Civil Protest, Policing, Moving Forward

[JoeBob]

If you're bothered by political discussion, why read the I&P threads?  Masochism?

I come here to get a feel for what reasonable people are thinking about current affairs.  I don't think that every poster is 'reasonable', but I try to understand their thinking feelings.

The pretzel logic and false comparisons used for justifying behavior that would have unquestionably landed one in prison 30 years ago are frightening.

But maybe I should be afraid. 

I'll check back next week to see if I'm over-reacting.

[Eagledad]

I’m on a lot of forums and I always wonder why someone chooses to enter a discussion they don’t want discussed. It boggles my mind. Role model some character and quietly find a discussion you enjoy.
 

All discussions eventually live or die by the interest that holds them at the top of the list.

Barry

[TAHAWK]

I will await the decision of the moderators.

 

 

[awanatech]

22 hours ago, MattR said:

I think discussion would be fine. However, I'm not seeing discussion. Minds are already made up. We may be polite-ish about speaking our minds but I'm not sure anyone has ever changed their mind reading the I&P threads. The first example I find looking up the page:

Does this sound like discussion? Not to me. It sounds like someone has made up their mind and no amount of discussion will change anything. So why get everyone's blood pressure up? How does this help the scouts?

I come to this forum to get away from the near constant tribalism I see in politics today. Really complex problems are simplified based on tribal affiliation. Until we appreciate that we're all in this together we're just going to keep arguing.

But that's all easy to talk about in vague terms. How about a concrete example. Tahawk said he's unsure what it's like to be a minority. I have an idea about that. When I hear about vigilantes with rifles I'm worried. So I'm interested in Kyle Rittenhouse. He has become a poster boy of sorts. On the left, he's an example of how white supremacists are encouraging violence. On the right he's an example of self defense. So you just know that if we started discussing this it would devolve into an argument about gun control. The same old arguments will come out. Liberals are this, the GOP is that, blah blah. But all of this arguing misses the real tragedy. Why was a 17 year old kid, who could be a scout by the way, at a protest with a gun? That's a great point of discussion. What forces pushed this kid into the street with a gun? People? Social media? I don't know. But I'm guessing there would probably be very little discussion about how some kid's life was just ruined, along with the 2 people that died from bullet wounds. This is a tragedy. It is a failure of our culture. It's also an example of what some minorities are afraid of. These minorities all know that when things turn violent they get the worst of it.

Now, if you read all that and you really disagree and just want to let me know how wrong I really am, then there's the proof that we should stick to scout related subjects. it's at least something we can agree on. If you absolutely agree with me then that proves nothing. The question is how many of you are thinking this is a really complex issue? I just don't think there are many people in that category. Go ahead, try and prove me wrong.

So, yes, a real discussion could help scouts. It could put some meat on the ideas behind the Scout Emblem. That would be good. I just don't see how it will happen on this forum.

 

 

That same 17 year old, who could be a scout, could just as easily enlist in the U.S. Marine Corps.

[TAHAWK]

dis·cus·sion noun

 

1. the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.

    

   What is another word for discussion?

   debate	conversation
   chat	confab
   confabulation [?]	dispute
   seminar	symposium
   negotiations	palaver

    

    

   If all ideas are the same, there is no "exchange" or even reason to "discuss."

    

    

   In interscholastic and intercollegiate "debate,"  one learns that the effort is to convince the judges, presumed neutral, not the advocates of the opposing position.  The opponents are, of course, entitled to the position that they advocate - although, not in a totalitarian setting.  See   "hate speech" United States Constitution .

    

   This is a private forum.  The rules are whatever the management declares them to be.  Participation is voluntary.

    

   "Issues & Politics

   In answer to many requests, we established a separate forum for these topics. Those not interested can skip this forum instead of spending time reading unwanted messages to identify content."

