DEI is an acronym for Don't Expect Improvement

[Navybone 170]

2 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

And three of you gave him a down arrow for even asking the question...

The OP’s question was “So, can anyone explain to me the difference between these groups and how having segregated events develops the concept of DEI among Scouts?”  when he sates his opinion that a lot people see woke and DEI as not beneficial.  And that special events for minority groups versus majority (white males) in scouts is counter to DEI in BSA.  That is what I gave a down arrow to.    

My response was to ask “What do you disagree with in the Cit in Society MB?  Not talking about the political BS, "woke" or rest of it.  What part of the requirements of the MB do you disagree with?  My experience in our troop is that the scouts don't have issue with it (so far as it is not an active MB - camping, etc...). “   There was no response.  I specifically asked about Cit in Society MB because this is a forum about scouting and I was trying to keep the issue on scouting.  Cit in Society MB is how the BSA is addressing developing a mindset of diversify, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in our youth.  If there was acceptance of the principals of DEI as articulated in the MB, then the need for the affinity groups.

The value of affinity groups is that they can be very effective in opening organizations to new minority groups.  The provide people with similar background, experiences, and beliefs to see others that share the same beliefs.  Having that commonality can be very helpful when entering an environment where they are one of a few. 

From my personal experience, I retired from military and went to work in higher education, but not as an academic.  There was very little veteran presence in the college faculty and staff, and most thought all veterans suffered from PTSD and that we would run the place like boot camp.  A veteran’s affinity group on campus was very helpful in assisting me to adapt and understand the college faculty, navigate around the school, and be very successful there.  I did not need the group for long, but it was very useful at the beginning of my time there and was important to my staying there.   This is no different than from scouting.    These groups can be very effective in easing the entry of minority groups into scout.  Things are hard enough for a new young man or women as they enter scouts without any of their friends.  Or remain after their friends have dropped out.  Or keep their parents involved.

[InquisitiveScouter 1656]

And here is an alternative view...

https://raymondsrants.medium.com/the-issue-with-affinity-groups-985b46848796

[Navybone 170]

44 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

And here is an alternative view...

https://raymondsrants.medium.com/the-issue-with-affinity-groups-985b46848796

RIGHT -  "An affinity group, while potentially helpful could perpetuate the same colorist and euro-centric bias that exists by making those problematic views a necessary status quo in the fight against white supremacy."

The important part is that the article does not say all affinity groups cause these issues. I gave you an example of one where membership was voluntary, where is a view where it is not.  To bring this back to scouting and not just about how all affinity groups are evil, how are they used in the BSA?  Is there any actual evidence that they are operating like the article?

[HashTagScouts 437]

The issue I took on this thread was "segregated events". NOAC was not segregated. Were there optional sessions intended not as "put on a pedestal" but rather as social events? Yes. And the point of those - can't speak for the sessions, as I didn't intend them, but understood the context of the planning- were to bring together individuals attending NOAC together and to hopefully learn how the OA (and BSA in general) could better include them into the program. Female youth in particular are an issue that our Lodge, and those in our Section, have had issues to contend with to assimilate them into the Lodge while maintaining the YP policies (as this is not a pure OA forum, I'll leave some particulars out, but for the "IYKYK" crowd, think about Vigil- maintaining buddy-system in that can have challenges, now put the situation if you have only one female youth involved, etc.). Going into 2023, our Lodge had just under two dozen female youth inducted through Ordeal, but only a handful had ever attended another Lodge event after Ordeal- that lead to a potential situation for us in fall 2022 where we had 1 female youth sign-up to be a ceremonialist, and 1 female youth sign-up to complete Brotherhood. The issue we had to grapple with is how do we maintain a buddy-system for each of them? With some convincing, the BH candidate agreed to be a ceremonialist as well, so averted the main problem. Otherwise, we were faced with a situation of not being able to have either of them attend OR having to break policies OR having to break traditional structure of the induction weekend. If pulling together female OA youth together for an hour at Section/Region/National events is possible to get them to brainstorm how we can help Lodges, I'm all for it. Trying for two years to work with what at the time were all male youth Lodge officers to discuss this was not incredibly productive, and often was stuck with moving them over the hump on even understanding that co-mingling when there was less than two females was a problem.

