Isn't it hilariously ironic how right-wing snowflakes are losing their temper over a couple of girls in a boy's club?

[BlueCoyote]

I've always thought the rightists were all about giving zero fucks about identity politics, being totally chill, being against snowflakes who demand safe spaces.

And all it took to demonstrate their unbearable hypocrisy is an organization that is completely irrelevant to American politics deciding they will allow girls as members.
Now the angry rightists are throwing an identity-politics tantrum because they've lost their little all-male safe space. Oh. My. God. What an unsurmountable catastrophe. It's bad enough decent little white boys had to let dirty negro boys participate in their Scout activities but now they also have to talk to females. FEMALES! Yuck.

Can we get any more ironic than this?

[Pamina]

Well, what were you expecting? Right-wingers aren't exactly known for their moral or intellectual consistency.

The biggest snowflakes there are, are the ones who are most outspoken against SJWs and PC culture. I don't see any other people get so easily triggered. The best example of this hypocrisy is the Alt-Right commander-in-chief Trump. No day passes where he doesn't brutally insult either individuals or whole groups of people or minorites, yet whenever says anything against him or makes fun of him, he throws a tantrum like a 5 year old that he actually is.

If these clowns (the Alt-Right and the whole anti-SJW fanatics) didn't have such disproportionate influence, I'd find it nothing but hilarious.

[BlueCoyote]

Yup, I completely agree, especially with your last point. Ich bin froh, dass das bei uns hier nicht ganz so krass ist...

[Pamina]

Wir kommen dem aber immer näher.

[alyssattt]

I agree

[BrianMerritt]

I'm trying to find one correct thing in that entire response...

[Pamina]

@BrianMerritt Your ideology won't allow you to find anything.

[BrianMerritt]

Why not? What is my ideology?

[Pamina]

@BrianMerritt I don't know what your ideology is exactly.

[BrianMerritt]

Then why did you say "Your ideology won't allow you to find anything." ?
I don't understand what you are saying to me.

[Pamina]

@BrianMerritt I don't need to know what your ideology is. Any ideology can make people blind.

[BrianMerritt]

Why are you accusing me of that? What's my ideology that's making me blind? What a I blind of?

[Pamina]

@BrianMerritt I already said I don't know what your ideology is. Do you want me to guess? I would guess you're at least right-leaning on many issues. But I could be completely wrong, I don't know.

[BrianMerritt]

You said my ideology won't allow me to see anything, but you cannot tell me what this ideology is. Then you say you don't have to know because any ideology can make people blind... does that mean every ideology WILL make a person blind? Again, how do you know I have an ideology that makes me blind? You're talking in circles.

[Pamina]

@BrianMerritt No, I said any ideology CAN make someone blind. And I THINK that's the case with you. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm not here to convince you of anything.

[BrianMerritt]

"No, I said any ideology CAN make someone blind."
---Yeah, I know you said that, I rephrased it and asked:
"... Then you say you don't have to know because any ideology can make people blind... does that mean every ideology WILL make a person blind?"
---Because you made a quick assumption/accusation, I was trying to understand what exactly you were saying and where it was coming from... if out of your ass is the answer, I'm fine with that.
"If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm not here to convince you of anything."
---Haha, yeah I'm NOT gonna be convinced of anything if you're wrong about it. But at this point you've only been talking out of your bum about me and ideologies, and the one I apparently have that apparently makes me blind. I'm literally just asking how you are saying what you are saying. If you are so sure I have an ideology that makes me blind, please explain that to me or, like you've done, admit you were wrong to jump to conclusions.

[Pamina]

No, I was not saying that.

And of course, if you and I disagree on what is and what isn't wrong, then obviously we won't convince each other of anything.

And I'm not "so sure" about the ideology. I think I made that clear in my last comment. It's just my guess because it often times, if not usually, is the reason.

[Pamina]

*the ideology thing

[jacquesvol]

blogforarizona.net/.../TrumpCrybaby.jpg

[mrs-turner97]

They have a damn Girl Scouts for a reason it’s bullshit that they did that because it’s been that wait for over 100 years but now some person probably got there panties in a wad or a spoiled ass little girl complained enough so they changed it. Now boys can’t even have there club anymore and have to deal with a bratty girl. They better change Girl Scouts to to let boys in if they gone do that to the boys it’s only right.

