Girl Scouts face backlash over tweet congratulating Amy Coney Barrett

[Stevicus]

The problem is not the people attacking but the people backing down for fear of reprisal. If you feel strongly about something say it and support it. If you don't feel strongly don't post something just for advertising yourself. Politicians pivot constantly and the public understands this but they hold private and public representatives to a higher standard. This private and public representatives need to understand this and then stand strongly behind their convictions. They will get more respect for doing so then detractors but the detractors will be louder.

I guess it depends on the overall context and political atmosphere. But I agree that people should stand by what they say and support it. But it might also depend upon the nature of the "reprisal." If it's a logical, cogent, and fact-based argument against a certain position, that's one thing. But it when it turns into moral censure and emotional blackmail, invoking the ghosts of Hitler or Stalin or some other villainous character from history, then it gets more than a bit over the top.

When people use emotional tactics, they should be called on that. People who use emotionally-laden terms like "basket of deplorables," or if they resort to the tactics of ridicule/mocking, or if they engage in the tactics of "cancel culture," then they need to be called out as completely irrational and illogical, and therefore their arguments should be immediately discarded. Or as they say on Reddit, "reals not feels."

If people can't make an argument without resorting to emotionalism, then they never had any argument to begin with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks for explaining your view here. Out of curiosity why do you think Barrett’s appointment conflicts with those values?

Well, there are the issues with the appointment process:

- it was dishonest and unfair: the Republican senate broke their word from 2016 about Supreme Court vacancies close to an election. In doing so, they took something for themselves that they had denied to others in the past.
- it was disrespectful of authority: knowing that the Democrats are favoured to take control of the Senate and the Presidency, they rushed this through in order to undermine the new Senate's power to do the appointment.

And then there are the impacts that Barrett will have. These impacts will depend a bit on what sorts of cases come before the Supreme Court during her term, but they're likely to include impacts that go against a number of the points of the law, including "use resources wisely," "be considerate and caring," "respect myself and others," and "make the world a better place."

The conflicts between Barrett's appointment and the values expressed in the Girl Scout Law may become more obvious when you look at this one-pager that expands on what each of the points of the law mean in practice:

https://www.gswcf.org/content/dam/wcf-images/pdf-forms/Girl Scout Law.pdf

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem is not the people attacking but the people backing down for fear of reprisal. If you feel strongly about something say it and support it. If you don't feel strongly don't post something just for advertising yourself. Politicians pivot constantly and the public understands this but they hold private and public representatives to a higher standard. This private and public representatives need to understand this and then stand strongly behind their convictions. They will get more respect for doing so then detractors but the detractors will be louder.

The Girl Scouts aren't a hive mind, sharing a single set of thoughts.

I'm sure that what happened here is the same as what's happened with many posts by many organizations in the past:

Someone in the Communications Department made a post that turned out to be controversial, so it got referred up the chain to senior leadership who had the authority to make a decision on behalf of the organization as a whole.

Ideally, whoever is handling an organization's social media has a good understanding of the organization's values and acts in accordance with them, but it's entirely appropriate for the organization's leadership to step in and correct things when issues arise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When did the democrat party preach tolerance? I hear that RW talking point all the time.
Who said it, when, how, what platform?

The Democrats tend to preach inaction in the face of injustice. I suppose that's a sort of tolerance.

 

[fantome profane]

If it happens as you state it, perhaps. But are you actually suggesting that is what happened in this particular case?

In essence yes. What am I missing? Was there violence or the threat of violence? Or was it just speech responding to speech?

 

[bobhikes]

I guess it depends on the overall context and political atmosphere. But I agree that people should stand by what they say and support it. But it might also depend upon the nature of the "reprisal." If it's a logical, cogent, and fact-based argument against a certain position, that's one thing. But it when it turns into moral censure and emotional blackmail, invoking the ghosts of Hitler or Stalin or some other villainous character from history, then it gets more than a bit over the top.

When people use emotional tactics, they should be called on that. People who use emotionally-laden terms like "basket of deplorables," or if they resort to the tactics of ridicule/mocking, or if they engage in the tactics of "cancel culture," then they need to be called out as completely irrational and illogical, and therefore their arguments should be immediately discarded. Or as they say on Reddit, "reals not feels."

If people can't make an argument without resorting to emotionalism, then they never had any argument to begin with.

The problem is people react irrationally and immediately and the internet gives them the ability. This is never going away. The unfortunate thing is that the News Media is 24hrs/day 7days/week 52weeks/year so they pick up and broadcast the most trivial news. Then forums like the RF further the spread on the web. Exaggerating a trivial occurrence. Public and private entities need to be more aware of this and stick with there stance, unless it was in error.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Public and private entities need to be more aware of this and stick with there stance, unless it was in error.

So the junior communications staffer or intern taking care of the Twitter feed should be able to dictate the policy of the entire organization?

