DEI is an acronym for Don't Expect Improvement

[yknot]

3 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Well, @Jameson76, that is because, statistically speaking, men abuse more  than women, right?

NO!  

https://www.statista.com/statistics/418470/number-of-perpetrators-in-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us-by-sex/

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1825&context=honorsprojects

https://www.statista.com/statistics/254893/child-abuse-in-the-us-by-perpetrator-relationship/

But, they are more likely to sexually abuse...

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens#:~:text=In 88% of the sexual,%2C and 3% are unknown.

Those percentages are a function of the fact that more children are cared for by women with, in many cases the fathers absent or marginally present, and how laws don't extend any culpability to fathers. The study you posted here elucidates that on page 10. When a pregnant woman abuses drugs and is charged with child abuse, the state doesn't also charge the father who may have not only taken the drugs with her but may have even supplied them. 

[Mrjeff]

Liers use stats and stats lie, that has been proven time and time again.  Statistics and presentages can be manipulated to prove anything.   Its really simple, do the right thing!

[Mrjeff]

Yes it does, I'd be curious to what would happen if a young lady were to be abused and daddy and brothers found out.

[Navybone]

5 hours ago, Eagledad said:

I tried using reason in a discussion a couple weeks ago; emotion and cultural loyalty is strong. I don’t think the boys have chance of a fair program in the BSA anymore. Honestly, I didn’t see it coming.

Barry

What has changed that makes anything in BSA unfair towards boys versus girls?  What new restriction is in place?

41 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

Yes it does, I'd be curious to what would happen if a young lady were to be abused and daddy and brothers found out.

would it be different is a young man boy were to be abused and daddy and brothers found out?

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

7 hours ago, Navybone said:

would it be different is a young man boy were to be abused and daddy and brothers found out?

This is the second layer... Does the gender of the abused young person matter?

Of course not.

Either YPT works or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, the problem isn't "DEI", it's that YPT isn't covering all the bases to prevent CSA.

[Navybone]

27 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

This is the second layer... Does the gender of the abused young person matter?

Of course not.

Either YPT works or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, the problem isn't "DEI", it's that YPT isn't covering all the bases to prevent CSA.

Totally agree with you.   

[InquisitiveScouter]

Folks,

It takes all of us to make this work.  No matter where you wind up on the spectrum of moral foundations...

Those on each end balance each other out.

Where are you?  Have a listen... (you can read along with transcript, too)

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_liberals_and_conservatives/transcript?hasSummary=true

 

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

9 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

Liers use stats and stats lie, that has been proven time and time again.  Statistics and presentages can be manipulated to prove anything. 

But that doesn't mean that statistics isn't a valid epistemology.

As you reap the fruits of in your daily life. Even manufacturing of physical goods uses statistics for quality control. And that's before we mention statistical mechanics.

Knowledge about the world that hinges on statistics is quite possible.

[qwazse]

This makes the statistician in me cringe.

4 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

... Either YPT works or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, the problem isn't "DEI", it's that YPT isn't covering all the bases to prevent CSA.

There is no formulation of YPT that can cover all the bases. At the very best, it can reduce the odds of CSA.

I'm not faulting @AwakeEnergyScouter for the word choice. This is precisely the language that BSA policy wonks put forth.

Also, the following is problematic:

14 hours ago, yknot said:

Those percentages are a function of the fact that more children are cared for by women with, in many cases the fathers absent or marginally present, and how laws don't extend any culpability to fathers. The study you posted here elucidates that on page 10. When a pregnant woman abuses drugs and is charged with child abuse, the state doesn't also charge the father who may have not only taken the drugs with her but may have even supplied them. 

The jury is out on the "time under care" hypothesis. Mainly because criminology is a very difficult science. In pregnant substance use scenario, we don't know the odds of the biological father being a co-conspirators vs. trying to interdict their partner's substance use. Moving on to lethal force against young children, it's very hard to credit their relative safety in the presence of their biological father to mere lack of time with potential victim. That's like saying "He'd also crack under pressure." Simply put, the facts are not in evidence. Moreover, assuming that's the cause could lead to a very wrong conclusion. If moms are abusive as a consequence of spending extra time with kids, then the logical solution would be to assign kids to biological males more often.