[mrs-turner97]

And how bout they could of just made a different club for both genders now the boys can’t be boy and taught what boys should know because of girls it isn’t right at all. Wasn’t a need in messing up that group could of made another now boys don’t have a choice anymore and that’s why we have so many sissifide boys not men anymore cause boys can’t learn to be boys without some shit happening now

[BlueCoyote]

"It's been that way for over 100 year." Yup, but not anymore! Get over it! Slavery existed in the US for over 300 years and then suddenly it was gone. When I was a kid, I loved eating a particular type of candy, now that company is out of business. Things change! And welcome to the year 2018!

Also, please tell me one single thing that boys can't be taught because there's now girls in their group. I'd really love to hear that.

Bratty girls? You do realize you're a girl yourself? In my country girls have been allowed in Boy Scouts for a long time and I liked having them in my group. We didn't have a lot of girls but the ones we did have were all really nice. No bratty ones.

[Leafpool2]

They weak as shit. Their arguments crumble pretty fast of you grill them like... at all

[ADFSDF1996]

I don’t think it’s ironic because it’s not just right wingers who don’t approve but people with other political affiliations as well. I personally don’t agree with it but that doesn’t mean I’m going to go on my social media accounts to rant about it, I’m just exercising my first amendment to voice my disapproval as are the many who disapprove as well.

No matter how much mudslinging goes on, it won’t stop people from voicing their disapproval, plus it’s not just men who disapprove it but many women as well www.washingtonexaminer.com/.../boy-scouts-debacle-proves-theres-no-war-on-women-only-men

I don’t consider myself a right winger, I consider myself independent with some libertarian ideals.

[BlueCoyote]

While I find it hard to understand why people would disagree with the new policy, I can respect that opinion. What really gets me - and I'm not saying this about you - is the rampant hypocrisy of people.
The thing is, I don't even mind sensitive people. However, if one chooses to go around calling himself a "straight shooter" and insulting others for their sensitivities, and then that person overreacts himself about certain issues, that really gets me.

[ADFSDF1996]

I understand what you mean though. I think people in general need to learn how to agree to disagree.

[SirRexington]

As a centrist I am also against this move. Boys go to the boy scouts in order to learn how to become "men". When you put a girl in the mix, that dynamic changes. These kids are having their boy time, their time to be boys. Remember back in the day when kids had "no boys allowed" or "no girls allowed" spaces created by the kids themselves. They don't want girls to be next to them while they are learning to be young men, and now they won't learn to become young men because they are bringing girls into it.

This constant ignorance that gender doesn't exist has gone on long enough. But you are right, the right are just as guilty of being tribal as the left.

[BlueCoyote]

Okay but can't boys still become men if they do the same activities and a girl next to them does them too?

Also, now I'm going to be very rebellious but does the Boy Scouts organization really need to teach boys to "become men"? To me, that seems like a very outdated expectation. Originally, the Boy Scouts were founded as a type of preparatory training for young men who want to join the army but nowadays it's not really that way anymore. It's become more of a youth club where you get to have fun, be together with other kids, be physically active etc.

I'm aware there exists a cultural difference because in my country Boy Scouts is very much that way. Almost all of the things we did were purely entertainment and play oriented. Walking through the woods, making fires, playing group-based games such as police and robber or searching a treasure in the forest.
Personally, I really liked this. And girls didn't bother me (they were allowed as members). If I'm correctly informed, the (cont.)

[BlueCoyote]

American Boy Scouts still tends to be more traditional, more oriented on the organization's original idea. But maybe it would be worthwhile letting go of this a bit. That would also ease this whole masculinity pressure ("you've got to become a real man"). Just my opinion.

[SirRexington]

I'm a man and I wasn't in the boy scouts. You make a valid argument. But young men need a space to be men, and allowing women into that space could be detrimental. Same thing if you bring a man into an all female space. The social dynamic changes, pressure otherwise not existing now purveys the social landscape.