Edited September 5, 2020 by TAHAWK

[MattR]

Several people have said something along the lines of if you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen. Except there are a few problems with that. First, the moderators have to stay in the kitchen and keep things civil. Second, if anyone thinks things are better here than on other forums because we're all scouters, you're just wrong. Things don't go completely off the rails because of the moderators. I've seen plenty of moderated political forums that are a lot more scout like than this one. Third, these could be useful topics. I can see why people want to hear both sides, I certainly do. But when someone gets angry and just starts spewing fury it ruins the topic for everyone. Finally, and most importantly, this is a scouting forum. When I put on a scout uniform I hold myself to a higher standard. It seems to me that everyone on this forum should hold themselves to a higher standard. For scout related subjects we do. So why not for all sub forums? We have to follow the ideals of scouting when we're doing scouting stuff but we can use the excuse that "everyone else does it" when we talk about politics? If that's our reasoning then it's just proof that the Scout Oath and Law are a sham. The moderators shouldn't have to remind people it's time to let things go. Instead, we get comments that are just people venting without thinking. Now, I completely understand that times are difficult and people are stressed out. But what do we tell scouts when they have a rough time? We certainly don't tell them it's okay to vent their anger on other people. Why can't we hold ourselves to the same standard we expect from a kid trying to earn eagle?

I am curious as to what other people, moderators included, think about this.

[TAHAWK]

Having this forum go the way of the "comments" section of on-line "news" site would be sad.

[Troop75Eagle]

Scouts has obviously changed.  It has gone through convulsion after convulsion with no end in sight.  It has seen two world wars, Korean, Vietnam, Cold War and modern wars. It has rumbled through boom and bust with dignity, pride, bearing, respect and a vital element in the social fabric.  
 

it’s ranks have produced many leaders and men of character and its programs instrumental in shaping countless lives in positive ways.  My father, uncle and I got our eagles and supported others in our troop.  The men I knew were of good caliber, respected, ethical and had a genuine interest in seeing young men succeed (and presumably not just getting out of the house for a few hours).  
 

I cannot summon the dead to testify but I feel certain few of them would recognize the institution they worked for all those years.  In one sense (sex abuse cases aside) the many changes that have taken place are a repudiation of the time and effort they put in for their beliefs.  The culture, the lingo, traditions, images and symbolism with their meanings, the bonding and the sense of adventure and purpose.  These have been pulled down at every turn with the implicit statement that ‘your and your understanding and thoughts of the world are and always have been wrong.  We are reshaping everything from the top down and will continue to do so.’  Why not? One political change deserves as much attention and respect as the next so keep reshaping it.  
 

It’s become clear, that for many people, it’s over.  They’ve moved on.  The Mormons did and others did.  In the future, many more will fall away too.  Yet there will be newer people to come in I suppose.  They will no doubt accept whatever they are told to do or quit.   In this sense, scouting as some sort of entity will persist.  The new national  chapter will plug in whatever new policies need to take place and force the councils to comply.  That’s the true reality. They might clearly say, you know the changes we are making are the right ones, moral, ethical and so on (again, sex abuse aside).  
 

What that organization will be is another matter entirely.   There are plenty who see the changes as a glorious new day in scouting with a sort of revolutionary ardor to make over an institution and bring it current with what they want it to be.  They will win.  They already have. A crippled organization racked with scandal and cultural reshaping can’t really cling to anything.  People Now demanding changes could easily eliminate or add just about whatever they want and insist it go in a totally different direction.  Well, it’s apparently their day.

But it’s a pyrrhic one.  From an adult perspective, Scouts, among many organizations,  is having a hard time competing against social media.  Kids want to spend time with their friends,Now, it’s often virtual.  When they go to become active, it’s competition against sports, clubs, music and other activities.  The pool of eligible kids shrinks drastically.  

Parents are being worked very hard and driving across town town to a troop with people you don’t know it go to school with is daunting to say the least.  Church membership us often a direct feeder into scouts but attendance there has been down for years.  
 

So the changes that have been made have already resulted in consequences of alienation and departure.  The sense of betrayal on so many matters (abuse included) is so profound that overcoming that plus suspicion of more is going to unquestionably continue.  So the changes that are sought will be or have been achieved and those who will be proud of the changes will have their crowning glory.  
 