How to move forward is still necessary discussions- and my $.02 BSA is moving along as though there are no real day-to-day issues here that are making it complicated to actually deliver an inclusive program. Then again, BSA fails in most respects to address anything about OA in the G2SS and leaves it to us to have to read between the lines and use logic that only some of us have with Venturing/Sea Scouts on how to handle program with both male and female participants under the BSA umbrella. Can't say that is exceptional. 

[fred8033 1593]

1 hour ago, Navybone said:

My response was to ask “What do you disagree with in the Cit in Society MB?  Not talking about the political BS, "woke" or rest of it.  What part of the requirements of the MB do you disagree with?  My experience in our troop is that the scouts don't have issue with it (so far as it is not an active MB - camping, etc...). “   There was no response.  I specifically asked about Cit in Society MB because this is a forum about scouting and I was trying to keep the issue on scouting.  Cit in Society MB is how the BSA is addressing developing a mindset of diversify, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in our youth.  If there was acceptance of the principals of DEI as articulated in the MB, then the need for the affinity groups.

You asked ... What do you disagree with in Citz in Society MB? 

Requirement #1 ... Defining terms

• Terms are loaded for specific political views and objectives.  Equity versus Equality is a difference that not everyone agrees with.  Upstander is a made up woke term.  Let's pull in conservative terms to balance the debate.  
• Focusing on "Identities" leads naturally to "Identity Politics" which is something both the far left and the right reject.  Marxist and Socialist groups criticize as it's divisional.  Conservative criticize because it's prejudicial. 

Requirement #2 & #3 & #4 ... Leadership and ethical decision making and  ... Isn't this all of scouting?  How to be a leader?  How to be kind?  How to be considerate?  Why is this reduced to a specific badge.  It should be everywhere in scouting.

Requirement #6 ... Wow.  In my past, that would have been reaching out to a Lutheran or a Democrat.  Is that enough?  Perhaps we should require those from non-military families to interview those in the military to understand why they choose to serve?  ... Or do we just want shallow skin deep definitions? ... At some point, we are all different than each other in some way.  

Requirement #7 onward ... just too much to pick apart.  Effectively ... these are setup to burn a specific political view into the youth.

Perhaps I'd be okay with Citz in Society if we balance the politics in others badges.  Perhaps Citizen in the Nation ...  New requirement ...  Find the current price of a gallon of gas and break that cost apart into various piece parts.  Direct state and federal gas taxes.  Sales tax for the car receiving the gas.  Annual license plate cost for that car.  ... Taxes for the piece of land the gas station sits on.  Employment taxes for the people working at the gas station.  Deed transfer taxes for when the gas station bought the land.  Inspection fees for building the building.   ....  Permit fees to build the building ...   Identify all the taxes involved for the local gas station to sell a gallon of gas.  

Citz in the Society has some good parts that should be included in other badges.  Beyond that, Citizen in the Society is teaching a specific political view that just pushes me and mine away.

[Navybone 170]

3 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Upstander is a made up woke term.

I would disagree that it is a made up woke term.  I have heard it over the last decade plus while int he military to stop/reduce Blue on Blue sexual assaults (committed on sailors by other sailors): do not be a bystander - see something, say something, do something.  What is woke about that?

[MikeS72 437]

3 hours ago, Navybone said:

I would disagree that it is a made up woke term.  I have heard it over the last decade plus while int he military to stop/reduce Blue on Blue sexual assaults (committed on sailors by other sailors): do not be a bystander - see something, say something, do something.  What is woke about that?

The term upstander versus bystander has been used in anti-bullying programs for probably 15 - 20 years in many school systems.  Exactly what we would hope a Scout would be if he or she witnessed bullying.

[Eagledad 2779]

9 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

The term upstander versus bystander has been used in anti-bullying programs for probably 15 - 20 years in many school systems.  Exactly what we would hope a Scout would be if he or she witnessed bullying.

I guess. It’s a new term to me. And it’s sad that standing up for someone today is considered noble. In a time when being offended is considered a right and safe places are the norm, acting scout-like requires courage and is truly noble.

Barry
 

[mrjohns2 582]

4 hours ago, Eagledad said:

I guess. It’s a new term to me.

I first heard it when Citizenship in Society came out in draft form. I don’t feel out of touch, but at 47, it didn’t make its way into my lexicon until recently. 
 

With many feeling they don’t want to get involved or that something is none of their business, it is a useful term to name what it means to stand for what is right. 