And while I don't know everything that is taught in the Boy Scouts, I do know it teaches them how to be independent and self providing while also recognizing and acknowledging that we as humans work best as a community.

[BlueCoyote]

Thank you for your input :-)

[madhatters4]

absolutely hilarious. I also find it how triggered they are about non-pc jokes directed at the administration at the correspondents dinner. hilariously ironic when i'm so often told only snow flake libtard leftists are supposed to be concerned with political correctness

[BlueCoyote]

I totally agree. I thought the girl (forgot her name) was awesome. I wish they had such brave and sharp-tongued comedians every year. I feel like the ones during Obama's presidency were always quite innocent. I mean, the idea of having such a dinner is kind of strange anyway because the politicians and the corporate media are basically rubbing shoulders, which comes across as a little corrupt but if they're gonna have it, there should at least be someone who stabs a verbal fork in their butt ;-). And they should be able to take it.

[madhatters4]

agree

[goaded]

Lie-shadow. :)

[coachTanthony]

I think most of the boys could give two shits. I personally wouldn't of minded having some chicks to talk too. The only people who are upset are the stuffy old pundits, scout leaders, and parents who can't stand change and want to fight for something just to fight for it.

[BlueCoyote]

The thing is, I can even understand the "stuff old pundits" to a degree. They've grown up in a different era. What I find really sad is 19-year old guys getting their panties in a twist over this. Like, there's no clean water in Flint but they get angry over something like this... makes me sad. Especially since these type of people always pretend to be anti SJW, which I actually kinda agree with. I'm liberal but I also don't like authoritarian leftists.

Anyway, in my country girls have been allowed in Boy Scouts for a long time and when I was a Boy Scout, I thought it was really cool to have some girls in my group... maybe also because the girls liked me ;-). It made the whole group dynamics less rough and competitive, which I thought was a positive thing.

[coachTanthony]

What country are you from Blue?

[BlueCoyote]

Switzerland

[coachTanthony]

Never been there but have heard good things! Have you been to America?

[BlueCoyote]

Yes, I've lived in Erie (PA) for a year as an exchange student during high school. Later I came back for another 6 months and lived in San Francisco. I've also traveled to the US several times for vacation, first with my parents (as a child), later with a good friend and with my wife for our honeymoon. I really like the country and the people and I absolutely love the natural environment and its unique diversity. A lot of people on here think I hate the US because I write a lot of very critical stuff regarding politics... but I actually feel a very close emotional bond to America. I think especially my exchange year as a teenager had a lasting impact on me (also in terms of my mentality and character). My goal is to one day have visited all 50 states (just stepping over the state border doesn't count). At the moment I've got about 20 ;-).

[coachTanthony]

Wow that is cool. I follow a family on Youtube called growing up without borders. A family from america who now lives in Switzerland and basically just gives us the different perspective of living there and here. Sounds like a really laid back down to earth and mostly healthy place to live. What is your favorite thing about Switzerland if you had to name just one? I would think I would have to say safety.. sounds very safe there.

[LuckyEnough]

Dude... chill

Yes, many are going waaaay overboard. But really? Girls... in the boy scouts? Can we put aside the very ADULT concept of the gender "wars"? Can this be about KIDS? Yes, it is an all boy safe haven. What's wrong with that? Girls have girl scouts, boys have boy scouts, everyone has everything else. Good. I say it's as simple as both genders should have a place of only their peers at such a developmental age. It's good for boys to be boys, just like it is for girls to be girls, and neither to feel like that's bad, or dumb, or weird, or gross, or wimpy, or any of the dumb stuff adolescents and kids think of the others nature. Let them. It's part of growing up.

[LuckyEnough]

Oh, by the way, before the replies with anti Republican slant, I am NOT a right winger. No thank you sir. I'm not a devout liberal, but I certainly lean waaaaay farther to that side.

[tartaarsaus]

I don't see the problem to be honest.

