paperwork (individual application/membership), YP, background checks, and Health forms.

 

The sponsoring corporation/organization (NOLS, US Army, Home Depot, NRA, AT&T, Hooters,...) decides what their employees/members wear. They want publicity with photos clearly showing their employees helping.

 

My experience with Cub camp, the council camp staff is uniformed. Volunteers (Moms) and Cubs not so much..

Edited July 8, 2016 by RememberSchiff

[ianwilkins 366]

Yes as I understand, hooters in Britain are car horns.

 

 

 

If we had any factories left*, hooters are more likely to be the thing that goes off to mark the start and end of shifts, and lunch, and the all important tea break. Car horn is just that, the horn.

 

* We do but...

 

As it happens, I have been to the only Hooters in Britain. On a stag weekend of course. It was entertaining, and the company was good. I certainly wouldn't have described it as sleazy, and I'm not sure the lasses were being exploited, but I did feel a certain amount of unease about objectification via the standard not exactly baggy uniform, and the subsequent pressure on the waitresses to conform to the stereotypes. Then the sports game started on the TVs (England V Australia in the Rugby World Cup as it happened), and there was beer, so I stopped worrying, and treated the waitresses as human beings.

[desertrat77 1144]

Is is one of those overly politically correct forums?

 

These days, yes.

 

Several years ago (I joined in '02), when there dozens more active/daily members, you could engage in long, sharp, bare-knuckle arguments in just about anything under the sun.   Those that didn't want to a) read it or b) participate in it just skipped those threads and discussed other scouting matters.

 

Most members had considerably thicker skin then than now.  

 

Also, despite the running feuds, there was more humor and joshing in the past.   Even amongst those who liked to fight.

 

Today:   "you can't say X" and "you hurt my feelings."

 

Sign of the times.

Edited July 8, 2016 by desertrat77

[ianwilkins 366]

 

Today:   "you can't say X" and "you hurt my feelings."

 

Sign of the times.

 

You mean...there's more special snowflakes about?

 

[i'm joking....JOKING! Sheesh!]

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

I withdraw the comment sunshine.

[desertrat77 1144]

You mean...there's more special snowflakes about?

 

[i'm joking....JOKING! Sheesh!]

[Sentinel947 1205]

These days, yes.

 

Several years ago (I joined in '02), when there dozens more active/daily members, you could engage in long, sharp, bare-knuckle arguments in just about anything under the sun. Those that didn't want to a) read it or b) participate in it just skipped those threads and discussed other scouting matters.

 

Most members had considerably thicker skin then than now.

 

Also, despite the running feuds, there was more humor and joshing in the past. Even amongst those who liked to fight.

 

Today: "you can't say X" and "you hurt my feelings."

 

Sign of the times.

I dunno. Some of the "bare knuckle brawlers" are quick to flag posts that insult them. Thankfully not recently. Edited July 8, 2016 by Sentinel947

[desertrat77 1144]

I dunno. Some of the "bare knuckle brawlers" are quick to flag posts that insult them. Thankfully not recently.

Sentinel, you make an excellent point.   Thanks for the perspective.

 

Now that you mention it, there were brawlers who were quick to throw punches, and the second they themselves got smacked in the chops, they collapsed in a heap.   Crying about the injustice of it all.

 

Still, we had many stalwart fighters who could dish it out, and take it.   And still transition to a joke or kind comment with their opponents as needed.

Edited July 8, 2016 by desertrat77

[Stosh 3452]

I dunno. Some of the "bare knuckle brawlers" are quick to flag posts that insult them. Thankfully not recently.

 

That's what the "ignore feature" is for.  As my signature states, I do not have to answer the phone if I don't want to.  With caller ID, it makes my life a lot easier.  It works for the forum as well.

 

My comments are intended to help those asking for advice.  If one doesn't like my comments, simply move on to the next one and see if that fits your situation better.  One doesn't need to hassle someone for trying to help.  I have had people say my ways are not BSA policy, outdated, irrelevant, etc. Well, that's okay with me because they work for me.   If BSA policy, updated and relevant information is what you need, then go with that, but a lot of good forum members have been forced off the forum because there are those who find it necessary to always be judging others and their comments.  One should not have to put up with such things in a forum managed by the Oath and Law.

 

One gets tired of helping others when most of what they get in return are snarky, mean and often bullying comments in return.  I always try to focus on the actual comments being made, brush aside the personal attacks, but when that gets difficult, I simply go the Ignore Route.  It makes like a lot easier because then those that one sees responding tend to be more appreciative of the help being offered.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

This place confuses me. Did we really just spend a few pages talking about whether we could or couldn't use the term special snowflake? I thought the use was pretty clear. Is is one of those overly politically correct forums?

 

I think it depends on who you ask. I think it also depends on what your personal definitions of "politically correct" and "overly politically correct."  Maybe it also depends on what you define as the "forum."  Technically speaking, the "forum" is just software that allows us to express our thoughts.  It is owned by one person, Scouter-Terry, who has established very few firm "rules", together with some instructions for applying those rules (and "enforcing" them when necessary), and he has appointed moderators to apply and "enforce" the rules.

 

You may be interested in reading this, which was written by Terry about a year ago when things were particularly heated around here:

 

http://scouter.com/index.php/topic/27420-decorum-and-acting-scoutlike/?p=420946

 

(The "rules" he mentions are not the only ones, the other ones basically are "no commercial spam" and "don't pretend to be two or more different people posting in the forum when you really are just one", which is known elsewhere on the Internet as the "no sockpuppets" rule.)

 

Within these "rules", everybody is free to express their opinions, and that INCLUDES the opinion that a word or phrase or thought expressed by someone else is "offensive."  If, for example, DavidCO perceives that a word used by someone else is a slur against his Scouts or his unit or CO, he has the right to say so.  Others can agree or disagree.  It doesn't mean the "forum" is "PC" or "overly PC", or not.  It just means we are having a discussion.  We (both moderators and non-moderators) can also, of course, try to use the power of persuasion to encourage others to behave in a more "Scoutlike" manner.   If push comes to shove, a moderator or the moderators as a group can take "action", and the question of when push has come to shove may vary over time, especially since the identities of the "active moderators" changes over time.  I think that some of the discussion above may reflect that, whereas terms like "cupcake" and "snowflake" did not result in any "moderator action" in the past, that may be changing.  Time will tell.

 

And if you want to regard that as "overly PC", you are free to do so.

 

I guess that after that, I should probably say that the opinions expressed above are my own and not necessarily those of the forum owner (except for the words in his own post, linked above) or the other moderators.

Edited July 8, 2016 by NJCubScouter

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Now that you mention it, there were brawlers who were quick to throw punches, and the second they themselves got smacked in the chops, they collapsed in a heap.   Crying about the injustice of it all.

Yes indeed.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

One gets tired of helping others when most of what they get in return are snarky, mean and often bullying comments in return.  I always try to focus on the actual comments being made, brush aside the personal attacks, but when that gets difficult, I simply go the Ignore Route.  It makes like a lot easier because then those that one sees responding tend to be more appreciative of the help being offered.

One does, but the above quote is also an example of the fact that snarkiness, meanness and bullying are often in the eye of the beholder, and that some people do not apply the same standards to their own actions as they apply to the actions of others.