[MikeS72 437]

1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

I first heard it when Citizenship in Society came out in draft form.

Had I not spent 2/3 of my life in the public school system CiS may well have been the first I heard it used as well.  Due to many years in elementary, middle school, and high schools it is a term that I am very familiar with and use often.

[yknot 1338]

16 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

Had I not spent 2/3 of my life in the public school system CiS may well have been the first I heard it used as well.  Due to many years in elementary, middle school, and high schools it is a term that I am very familiar with and use often.

I often think the reactions of some of the scouters on this site to certain things might be due to the fact that they perhaps no longer have younger kids involved in a public school district themselves. Or, if they do, their involvement may be limited to a more insular community like a scouts/church continuum. Some simply may not be exposed to things that seem very commonplace or mainstream to others. 

[fred8033 1593]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

I often think the reactions of some of the scouters on this site to certain things might be due to the fact that they perhaps no longer have younger kids involved in a public school district themselves. Or, if they do, their involvement may be limited to a more insular community like a scouts/church continuum. Some simply may not be exposed to things that seem very commonplace or mainstream to others. 

Demeaning and bullying is inferring that the many who have not heard of the term are somehow less or old or uneducated or an isolated religious sect.  You can discuss the term without being mean.   ... That's me being an upstander. 

The term was rarely used in society before the last few years.   I've taken years of classes thru business, college and post-graduate work.  My kids just graduated a major school system a few years ago.  I am very well educated.  ...  The fact is the term was rarely used until recently.  It's why I strongly assert it's strongly connected with a political agenda.  

 

[yknot 1338]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Demeaning and bullying is inferring that the many who have not heard of the term are somehow less or old or uneducated or an isolated religious sect.  You can discuss the term without being mean.   ... That's me being an upstander. 

The term was rarely used in society before the last few years.   I've taken years of classes thru business, college and post-graduate work.  My kids just graduated a major school system a few years ago.  I am very well educated.  ...  The fact is the term was rarely used until recently.  It's why I strongly assert it's strongly connected with a political agenda.  

 

Those embellishments are your own, not mine. I made what I think is an accurate statement and I was actually trying to couch it so as to not offend. Talk to a cross section of school age kids and parents. Some of the things people argue the existence of on this forum are very hard to process, and this is just the latest that has left me blank. 

[AwakeEnergyScouter 247]

On 3/13/2024 at 7:55 AM, InquisitiveScouter said:

I have re-read the entire thread, and find the discourse generally civil.

Here is a primer:

What is not civil discourse?     Being disrespectful is not engaging in civil discourse. Here are some disrespectful behaviors that are typically considered out of bounds: profanity, name-calling*, derogatory terms (stupid, ignorant…), shouting, insulting body language (such as eye-rolling), insulting tone of voice (baby talk, speaking “down” to a person), ridicule, open hostility, biting sarcasm, any other disrespectful acts or ad hominem attacks, threats, or any behavior that could get a person banned from a social media site. A central theme of disrespectful discourse is that it employs tactics designed to dismiss the other person, rather than engage with the other argument.     

https://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/guide_to_civil_discourse_student_version.pdf

Some examples of uncivil discourse in the thread are: 1) implying people are conspiracy theorists, 2) trying to derail the OP by accusing them of engaging in the rhetoric of "culture war", and 3) not answering the OP question, but instead, trying to dismiss him by asking tangential (and sometimes unrelated) questions in order to undermine the supposed premise of why he asked the question in the first place.

So, I'll re-post the OP question, and the answer I gave:

What answer to the OP question did you offer?

And three of you gave him a down arrow for even asking the question...

As I have already stated, I do not find the start of the conversation civil (as defined in the definitions of civil I previously provided because several elements of it are ideological, the statements are imprecise, and the tone seems angry). In structural dynamics terms, the OP was a move in affect, not a move in meaning. 

A move in affect can't lead to civil discourse because, as the student primer on civil discourse says, civil discourse is all about sticking to the issues. If there was no issue presented, or the issue is so unclearly presented that the discourse cannot proceed around the issue because insufficient detail and/or too much histrionic incivility (definition below) was presented, then the whole thing is a non-starter for civil discourse. This is why American University called out ideological posts as uncivil.  It's just unproductive and nobody enjoys it, there is no real conversation being had. Just like in this thread. It doesn't matter who posted or on what topic.