I know for a fact that here girls and boys are in the same exact scouts organisation. Within the organisation there are groups for boys, groups for girls and mixed. You can choose if you want to be with solely your gender or mixed. Big deal.

[BlueCoyote]

I agree. And I wasn't thinking of you when I was writing this question, just to be clear ;-). You're a smart and reasonable person, I know that.

[tartaarsaus]

I don't think you think of me as a right wing snowflake so I didn't think that.

Thanks by the way

[Jon_25]

Lol what? I'm not sure where you saw all this, but please don't take that as a representation of all right wingers! That's just ridiculous. 😂😓 They aren't the majority, I hope.

I'm pretty sure that when the people that actually have a brain in their head AND got mad, got mad, it was because it seems one sided. Meaning that while girls are allowed to join more and more boys things, they still have lots of just girls things that are "safe spaces" for them.

I am all for girls and boys being equal, but I am not for completely ending segregation. I mean, there's some things that should be kept separate. This isn't really a gender-equality case so that's not the reason I don't like this one. This one I just think is a bit unfair to the boys.

The girls still have their club, but now the guys don't have theirs. Its a both club. So there's girls, both, and... none. I think that's a bit unfair. But that's their decision. I don't think they care if I disagree. 🤷

[BlueCoyote]

So, what if there was just one "club" for everyone? Would that be okay?

[Jon_25]

Sure. That's fair.

[Soteris]

Am I a bad person for expecting this outrage? For all the talk about how democrats are such snowflakes and gets easily triggered I still only really see it from the right wing. It sort of makes sense though since their positions are often grounded in feelings and emotional arguments.

[Eleventy]

No, I don't think so. The difference is that usually when left-wingers bring emotions into politics they are attempting to use their emotions as an argument, no one is doing that here. The argument is that by definition a BOY'S CLUB can't include girls otherwise it's no longer a boy's club, their anger has nothing to do with the issue.

[BlueCoyote]

Well, I'm sure many of them want this to be reversed. In that sense, anger is used in a political way. It's not much different form authoritarian liberals getting angry because Milo holds a speech at a college. In both cases, someone should tell them "take it easy, breathe, chill out".
The way I see it, you're correct - it won't be boy's club anymore... but so what. It'll still be fun for a lot of kids. In the same way, liberals shouldn't riot because a right-winger wants to hold a speech at their university. If you don't like it, just don't attend it and go eat a cupcake instead. That's what I would do.

[Eleventy]

Yeah I agree mostly. Anger won't really solve anything in itself, nor will expressing it. I think the reasons it's pissing people off are: they see it as an attack on masculinity as if it's somehow inherently wrong to have a boy/girl club and it's messing with a long held tradition. I can very much understand the first point but the breaking of tradition doesn't bother me necessarily. Tradition doesn't mean much to me at all.

[BlueCoyote]

I agree. I wouldn't stop anyone from creating their own male-exclusive Scout club. I might think it's a little silly but hey, whatever. Live and let live. I just don't understand when people get so angry simply because things change. Like, it's 2018... the world keeps moving. Those people need to get over that.

[Eleventy]

Well, I don't think all of their anger is just due to change but rather that they feel like the disbanding of the boy scouts was an attack on masculinity in itself. Which I'm not saying it is but I understand that viewpoint for sure. What even happened exactly? Were the boy scouts legally forced to include girls or did they just allow it by their own choice?

[Eleventy]

To be fair I understand your main point. Right-wingers call everyone sensitive but as soon as you burn a piece of cloth with their favorite picture on it or don't stand im formation to a song they're ready to assault you.

[BlueCoyote]

Yes, exactly ;-). That was my main point. It's not even so much about this particular issue, it's the hypocrisy that bothers me a lot. @Madhatters brought up another example, them getting super angry about the jokes at the President's Correspondence Dinner.

The thing is, I don't even mind sensitive people so much. I get along well with people who are easily offended and others who are not. I just feel that if you call yourself super tough and "keeping it real" only to break that statement at every opportunity... that's very annoying.

Anway... ah and yes, as far as I know, the Boy Scouts decided themselves that it was time to allow girls in their organization. I don't think anyone forced them.

