Girl Scouts face backlash over tweet congratulating Amy Coney Barrett

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps I didn't communicate properly.

That much seems obvious.

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.

Ah.. so posts you disagree with are "reactions," not "posts," and so they don't need to stand behind those. Got it.

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.

It doesn't seem like there was that large a protest from without, either, just enough response to get it bumped up the chain at the Girl Scouts to their senior leadership, who acted in keeping with the values and policies of the organization.

 

[bobhikes]

That much seems obvious.


Ah.. so posts you disagree with are "reactions," not "posts," and so they don't need to stand behind those. Got it.


It doesn't seem like there was that large a protest from without, either, just enough response to get it bumped up the chain at the Girl Scouts to their senior leadership, who acted in keeping with the values and policies of the organization.

I get it so you if the results favor you they are correct, and if they don't then they aren't correct. Kinda like your previous response where you presumed to speak for all women.

For my part I do not believe the Republicans should have promoted Amy Coney Barrett but see no issues with women being proud of the promotion and highlighting it for girls even understanding that I and many others do not agree with her views. I didn't agree with all the view of Supreme court Justice Ruth Bader Gingsburg. By the way here is a link to be able to get a patch for Ruth Bader Gingsburg in the Girl Scouts.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Patch Program

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You mean read a Koch-funded right-wing anti-feminist opinion on the ordeal?

You read the article? I have...and I'm NOT a right-winger. And @Jayhawker Soule is certainly not.

Dismissing out if hand doesn't seem problematic to you?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

Again...things aren't so binary.
There isn't a choice of 'conversation' or 'violence'.

An innocent-enough tweet was removed due to...

What, in your opinion?
A rational conversation?
Public pressure from certain people?
A breach of internal approval policies by the social media manager?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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

Thanks.

I agree with you the Trump Party acted with extreme hypocrisy here. They blocked Obama’s pick, claiming it was for the good of the country; promised they wouldn’t push one through in an election year; then did it anyway. Turns out, they were just blocking court picks because they could, and they pushed through this one because they could.

While that is unsavory and hypocritical of the Trump Party ... in fairness ... (1) the Constitution does give them that power; (2) this does not tell us anything about Justice Barrett.

Democrats and the Trump Party (formerly the Party of Lincoln) often wrangle about things like appointments to high office. That is messy but it is part of democracy. I may not always like the outcome but I am glad it is a peaceful process.

It seems to me the Girl Scouts were taking a non-partisan position and simply congratulating another woman on the Court. I see no evidence that Justice Barrett does not exemplify the Girl Scout values and therefore no reason for Girl Scouts not to celebrate this.

I say all this as a liberal. Let’s pick our battles, people.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thanks.

I agree with you the Trump Party acted with extreme hypocrisy here. They blocked Obama’s pick, claiming it was for the good of the country; promised they wouldn’t push one through in an election year; then did it anyway. Turns out, they were just blocking court picks because they could, and they pushed through this one because they could.

While that is unsavory and hypocritical of the Trump Party ... in fairness ... (1) the Constitution does give them that power; (2) this does not tell us anything about Justice Barrett.

Democrats and the Trump Party (formerly the Party of Lincoln) often wrangle about things like appointments to high office. That is messy but it is part of democracy. I may not always like the outcome but I am glad it is a peaceful process.

It seems to me the Girl Scouts were taking a non-partisan position and simply congratulating another woman on the Court. I see no evidence that Justice Barrett does not exemplify the Girl Scout values and therefore no reason for Girl Scouts not to celebrate this.

I say all this as a liberal. Let’s pick our battles, people.

Well put, I totally agree.

 

[fantome profane]

Whats it called if they didn't retract?

That would just be a different conversation. Free speech means freedom to disagree, and to express that disagreement. To change your position or not to change. They could have defended their position, perhaps some of the people who disagreed with them would reconsider, perhaps not.

I just don’t see the controversy here.

 

[fantome profane]

What, in your opinion?
A rational conversation?
Public pressure from certain people?
A breach of internal approval policies by the social media manager?

All of these things are fine with me. There is nothing wrong with public pressure, if that is what happened here.

Perhaps I don’t have all the information. If you think I ought to be upset by the fact that they were criticized, or by the fact that they deleted the post tell me why.

Again I ask, what am a I missing?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

All of these things are fine with me. There is nothing wrong with public pressure, if that is what happened here.

Perhaps I don’t have all the information. If you think I ought to be upset by the fact that they were criticized, or by the fact that they deleted the post tell me why.

Again I ask, what am a I missing?

You can be upset or not, it's completely your call.
But in my opinion, people who are criticizing the Girl Scouts for the tweet are being precious and ridiculous. There is not need to turn every aspect of life into 'right vs left' binary rubbish.
Anyone putting pressure of any sort on them for this might want to rethink their priorities. I would not see such people as allies, despite having strong misgivings about the recent appointment to the Supreme Court.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

All of these things are fine with me. There is nothing wrong with public pressure, if that is what happened here.

Perhaps I don’t have all the information. If you think I ought to be upset by the fact that they were criticized, or by the fact that they deleted the post tell me why.

Again I ask, what am a I missing?

FWIW, I don’t think any of this is worth getting upset about. It’s all a bit silly to me.

In my personal opinion, the Girl Scouts tweet was fine, and the people who were criticizing it on the left were being over-dramatic.

But you’re right, this whole thing ought to be a non-troversy.

 

[fantome profane]

You can be upset or not, it's completely your call.
But in my opinion, people who are criticizing the Girl Scouts for the tweet are being precious and ridiculous. There is not need to turn every aspect of life into 'right vs left' binary rubbish.
Anyone putting pressure of any sort on them for this might want to rethink their priorities. I would not see such people as allies, despite having strong misgivings about the recent appointment to the Supreme Court.