Quote

 

A civil discourse is a conversation in which there is a mutual airing of views. It is not a contest; rather, it is intended to promote mutual understanding. Civil discourse follows general rules of polite behavior. This does not mean that you have to behave like Mr. or Ms. Manners, but it does mean that there are certain behaviors that make everyone uncomfortable and that indicate that a conversation has turned hostile and unproductive.

There is really just one rule of Civil Discourse: Don’t make it personal. This means to stick to the issues. In a civil discussion, you use logic, persuasion, evidence, information and argumentation to make a point or defend a position, but you would not attack the other individual personally. Civil discourse means being respectful of the other person and his or her views.

 

I didn't want to immediately go through and label all the reasons I thought that, because that could seem somewhat aggressive and would just result in a move-oppose-move-oppose pattern that did nothing to improve the situation. I just wanted to bring it back to the domain of meaning in order to avoid putting off more scouts off Scouts BSA. But since we're here now anyway, let me show you exactly why I did not think it civil and why I think it was harmful to scouts and scouting so that you can see exactly where I think the problem lies and why.  The problem isn't being conservative or critiquing actual DEI policies and practices. The problem is not seeking mutual understanding and the effect that seeing this kind of stuff from scouters is likely to have on scouts.

Quote

OP Topic: DEI is an acronym for Don't Expect Improvement

OP body: 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?

I won't go over what I already said about it not being sincere, internally possibly inconsistent, having unclear references to current events, and the question not being seriously asked. I will add that the whole post fits what Bryan Gervais categorizes as histrionic incivility in his paper Incivility Online: Affective and Behavioral Reactions to Uncivil Political Posts in a Web-based Experiment. He's got it up on ResearchGate if anyone wants to read it.

Quote

Histrionics and Emotionality

Despite primarily consisting of text-based communication, online discourse is not devoid of emotional exchanges. Visual elements, including the purposeful use of uppercase letters and multiple exclamation points, can be considered the digital equivalent of shouting. Use of this type of behavior is common in Internet forums, including online political commentary (Berry & Sobieraj, 2013; Sobieraj & Berry, 2010). This behavior comprises a third category of incivility: histrionics and emotionality. In addition to visual elements, this category includes vulgarity and comments that suggest that a target should be feared or is responsible for sadness (Berry & Sobieraj, 2013; Coe et al., 2014).

(...)

Criteria of Incivility Category 3: “histrionics” Language suggests individual or group should be feared or is responsible for sadness. Also includes thoughts that are purposefully exaggerated through uppercase letters and multiple exclamation points

Example Claim: Candidate’s election is somewhat worrisome

Civil Negative:  “The election of the candidate has me worried about the direction of the country.”

Uncivil Negative: “I fear for what will happen to this country if the candidate is elected. It will be a sad day for America." −and− “WE SHOULD ALL BE SCARED!!!!!!!”

I heard OP say that woke is an acronym, but since that is not supported by any dictionaries and they made the claim by assertion without citing any sources that hasn't been shown to be the case. 

So, my judgement was that answering the question does no good, because the post is uncivil in a histrionic way indicating anger and as such the following section of your civility primer immediately applies:

Quote

If you find yourself in a discussion that turns incivil, the best response is to respond directly to the problematic behavior and its effects on you, not the other person. So, for example, if the other person calls you a derogatory term during a discussion, the proper response would be to simply say: “I don’t like being called names. It hurts my feelings.” If the person recognizes that s/he has crossed the line into incivil tactics, then the discussion can proceed, but if not, it is probably best to end the discussion politely, because it is no longer civil or productive. The other person is likely taking it too personally to engage in a civil discourse at this time.

So, I tried to end it immediately by asking how the post was helpful. I could have done better in immediately pointing out that ideological screeds from scouters are going to put scouts off, in retrospect. I assumed it would be obvious but it may not be.

More replies from OP with histrionic incivility but without responding to my question about the purpose of a post mostly about non-scouting events in a snide negative tone, confirming the likelihood of that the first post was intentionally written that way and that it wasn't just my misinterpretation:

Quote

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!

This one also fulfills Kenski et al's definition of Lying accusation-type uncivility (examples: "Americans have been screaming at the top of their lungs that this government is wrong, is corrupt, is lying, is deceiving the people, and is violating our constitution." and "We need to get everyone out of office and start fresh. Make it so that lawyers cannot run for office in the executive or legislative branches of government. They lie and should not be trusted.") 

