The BSA should get tough on scouts and scouters violating inclusion policies

[skeptic 997]

Okay, while I may be one of the few that might recall, but we are verging on the circus that the Forum shared when Bob White and our resident "Atheist" of the time exchanged loud typing.  Reality, at least to me, is that IF we care about those building blocks on which Scouting is set, and IF we "do our best" to adhere to them, then we will serve the youth and society in a good way.  Sadly, much of today's society does not appear to be ready for the balance that those ideals noted represent. Back to the Golden Rule and similar concepts.  I fear some have possibly breached on here the thing we try to call to youth's attention called bullying.  Most of bullying that we see is verbal or non physical, at least to start.  But, the adage about "sticks and stones" only applies to a point.  Always a balancing act, and none of us have an answer to most of the ills of current society, only ideas.  As I have suggested though, they can be found in Scouting.  As was said in the late depression and early WWII era, "BSA, America's Answer".  Maybe?  

[rallybug 14]

26 minutes ago, skeptic said:

"Heck, I'd even support liberals if they ever wanted to join scouting."   Guess I will need to scan through this, but wanted to just note, perhaps already done, that being Liberal or Conservative or something between has nothing to do with someone having an interest in Scouting.  I probably know more people that would be "labeled" as that than would be labeled otherwise, all of whom support the basic ideals of Scouting and strive to grow the newer generations.  

 

I mean, that comment about "liberals" (that has now been deleted...) shows some discourtesy right there.

[RememberSchiff 3683]

I prefer this version of Norman Rockwell's Freedom of Speech.  Others may disagree, let them.

Moderator awareness... IMMO*, some informative, robust yet scoutlike discussion here.

Thank you.

RS

* In My Moderator Opinion

[SiouxRanger 491]

1 hour ago, rallybug said:

I mean, that comment about "liberals" (that has now been deleted...) shows some discourtesy right there.

What's a "liberal?"

[Eagledad 2779]

20 hours ago, yknot said:

I'm not sure that's a great example to pick, because when Tigers were added to the program, verbal or physical threats weren't made against those children by other scouts or adult leaders. I don't know why people think it's OK though when it's about girls. Protecting children shouldn't require discussion. It's not censure ship to expect that registered and trained youth leaders in a youth organization protect and support the youth in their care. 

It depends on the interpretation of threats. I believe that bringing in girls has created, well lets just say a less welcoming environment for boys. There have been several discussions over the years of how adults are pushing the girls program and performance over the boy's program. And there was even mention of how the differences between girls and boys put the boys at a disadvantage in this program. I stand for the fairness and safety of all the scouts. But, in these discussions, it is fairness and safety of the boys' side of scouts.

I understand that emotions are powerful for forcing change, but I'll be here to keep reminding the list of the negative effects of change just like I have been doing for the last 25 years.

Barry

[SiouxRanger 491]

On 4/9/2024 at 1:15 PM, SiouxRanger said:

What's a "liberal?"

On so many forums, the word "liberal" is used in a negative, derisive, derogatory sense.

And the term for the opposite of "liberal" is…?

That term does not seem to be used at all.

I am not interested in starting an interminable political debate, just to obtain folks' definitions of "liberal" and whatever the antonym is ("conservative?")

 

[SiouxRanger 491]

On 4/9/2024 at 1:14 PM, RememberSchiff said:

I prefer this version of Norman Rockwell's Freedom of Speech.  Others may disagree, let them.

Moderator awareness... IMMO*, some informative, robust yet scoutlike discussion here.

Thank you.

RS

* In My Moderator Opinion

Rockwell was a genius.  Well quoted. He turned "pigment into principle."

[AwakeEnergyScouter 247]

On 4/9/2024 at 8:02 AM, fred8033 said:

Disposing of those you disagree is wrong.  Some call it censorship.  I call it a form of sin.  People are no more disposable for their beliefs than their sexual orientation.  We all need to work together.  