[Eleventy]

Yeah I understand exactly lol. No one is "tough" really, jsut tougher than others. But everyone gets offended. I think the obsession on the right with people being offended is quite strange. Who cares either way if you're offended or they're offended by your being offended lol. What matters are the actual issues and how it affects people.

[Stoner710]

Well considering it’s called a boys club I can understand why, Men talk about different stuff when women are in the room. The boys club might be having discussion about sex which is a different conversation when girls are in the room. They could be trying to go hiking and have to stop and weight for the girls because it’s there time of the month which delays the boys sleeping arrangements have to be different it’s a major hassle having girls on a guy trip everything changes and becomes more exspensive. Unless you want to have “gender neutral sleeping arrangements”. Good luck exspainjng to the parents why there daughters pregnant cause you put horny teen together like that you know someone gonna sneak off a do that there a reason why we have them separated to make sure there not doing that

I’d also like to see how the left wing snow flakes would react if a boy when into an all girls group they’d be screaming gender inequalities and all that crap.

[0112358]

No, I don't think it is.

I think some on the right -are- hypocritical little snowflakes, but I think that's most evident when they lose their shit over flag burning or something like that.

I think most men and women actually do need some (not all) single sex spaces, and for boys who aren't athletes, scouts was about the only remaining one.

[Anonymous]

It is sad that someone with so much hate and stupidity is considered an "Influencer" on here.
Your understanding of the issue is clearly as limited as your intelligence, as this wasn't about any "safe space" (the irony in a lefty using that term...) but rather about why the politically correct everyone-gets-a-trophy mentality has now taken and will likely ruin an institution that didn't require conflict.
Girl Scouts exists. If it isn't providing the teaching and activities that girls are wanting, fix that institution. Instead, people like you have decided to take a group that was operating just fine and force a fix that will probably ruin what they had going.
They already had a co-ed version of this, it's called Campfire Kids.
You're a tool.

[BlueCoyote]

Nothing will be ruined. Besides, you're completely missing the point. What I was criticizing was the alt-rights hypocrisy and the fact that you can't see that hypocrisy is really insane.

[Evkaxy]

I think calling people 'snowflakes' makes anything you write seem ignorant, it sounds more like you are having a tantrum... oh. my. god

[BlueCoyote]

You (and lots of others) don't seem to understand that I'm using this term in a sarcastic way. Since you're only a level 2, I forgive you for your ignorance but if you knew the things I write on this site, you would know that I'm not the type of person who enjoys to genuinely insult people (nor do I find 'snowflake' an intelligent insult).
I can't take hypocrisy, and this is what this question is about.

[Evkaxy]

I don't care about your level... what you wrote is just an empty and immature rant... just as pointing to people's levels... are you 12?

[BlueCoyote]

I hate hypocrisy with a passion and I firmly believe it has to be pointed out when it is committed. You don't need to be immature or a child to do so. All you need is a good sense of justice. The old saying "don't throw stones when you're standing in a glass house" was not invented by a 12-year old, I can tell you that.

[Evkaxy]

Oh please, stop acting like some justice warrior, when all you offer is ignorance and rudeness

[BlueCoyote]

Actually, you are being the rude person here. I don't recall insulting you. Also, I don't know what you mean by "justice warrior". I guess you think justice is a bad thing?

Or maybe you actually know about all this hypocrisy but you're too partisan to admit it.

[Evkaxy]

Oh now, now you sound like a real snowflake... let me call out your hypocrisy

[BlueCoyote]

How am I being hypocritical, exactly?

[Evkaxy]

People like me? Called anybody snowflakes? Really... when and how exactly? Now you are pretending to be a victim... let me call out your hypocrisy

[SkylarM63]

I'm a left leaning centrist but I also don't agree with the boy scouts allowing girls in.. that's what the girl scouts are for. Are we going to start demanding that boys are let in the girl scouts? it's a weird time in kids lives when they are going through puberty and stuff and I don't know if mixing would be a good idea.. there's too much room for something bad to happen, especially if it can all be avoided by keeping them separate. I mean boys and girls interact 5 days out of the week at least at school, why not let them have boy time at boy scouts and let girls have girl time at girl scouts.. it's worked for how many years now?