Quote

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.

For further clarification I would like for your attention to focus on Harvard College, Florida State College, Budweiser Beer and Nike Athletic Shoes.  The public reaction indicates that the majority of regular sensible people are fed up and sick of the foolishness that has overshadowed our country.  I'll probably get more warnings and maybe even kicked out but what I said needs saying!

More histrionic uncivility (claims that LGBTQIA+, black, brown, pink, purple, and blue people plus those who think they are cats are attempting to force OP to accept ideologies that they do not agree with, hard to take at face value especially without any support of anyone in any group attempting to force them to accept ideologies they don't agree with) but not the facts needed to evaluate the core claim (in the service of civil discourse, I'm picking the strongest possible on-scouting-topic claim I can make out the outline of here) of that the affinity group meetings at NOAC and possibly the last Jamboree does nothing to strengthen diversity, equity, and inclusion in scouting. This is because, as was already pointed out, that the specific nature of the events, the attendance rules (if any), and whether they changed the scouting experience for non-attendees all need to be considered to answer. The question cannot be properly answered generally, because to rule out potential ill effects on DEI like pushing scouts that aren't members of the groups that the affinity group meetings served you need more details of what exactly happened, what was the formal setup, what was the reason given for that, how did the participants experience it, and how did the non-participants experience it? A bunch of the questions that not just I but others also asked and got no answer to (so radio silence from OP on the actual issue civil discourse requires sticking to) until HashTagScouts (not OP) answered

Quote

The issue I took on this thread was "segregated events". NOAC was not segregated. Were there optional sessions intended not as "put on a pedestal" but rather as social events? Yes. And the point of those - can't speak for the sessions, as I didn't intend them, but understood the context of the planning- were to bring together individuals attending NOAC together and to hopefully learn how the OA (and BSA in general) could better include them into the program. Female youth in particular are an issue that our Lodge, and those in our Section, have had issues to contend with to assimilate them into the Lodge while maintaining the YP policies (as this is not a pure OA forum, I'll leave some particulars out, but for the "IYKYK" crowd, think about Vigil- maintaining buddy-system in that can have challenges, now put the situation if you have only one female youth involved, etc.). 

I also perceive the first part of OP's response above as speaking down to me, but because it is uncivil to get into a back and forth about "you're uncivil!" "No, YOU'RE uncivil!" which surely is just as off-putting to scouts as the original post I let that go. We are here for the scouts. The answer I got to asking all these clarifying questions for consideration of the strongest possible claim - standard debate practice - was

Quote

If you are an active scouter you already know the answers to all of things you are asking.   Is it this, what is that, when did this, who did that, if its that then what is that.  I have no desire to word joust and no requirement for further clarification.   You should be able to figure it out, active scouter and all.

So again no actual answer from OP, but with a side of dismissal. Again uncivil. So, still trying to get a real conversation around mutual understanding going since this thread is plowing forward, I bystand with what I'm seeing and why I'm asking all these questions - to stick to the issue in the most charitable reading of the original argument in context of the later posts. No response to my direct statement that I want to engage in civil discourse and therefore want to hear what OP personally thinks and why (but civilly, of course). 

So, you're right, I never answered the question. In part because others already said what needed to be said on the issue of the value of affinity groups in general and the reason for having them. But if I had - do you honestly think that it would have been received in such as way that it furthered mutual understanding between me and OP?Maybe here it is I who am too jaded. If so, I apologize. Perhaps they really were open to a solid facts and evidence-based discussion on the pros and cons of affinity groups and whether the BSA is implementing them in an overall net positive way, had I only answered the question immediately. I really don't think so, but it would be wonderful if I were wrong. (This is an invitation to MrJeff to tell me I'm wrong and explain how I misunderstood his intentions with the post, by the way, if that wasn't clear.)

I also want to address your examples of alleged uncivil discourse on my part. (And only my part, I note. Care to explain that choice? I've explained why I focused on OP - to show that the start of the conversation was uncivil and that it did in fact continue that way from OP's direction, proving my point that starting that was was going to be unproductive.) 