FWIW, I don’t think any of this is worth getting upset about. It’s all a bit silly to me.

In my personal opinion, the Girl Scouts tweet was fine, and the people who were criticizing it on the left were being over-dramatic.

But you’re right, this whole thing ought to be a non-troversy.

in my view the Girl Scout tweet was fine, the criticism was also fine, and the retraction was fine.

And those who are criticizing the criticism..., well just let me say they have not presented a well thought out argument and leave it at that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

in my view the Girl Scout tweet was fine, the criticism was also fine, and the retraction was fine.

And those who are criticizing the criticism..., well just let me say they have not presented a well thought out argument and leave it at that.

The same people happy to criticize this tweet didn't criticize past tweets where other female politicians and Supreme Court Justices were appointed.
They're playing party politics with the Girl Scouts.

It might not be a sign of the apocalypse, but it's not something I respect.

 

[fantome profane]

The same people happy to criticize this tweet didn't criticize past tweets where other female politicians and Supreme Court Justices were appointed.
They're playing party politics with the Girl Scouts.

It might not be a sign of the apocalypse, but it's not something I respect.

Other female politicians being elected or judges appointed may have represented a step forward for the cause of equality and human rights. The appointment of Barrett represents a substantial step backwards for those things.

To act as though the the appointment of Ginsburg and Barrett are the same based simply on their gender is extremely foolish to say the least.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Other female politicians being elected or judges appointed may have represented a step forward for the cause of equality and human rights. The appointment of Barrett represents a substantial step backwards for those things.

To act as though the the appointment of Ginsburg and Barrett are the same based simply on their gender is extremely foolish to say the least.

Again...your point seems to be that the Girl Scouts should be taking a political position.
I'm saying they don't need to, and find it ridiculous that they're being pressured either way on this. People need to stop infecting every discussion point with politics. It's divisive at best, and actually quells meaningful discussion.

I personally am completely against this recent appointment and how it was conducted. That is completely separate to my opinions on this issue. The Girl Scouts can tweet congratulations to a woman for making the Supreme Court without needing to pass judgement on the state of American democratic processes.

 

[fantome profane]

Again...your point seems to be that the Girl Scouts should be taking a political position.
I'm saying they don't need to, and find it ridiculous that they're being pressured either way on this. People need to stop infecting every discussion point with politics. It's divisive at best, and actually quells meaningful discussion.

I personally am completely against this recent appointment and how it was conducted. That is completely separate to my opinions on this issue. The Girl Scouts can tweet congratulations to a woman for making the Supreme Court without needing to pass judgement on the state of American democratic processes.

I don’t care if they take a position or don’t take a position. My point is that they have the freedom to take a political position if they choose to, to take any political position they choose to, and to change or retract that political position if they choose to.

Congratulating Barrett is a political position.

You can pretend that it is not, but it is. And I am defending their right to take it. And I am defending their right to be criticized for it (yes, that is an important right if you think about it). And I am defending their right to retract their position.

In the end the Girl Scouts decided to retract the position they took. I am ok with that. You are the one criticizing that decision, not me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don’t care if they take a position or don’t take a position. My point is that they have the freedom to take a political position if they choose to, to take any political position they choose to, and to change or retract that political position if they choose to.

Congratulating Barrett is a political position.

You can pretend that it is not, but it is. And I am defending their right to take it. And I am defending their right to be criticized for it (yes, that is an important right if you think about it). And I am defending their right to retract their position.

In the end the Girl Scouts decided to retract the position they took. I am ok with that. You are the one criticizing that decision, not me.

Of course they have the freedom to. Of course people have the freedom to criticize them. Of course I have the freedom to criticize those people. Of course you have the freedom to criticize me.

This isn't about what they're 'allowed' to do.
They have used their twitter account to regularly tweet congratulations to various women on both sides of the political spectrum as those women have reached achievements. This includes women like Hillary Clinton, and this is all articulated in the article @Jayhawker Soule already linked to in this thread.
For whatever reason on this occasion, people decided that because they disagree with the means and timing of Amy Barret Cohen's appointment (as I do) they would go all keyboard warrior on the tweet the Girl Scouts put up.

Are they allowed to? Of course. Do I think they should be banned from doing so? Absolutely not.

But those people are not helping democracy by verbally attacking the Girl Scouts over a harmless tweet, in my opinion. Quite the opposite. Some people could stand to look long and hard at themselves, before casting about for people to yell at over nothingburger tweets. It's ridiculous and juvenile, and there are plenty of actual issues they could be investing actual effort into assisting with.

Suggesting my opinion is about whether they have a 'right' or not is completely missing the point.

 

[fantome profane]

But those people are not helping democracy

And we disagree. I strongly believe that this free exchange of ideas is essential to democracy and to the promotion and protection of human rights. Helping democracy is exactly what these people were doing.

And I agree with and fully support the decision by the Girl Scouts to delete their post.

 

[Revoltingest]

Other female politicians being elected or judges appointed may have represented a step forward for the cause of equality and human rights. The appointment of Barrett represents a substantial step backwards for those things.

A great many see her as a step forward, reversing
a backward trend away from God & Christian values.
Who is to say that only one side of the aisle can
provide positive examples for girls?

 

[fantome profane]

Who is to say that only one side of the aisle can
provide positive examples for girls?

Anyone who wants to say it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Anyone who wants to say it.

It smacks of intolerance if only liberals can be role models.
Even a conservative may behave honorably, exhibit scholarship,
& be a positive inspiration to others....even others who believe
differently. The Girl Scouts showed cowardice IMO.