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.

 

On 4/9/2024 at 8:02 AM, fred8033 said:

I've always thought it should be obvious that there is a clear difference between forums like this where we discuss and exist for discussion.  In-person working with youth and new leaders is different.  That should be completely obvious.

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 standing in a town square in our uniforms saying everything we've ever said here every second of every day to anyone who cares to listen, including scouts?

[InquisitiveScouter 1656]

14 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

You do realize this forum is the social equivalent of us standing in a town square in our uniforms saying everything we've ever said here every second of every day to anyone who cares to listen, including scouts?

No, it isn't.

You have no idea who @fred8033 is.  That account could be a Scouter, or it could be someone posing as a Scouter, or it could (these days) be a large language model chatbot posting.  Or it could be one of my alter egos trolling you, and complete fiction.

 

[fred8033 1593]

21 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I am not interested in starting an interminable political debate, just to obtain folks' definitions of "liberal" and whatever the antonym is ("conservative?")

Liberal is in the eyes of the beholder.  I mainly use it as humor.  Political terms are assigned by the observer.  My more old-fashioned friends call me a liberal.  My new-age friends call me a conservative.  I'm pretty sure I'm the same person; just not a simple label.

[Eagledad 2779]

Whatever each one of us wants to think we are, there does seem to be a predictable tendency to diverge away from the center to one side or the other; instead of toward the center where we each seem to think we should be. 

Barry

[skeptic 997]

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Liberal is in the eyes of the beholder.  I mainly use it as humor.  Political terms are assigned by the observer.  My more old-fashioned friends call me a liberal.  My new-age friends call me a conservative.  I'm pretty sure I'm the same person; just not a simple label.

Ah, just not a simple label.  Now we see clearly?  Remember, it is against the law to remove some labels, or so it is said.  

🙄

 

[AwakeEnergyScouter 247]

4 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

No, it isn't.

You have no idea who @fred8033 is.  That account could be a Scouter, or it could be someone posing as a Scouter, or it could (these days) be a large language model chatbot posting.  Or it could be one of my alter egos trolling you, and complete fiction.

 

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 needs to take the basic position of chan culture, which they don't. This board has all the hallmarks of real humans and will be treated as such by mainstream Internet users.

[AwakeEnergyScouter 247]

On 4/10/2024 at 2:10 PM, SiouxRanger said:

I am not interested in starting an interminable political debate, just to obtain folks' definitions of "liberal" and whatever the antonym is ("conservative?")

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.

[AwakeEnergyScouter 247]

6 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I'm pretty sure I'm the same person; just not a simple label.

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 strong community online. 

"We are a storytelling, storysharing species. This is great because stories are interesting, and they are how we get to know each other. They are how we get to know ourselves and how we make meaning out of our lives.

So, stories are great…until they aren’t.

We are actually SO good at storytelling, we make up stories about things that aren’t really true or there or happening at all. As Brene Brown says, “In the absence of data, we will always make up stories. It’s how we are wired. In fact, the need to make up a story, especially when we are hurt, is part of our most primitive survival wiring. Meaning making is in our biology, and our default is often to come up with a story that makes sense, feels familiar, and offers us insight into how best to self-protect.”

Brown quotes Jonathan Gottschall saying, “Ordinary, mentally healthy people are strikingly prone to confabulate in everyday situations.” Confabulation is to fabricate a story to compensate for a lack of memory. It means we tell lies, but we tell them honestly.

The trouble, then, with this default programming of our brain is that these stories we come up with are often inaccurate, false, and even uncivil. Unfortunately, our brains reward us with dopamine whenever we achieve this recognition of pattern completion (stories are patterns).

So, not only do we make up these storylines to protect ourselves, but we also reward ourselves for the stories we create even when they are blatantly false! Not all of our stories are false, of course, but the ones born out of reactivity and defensiveness certainly are not our friends, nor are they accurate interpretations of reality."