But Scouts...it is and will be something different and with a reward of being an even further diminished institution in the US.  Those who clamor for radical  and ongoing change can get what they want.  But they get it with everything that comes with it or departs at its coming.  There are many who realize that boy scouts has had its day and maybe it has.  But at its passing, it’s not so clear what part in history it will play.  In any event, it will have to basically reinvent itself to determine what it stands for.  Scouts will have to appeal to many people to earn respect and compete against forces that have a life of their own.  It will have to earn the respect of those (many)  who would like to help and participate but feel so alienated that their time and commitments elsewhere make it easy to ignore an organization that no longer maintains its historical credibility (to them).  
 

there will be those who say something to the effect of, ‘well, if you don’t like what we are changing to, find something else.’  Fair enough, but that shows a degree of hubris that is hardly inviting.  So what can be done about scouts survival?  At the moment and after reading posts for months...I don’t have much to say on that. Scouts may have to be re-invented altogether in order to avoid political culture.  Some of that exists.  
 

 

[MattR]

12 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

Having this forum go the way of the "comments" section of on-line "news" site would be sad.

I'm not sure what you mean by "way of the comments section." Different news sites have very different styles.

[TAHAWK]

Like most, I am limited by my experience.  I saw a good deal of name-calling and raw hate, not to mention "spin."

[elitts]

9 hours ago, MattR said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "way of the comments section." Different news sites have very different styles.

Pretty much every news comments section I've ever read starts out with complaints about how "the Liberals this" or "the Conservatives that" and then devolves from there.  Particularly when anonymous comments are allowed.  It's usually a little better if comments are only permitted by people with active (and in particular, paid) memberships.  It can also be a little better if people are required to sign up under their own names.

Heck, it doesn't even matter if the subject of the article is political.  There's always at least one troll out there just waiting to chum the comments with something like "Only a Trump-tard Lemming would be interested in that" or "There we go again with Hillary's socialists trying to waste money".  (Those are actual statements I've seen used in local news comments)

[TAHAWK]

On one site, the advocates of ACAB and "send the monkeys back" exchanged "pleasantries" at length.  It was like watching drunks in a fist fight in the street.   I suppose catharsis has some value - for some.

[FireStone]

21 hours ago, Troop75Eagle said:

...Scouts will have to appeal to many people to earn respect and compete against forces that have a life of their own.  It will have to earn the respect of those (many)  who would like to help and participate but feel so alienated that their time and commitments elsewhere make it easy to ignore an organization that no longer maintains its historical credibility (to them)...

This right here is the ongoing struggle of Scouting in America, maybe globally, and it came upon us long before the ills of modern technology, politics, and membership policy changes. Scouting was already struggling when I was a scout (1990s), and some of the issues back then (at least from a youth perspective) I think are the same struggles we have today. How does the program fit into modern society, is it still relevant, do kids still want to do it, etc.

We can take all of the political and social issues out of the discussion and the problems of the BSA remain. The BSA has to change, it has been long overdue for major change for decades. I think they're trying to change things now, But maybe it's too late.

[TAHAWK]

Change is inevitable.  Change is not necessarily improvement, even when the change is returning to what previously worked.

[yknot]

15 hours ago, FireStone said:

This right here is the ongoing struggle of Scouting in America, maybe globally, and it came upon us long before the ills of modern technology, politics, and membership policy changes. Scouting was already struggling when I was a scout (1990s), and some of the issues back then (at least from a youth perspective) I think are the same struggles we have today. How does the program fit into modern society, is it still relevant, do kids still want to do it, etc.

We can take all of the political and social issues out of the discussion and the problems of the BSA remain. The BSA has to change, it has been long overdue for major change for decades. I think they're trying to change things now, But maybe it's too late.

Yes. The prime reason scouting is in such a dire place is because of deep rooted, long term internal problems. BSA should never have allowed a single religion to run a shadow program within a program the way it did with LDS. BSA should never have limited its managerial talent pool largely to people within the organization. BSA should never have shifted its focus to marketing and membership instead of remembering that it is a movement focused on service, citizenship and character first. And the out of doors. BSA should have never allowed its organizational components -- national, council, unit -- to become so distinct from each other so incapable of collaboration on a common mission.  Stuff like that.