 

[bobhikes]

The Girl Scouts aren't a hive mind, sharing a single set of thoughts.

I'm sure that what happened here is the same as what's happened with many posts by many organizations in the past:

Someone in the Communications Department made a post that turned out to be controversial, so it got referred up the chain to senior leadership who had the authority to make a decision on behalf of the organization as a whole.

Ideally, whoever is handling an organization's social media has a good understanding of the organization's values and acts in accordance with them, but it's entirely appropriate for the organization's leadership to step in and correct things when issues arise.

They have one major goal of helping girls to achieve in life. Giving them examples in real life is a definite way of doing that. Whether you like the background of the New Supreme Court Justice, she is a good example of achievement for women. She is some thing Girl Scouts can aspire to be.

 

[bobhikes]

So the junior communications staffer or intern taking care of the Twitter feed should be able to dictate the policy of the entire organization?

No but if the staffer posts something that aligns with policy the organization should back it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

One person says something, someone else replies, and the first person reconsiders and retracts their original statement.

This is not censorship. It is conversation.

Whats it called if they didn't retract?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They have one major goal of helping girls to achieve in life. Giving them examples in real life is a definite way of doing that.

Someone who will harm girls and undermine their rights is hardly an example for them to offer.

Whether you like the background of the New Supreme Court Justice, she is a good example of achievement for women.

No, she really isn't.

She is some thing Girl Scouts can aspire to be.

Someone who quickly rose through the ranks of a corrupt organization, not because of merit but because her lack of conviction?

If you think this is someone who Girl Scouts should aspire to be, then you don't have the first clue about the Girl Scouts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No but if the staffer posts something that aligns with policy the organization should back it.

And in this case, it didn't align with the policy of the organization.

Not only was the post not in line with the values of the organization, they're officially non-partisan.

 

[Revoltingest]

They have one major goal of helping girls to achieve in life. Giving them examples in real life is a definite way of doing that.

Now the Girl Scouts are sending a new message.....
Help girls, but only liberal ones.
We're non-partisan, but approve only of liberals.

Sure they're bowing to leftish pressure to avoid praising
a conservative. But they are the ones choosing to bow.

 

[bobhikes]

Someone who will harm girls and undermine their rights is hardly an example for them to offer.


No, she really isn't.


Someone who quickly rose through the ranks of a corrupt organization, not because of merit but because her lack of conviction?

If you think this is someone who Girl Scouts should aspire to be, then you don't have the first clue about the Girl Scouts.

You are the judge of character for all woman then? The supreme Judge of women's ideals. I wonder how well you would stand to the scrutiny and understanding of the public. Do you believe it would all be positive?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are the judge of character for all woman then? The supreme Judge of women's ideals. I wonder how well you would stand to the scrutiny and understanding of the public. Do you believe it would all be positive?

You okay? Seems like you fell off the rails there.

Breathe, collect your thoughts, and try again.

 

[bobhikes]

And in this case, it didn't align with the policy of the organization.

Not only was the post not in line with the values of the organization, they're officially non-partisan.

The quote was

"Congratulations Amy Coney Barrett on becoming the 5th woman appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1789"

It fits into the non-partisan women's values of the Girl Scouts. It is promoting a woman for achieving something special

 

[Revoltingest]

The quote was

"Congratulations Amy Coney Barrett on becoming the 5th woman appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1789"

It fits into the non-partisan women's values of the Girl Scouts. It is promoting a woman for achieving something special

This was acceptable when the women appointed were liberal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The quote was

"Congratulations Amy Coney Barrett on becoming the 5th woman appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1789"

It fits into the non-partisan women's values of the Girl Scouts. It is promoting a woman for achieving something special

The Girl Scouts themselves said that the post was removed because it was seen as a political and partisan post.

I remember you saying something earlier about how once an organization takes a public stance, they should stick with it. Why don't you think they should stick with this public stance?

 

[Nakosis]

Girl Scouts spark backlash from left after congratulating Justice Amy Coney Barrett



So, they posted it, then they deleted it.



They got a lot of flak from liberals for posting the congratulatory tweet, so they deleted it. Then, they got flak from conservatives for deleting it. They just can't win.

The political atmosphere is just getting too ugly. People are getting so trigger happy that they're attacking the Girl Scouts.

A lesson to stay off of social media.

 

[bobhikes]

The Girl Scouts themselves said that the post was removed because it was seen as a political and partisan post.

I remember you saying something earlier about how once an organization takes a public stance, they should stick with it. Why don't you think they should stick with this public stance?

Perhaps I didn't communicate properly. It should be understood as this, Think, Post, and Stand behind post. I believe it is being done today as Think, What the reaction, Respond to reaction.

I personally do not believe there was anything wrong with the original Girl Scout post and Like @Revoltingest have a problem with them catering to a small group of protesters. Knowing a few people in the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts I doubt it was a serious protest from within.