Alternatively, rely on institutions that extend family ... like school and scouting. But as we know, this will only mitigate - not eliminate - risk.

There's no doubt in my mind that young women benefit from the presence of male role models, but there's also no doubt that that will put some young women at risk for sexual abuse.

The same could be said for young men and female role models, but at a lower rate of sexual abuse.

This bit of odds-betting played by lawyers has little to do with DEI, I think.

Edited March 5 by qwazse

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

35 minutes ago, qwazse said:

This bit of odds-betting played by lawyers has little to do with DEI, I think.

Yes, I think this is the main point.

I did express myself imprecisely, that's true, categorizing a risk level below some undefined cutoff as "YPT working" and categorizing a risk level above that as "YPT not working". What that risk level is is a matter of debate, of course, but because the main point here isn't really that conversation I used the BSA's phrasing to keep the focus on what on Earth this conversation is meant to be good for. The wisdom of starting conversations by lobbing culture war grenades depends in no way whatsoever on statistics.

What productive aim did you have in mind when you started this conversation, @Mrjeff? Still waiting on those examples of what you're talking about, for the second time. Nobody else seems to know or has even offered a guess.

[Eagledad]

19 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

What productive aim did you have in mind when you started this conversation, @Mrjeff? Still waiting on those examples of what you're talking about, for the second time. Nobody else seems to know or has even offered a guess.

How many conversations start with “I have to vent”?
 

Does there have to be a productive aim if the discussion is civil and managed within the Scout Law? Sometimes the best reaction to a discussion one doesn’t enjoy participating is to choose not to participate.

Barry

Edited March 5 by Eagledad

[Mrjeff]

Jeeeeezzzzzzz.........how in the world did DEI jump the tracks and turn into YPT? I would invite "Awake" to read my previous post to get some examples of what I'm talking about, and it has nothing to do with YPT.

 

Edited March 5 by RememberSchiff
fixed italics spelling for clarity - RS

[Mrjeff]

Sorry, should be DEI, spell check got me again😉

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

9 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Does there have to be a productive aim if the discussion is civil and managed within the Scout Law? Sometimes the best reaction to a discussion one doesn’t enjoy participating is to choose not to participate.

I agree with Civics for Life that civil discourse is constructive to have for its own sake.

"Civil discourse is not simply polite conversation, though courtesy and respect are crucial to it. Civil discourse goes beyond politeness. It is conversation with purpose—that is, constructive dialogue. Though they may disagree, participants in civil discourse are committed to hearing each other’s fact-based opinions and dispassionately evaluating those opinions against their own. Participants enter into civil discourse with a shared goal: to leave it with greater clarity or even, potentially, having achieved some new agreement."

They further define the characteristics of civil discourse as

"Civil discourse is:

• Fact-based
• Non-ideological
• Productive
• Respectful"

So that covers civil discourse - but not uncivil discourse. When the conversation loses its factual grounding, becomes ideological, becomes unproductive, and disrespectful, it's not civil. Even if expletives are withheld.

So let's take a look, shall we? 
 

On 3/3/2024 at 1:56 PM, Mrjeff said:

Well, a lot of people have realised that being WOKE isn't really beneficial; just ask a major college, athletic shoe manufacturer and a beverage company.  This is also true for the proponents of DEI just ask the colleges, universities and manufactures that have fired their DEI employees and boarded up their offices.  The BSA harps about DEI yet they sanction and organize special events for women,  LGBTQ members and "people of color ."  If they had a gathering of straight white folks there would be cries of racism, homophobia and who knows what else.  So, can anyone explain to me the difference between these groups and how having segregated events develops the concept of DEI among Scouts?

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

Jeeeeezzzzzzz.........how in the world did DEI jump the tracks and turn into YPT? I would invite "Awake" to read my previous post to get some examples of what I'm talking about, and it has nothing to do with YPT.

