Girl Scouts face backlash over tweet congratulating Amy Coney Barrett

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

The things that tell us about Barrett are:

- her track record as a judge, and
- how desirable she's been for Republicans.

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.

Her record as a judge is very short - which is itself a problem - but what record she has and what views she's personally expressed are an issue for people who care about the environment or justice being done.

Regardless: it's not about what you see; it's about two things:

- was it reasonable - not your position, but just a reasonable position - to see the Girl Scout's tweet as partisan?
- was it reasonable - not your position, but a reasonable position - for them to take it down?

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

What a strange thing for you to say.

To the extent that posting on a discussion board is a "battle" at all, you sure seem to have picked one, too. Why is tone-policing the comments from other people on the left side of the spectrum (edit: and on something you argue isn't even worth engaging with) the "battle" you think is worth fighting?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Regardless: it's not about what you see; it's about two things:

- was it reasonable - not your position, but just a reasonable position - to see the Girl Scout's tweet as partisan?
- was it reasonable - not your position, but a reasonable position - for them to take it down?

I think those are excellent questions, and there is a third that I will pose at the end of this post. But first, let me offer my answers.

To the first, my answer is no, and I've already offered a link that I believe supports this position. I know of no substantive reason why they do not deserve the presumption that they were operating in good faith.

As for the second, my answer is a qualified yes; it was a reasonable but (in my opinion) unnecessary response to an unreasonable and unwarranted attack.

Now, to the third question: Which side is best served by news of the left attacking the Girl Scouts?

In my opinion, while lashing out that the Girl Scouts may feel cathartic for some of us, it primarily reinforces prejudices among soft trump supporters.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The things that tell us about Barrett are:

- her track record as a judge, and
- how desirable she's been for Republicans.


Her record as a judge is very short - which is itself a problem - but what record she has and what views she's personally expressed are an issue for people who care about the environment or justice being done.

This isn't about Barrett, per se.
I am 'anti' Barrett, in simplistic terms. That's a different issue.

Regardless: it's not about what you see;

I think that's true, and yet it's people's opinion on Barrett that keeps getting raised.
Which is strange, since my opinion about Barrett is largely the same as others in this thread.
That's not the issue relevant to this.

it's about two things:
- was it reasonable - not your position, but just a reasonable position - to see the Girl Scout's tweet as partisan?

No, it was not reasonable to see the tweet as partisan. People grab a 140 character tweet, and then judge a longstanding organisation with a history of tweeting the success of women on both sides of politics as being 'pro-Republican'. Because they're looking for reasons to be outraged.

There are a LOT of reasons to be outraged, and plenty of action that needs to be taken. But this? Not reasonable. Knee-jerk.

- was it reasonable - not your position, but a reasonable position - for them to take it down?

It's their tweet, they can do what they like.
So yes, basically. They had a non-partisan tweet turned into a political issue right before an election and sought to avoid it. I don't think removing the tweet was the best way to deal with it, but that's speculative on my part.

What a strange thing for you to say.

Makes perfect sense to me.

To the extent that posting on a discussion board is a "battle" at all, you sure seem to have picked one, too. Why is tone-policing the comments from other people on the left side of the spectrum (edit: and on something you argue isn't even worth engaging with) the "battle" you think is worth fighting?

People can spend their time how they see fit, and as I've said in this thread before, I'm not arguing about their right to do so.
They can certainly get outraged and tweet back at whatever they like.

But I think the left can sometimes lose focus and perspective. If you want to think of it purely in political terms, I think it's a less than ideal strategy to turn these sort of non-issues into issues. It solves nothing...indeed there is NOTHING here to solve...and provides ready made ammunition to some conservatives who get to rally the base, and avoid discussion of issues. Like the stunning number of voter drop in boxes in Houston.

If, like me, you consider it in non-political terms, then I think some people were being self-righteous wankers. Excuse the language.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The things that tell us about Barrett are:

- her track record as a judge, and
- how desirable she's been for Republicans.


Her record as a judge is very short - which is itself a problem - but what record she has and what views she's personally expressed are an issue for people who care about the environment or justice being done.

Regardless: it's not about what you see; it's about two things:

- was it reasonable - not your position, but just a reasonable position - to see the Girl Scout's tweet as partisan?
- was it reasonable - not your position, but a reasonable position - for them to take it down?


What a strange thing for you to say.

To the extent that posting on a discussion board is a "battle" at all, you sure seem to have picked one, too. Why is tone-policing the comments from other people on the left side of the spectrum (edit: and on something you argue isn't even worth engaging with) the "battle" you think is worth fighting?

Thanks, Penguin.

I wasn’t directing the “let’s pick our battles” comment at you, that was directed at the Tweets from the left criticizing the Girl Scouts in the OP. I wasn’t trying to pick a battle with you, or anyone - just offering my view in response to the OP, as we all are.

The Tweets in the OP called Barrett “the antithesis of Justice”, the GS Tweet “shameful” and pledged never to buy their cookies.

I still fail to see why someone who upholds the Girl Scout values cannot support Justice Barrett’s appointment.

To me these reactions are a bit extreme, even though I do not support her appointment.