1. I didn't actually mean to imply that people here are conspiracy theorists, and that isn't actually what the quote says if you re-read it carefully. What I meant to say was that, like others have mentioned obliquely since you wrote this, when normal scouts and scouters are doing normal things and people come out of the woodwork to be upset about it in culture war terms ("Upstander is a made up woke term.  Let's pull in conservative terms to balance the debate. ") and start implying that normal scouters doing normal things are part of some kind of vanguard to destroy the BSA it's a little weird. Like, a lot weird. And it's going to look weird to any scouts reading it. Those who were previously barred from membership in Scouts BSA are going to be particularly sensitive to how much trouble they might expect if they join. If adult scouters are repeatedly posting things that make it seem like they can expect active resistance to their presence, well... that's going to make it harder to recruit. Even if that wasn't what you meant - if that's what they hear... and I think there's a 95% chance that they will. That's why I'm bothering to speak up. I am convinced that aggressively complaining about "wokeness" (especially with no definition of that given) is incredibly likely to put scouts off joining. 

Personally, it's weird when it happens because not only am I no such thing, I've gone out of my way to specify what I do think about potential hot-button issues (taking a clear position, intended as civil) and why I think that (creating the setup for mutual understanding). But the "offer" of responding in kind with a calm, fact-based rebuttal and an explanation of why someone else thinks differently is rarely if ever taken. If there is a direct response at all, it's often uncivil and argument by assertion. I've seen survivors explain over and over again that they personally don't want to destroy the BSA, yet the idea that the lawsuit is just to destroy the BSA keeps popping up over in the CSA court case threads.

It's not just OP and not just this thread. Normal scouts and scouters are doing normal things and posting about it and then things get uncivil when other scouters start telling the scouters doing normal things who they are and what they think. (American University, last bullet point under What Civil Discourse Is Not) I've certainly been told I'm all kinds of things (never good things in context) and want to do this, that, and the other (never good things), and I'm definitely not the only one. Latest case in point is just above.

2) I'm not trying to derail the OP. I am trying to steer this conversation into more productive ground, although I am definitely not succeeding. But as Trungpa Rinpoche used to say, gentleness is armor. All I can do is be open and honest and do my best to maintain civility. No doubt I haven't been perfect, but that doesn't mean that I'm not honestly committed to it and trying, nor does it mean that your (or anyone else's) perception of my motivations and intentions is correct. It most certainly hasn't been in the past, either. When I'm not sure I'm reading someone right, I ask them what they meant. I could be wrong! So I ask to make sure I don't judge someone over a misunderstanding.

3) I did not try to dismiss OP by asking tangential (and sometimes unrelated) questions in order to undermine the supposed premise of why he asked the question in the first place. Had you asked me some questions, we might have sorted that out. I already detailed my intentions with my replies to OP in this thread, as well as why I ask people clarifying questions in general, so I won't say more on that since this is already very, very long.

yknot is right on the money when he says "Some of the things people argue the existence of on this forum are very hard to process, and this is just the latest that has left me blank." It's not just that someone is wrong on the internet. It's just.. confusing. Normal people doing normal things. And then bam, someone's being accused of wanting to persecute scouts and scouters with no evidence provided. There really is some kind of communication gap here.

To be clear, I like you, InquisitiveScouter. You are not my enemy. You were kind to me when I joined here and we have a lot in common. I don't really understand why you take so much offense at some things I've said here, but we're never going to sort it out without a real conversation. OP isn't my enemy, EagleDad isn't my enemy, etc. I don't have enemies at all. Have you frustrated and confused me? Yes. But so has my husband. That's not at all the same as being enemies. We may never bridge this odd communication gap, but I want to be clear and explicit on that I am willing to have a conversation for mutual understanding. We should, IMNSHO, try.

 

Edited March 15 by AwakeEnergyScouter
Fixed typo

[InquisitiveScouter 1656]

8 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I don't really understand why you take so much offense at some things I've said here

Ummm.... where did I say I was offended, or that you were an enemy?

Your posts have not offended, just... confused (to use your phrasing)

I often find myself reading tone and intent into these posts, and have to check those inclinations.  Doing either pushes my own thoughts and biases onto the other person posting.

So, I ask a lot of questions to get at the heart of a matter for understanding.  I do find people often take offense at the mere asking of questions.  This I find puzzling.   And it is why I often say if you look for offense, you will find it.

And on your discourse on civil discourse, I think advice given by another poster is valid:  If you don't like it, you do not have to engage.  I ignore lots of people here in that way 😜