 

In the Order of the Arrow subforum, we have a post with the subject "DEI is an acronym for Don't Expect Improvement". Taken literally this is plainly untrue, so the statement is not meant to be taken literally and seems ideological given current US political context. Then we have some seeming anger about "wokeness" due to the all caps, followed by oblique references that I only can guess one of, creating a dearth of facts. Following this is is a referential statement that proponents of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion have also realized that being woke isn't really beneficial and that the truth of this can be confirmed by asking unspecified colleges, universities, and manufacturers (which ones exactly is not specified) that have fired their "DEI employees" (HR staff working on DEI?) and (probably) boarded up their DEI offices. Since this seems to connect to recent partisan kerfuffles about banning DEI offices and positions, this is likely to be ideological as well, and so far nothing to do with Order of the Arrow or even scouting at all.

Once we do get to scouting, there's a statement implying a contradiction between Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and BSA organizing alleged special events for women, LGBTQIA+ folks, and POC followed by an allegation that there would be outrage if straight white folks (including women? probably meant men only) had a gathering. I say alleged, because MrJeff has already brought this up at least once and also failed to give clear examples of what gatherings when exactly in what context, including when previously asked for it, and since he's never able to give actual examples I'm ready to believe it's not a real thing in the first place when no one else here seems to know what specifically he's talking about. The post that he made right before this one has no mention of DEI, so that's no help, although I'll note @Mrjeff that my handle here can't be broken down into just Awake in any sensical way, the concept is (awake energy) because it's a twist on a dharma name. (And we scouts, as you may recall, aspire to be mentally awake, possessing that awake energy.) And I'll also note that I'm willing to speak directly to both you, @Eagledad, as well as @Mrjeffbecause talking about people in the third person in their presence is rude. So, if there is an actual fact basis for this conversation, @Mrjeff isn't providing it and no one else can guess what it is. This is then capped with a question about what the difference between BSA-organized events for scouts only recently allowed to join the BSA (historically speaking) and a gathering (BSA-organized or not is unspecified) of (probably) straight white men, and the question of how segregated events aid DEI. These questions do not seem sincere, given what came before them.

As before in our previous conversation, my problem with this conversation isn't that I don't personally like it, it's that it's hurting BSA scouting and BSA scouts. Scouting is not and has never been a political "safe space" where you can rant and rave about your political opinions in peace. We are a civil, not political, movement. We've always had both left-leaning and right-leaning scouts and scouters.

Did you watch InquisitiveScouter's TED talk video? Well worth watching. But there is something Haidt missed, something InquisitiveScouter mentioned earlier on just in different words - the two levels of truths. On the absolute level, there are indeed no groups of people. But at the same time, it would be downright denialistic to pretend you can't see the outlines of groups of people, even though the 'edges' dissolve as you look for them. So one should absolutely strive to attain the stage of 'one taste' where like and dislike have been transcended, but that doesn't mean that you lose your sense faculties and ability to tell one thing from another. You just don't solidify what those senses convey into some Eternal Truth in your mind, don't believe your thoughts as my dear root teacher always says.

What ultimately sets the wheel of samsara into motion is the Three Poisons - passion, aggression, and ignorance (of how the world really works). Look around the internet - conversations that start from an angry post are virtually guaranteed to turn uncivil. In this case, though, the people who end up fighting are supposed to be in the same tribe of scouters! Why start an angry, ideological conversation without a clear factual grounding? Why? It is not productive and only ends up hurting scouting and scouts. When you start in anger it's unlikely to end in peace, in this case leading to infighting within our scouting tribe. 

[Mrjeff]

Have you attended NOAC or the last Jamboree?  You keep saying that I not given specific examples. Bwell I  have given examples but if you are having trouble understanding at the last National Order of the Arrow Conference Conference there were specific meetings/gatherings for women,  LGBTQ, and People of Color.   If there was a specific meeting or event that focused on caucasion/heterosexual people ther would have been amplified exclamations of racism and homophobia.   I hope that simplifies this so you can comprehend my meaning.  Personally, I have no problem with LBGTQ people, black, brown, white, pink, purple or blue people, or those who think they're cats.  But I do take exception when the aforementioned members of these groups attempt to force me to accept ideologies that I do not agree with.  An individuals rights as defined by the US Constitution are sacred as long as the application of those rights do not infringe on the rights of another.  If the application of my protected rights are offensive then the pffended party is just offended.  By sanctioning separate events for Women,  LGTBQ's, People of Color,  Cat People, Dog People or Chipmunk People does NOTHI G to strengthen the idea of DEI.  And by the way, WOKE is also an acronym that is generally expressed with capital letters.