[Landshrk0068]

I find it funny that people get distracted by silly stupid shit like this, when there's way more important things to worry about.

[BlueCoyote]

There we go. Someone who gets me.

[soccerking]

Are you sure you talk with true knowledge of the "Right's position. I really don't want to mix fighting words but I find your reasoning unintelligent. The "Right" only calls boys, boys & girls, girls. It is as simple as that. Females & males are not equal. Can be treated equal, yes. This movement to transform one to the other is a perversion. Apparently, we share different view points and I respect your right to have your opinion. But so many people today seem to fabricate what the other thinks.

[MidnightCowboy]

They are triggered little snowflakes; I have right-wingers block me here because I have different views from them

[BlueCoyote]

Same here. There's one right-wing guy who literally blocked me because I said "god doesn't exist". That was all it took. He called me a sinner and then he blocked me. So yeah... it's childish.

[Catholicgirl22]

Not really. I mean if they started forcing guys into women's and girls only clubs and spaces I would not like that. Like should boys be allowed into girl scouts or girls sports?

[BlueCoyote]

I don't see why not.
Nobody forces anyone to do anything. Boy Scouts wasn't forced to open up, they just decided to do so to let girls in. Now girls can join or, if you don't want to, they don't.

Personally, I've always gotten along much better with girls than with guys throughout my life. I don't know why. I don't think I'm particularly feminine (maybe a little softer than other guys but that's all). I always enjoyed hanging out with girls, be it in school or in Boy Scouts (in my country, girls have been allowed in Boy Scouts for a long time). I think I would have suffered in a segregated environment. I've also grown up with a lot of different cultures. Just within my class in school, I had people from all around the world. I've always felt like diversity is enriching. I can't see why anyone would find it oppressive.

[BlueCoyote]

However, this is actually just a side point. My main point isn't even about this particular issue, it's about the fact that the alt-right loves to scream about the "emotional libtard snowflake leftist cucks", yet they have a complete melt-down if someone burns a piece of cloth with their favorite picture on it or, for that matter, lets girls and boys build a tent and make a fire together. It's the hypocrisy that really gets me.

[Catholicgirl22]

Extremists scream about everything

[LegateLanius]

I don't see any benefit for boys in a unisex Scouts

[goaded]

It was fun and taught useful skills. Sadly, not among them was how to relate to females, even ones who share interests with you. It's a great improvement, and has worked well in other countries.

Girls wanted in to the Scout movement back in 1909: "The first Scout Rally was held at The Crystal Palace in 1909, at which appeared a number of girls dressed in Scout uniform, who told Baden-Powell that they were the "Girl Scouts", following which, in 1910, Baden-Powell and his sister Agnes Baden-Powell formed the Girl Guides". (wikipedia)

[LegateLanius]

@goaded
Thank you. However besides needing funds it just seems to be sjw stuff. Start a mens only gym and people protest it enough where it closes down. Start a female only gym and its for their safety. This to me is along the same thing.

[BlueCoyote]

But doesn't that come down to free market capitalism basically, which a lot of right-wingers like? If you found your own male-only gym and you manage it well and there's enough guys in your area who want this, you'll be successful.
I also think that parents who find this unisex aspect about the scouts really important should found their own groups. We can have some competition and then we'll see who fares better.

[LegateLanius]

I am a centralist. I understand your opinion but what'sso bad about having clubs and the like where they are meant for a specific group? Why is it such a big deal for these girls in the first place? Do you understand where I am coming from? I'm not whining or anything thing. I just don't see the point.

[LegateLanius]

And yes, I think they should have just made a third organization for both

[Naydyonov]

The point being that Boys scouts are for boys and Girl scouts are for girls.
There is no reason for girls to be included into Boy scouts.
It's like having an all female school that starts allowing males. = No longer an all female school.
It's just stupid, let's take it further; why have a separate washroom for men and women, why have separate change rooms, why not allow males to answer female only questions?
It's stupid and unhelpful.

[BlueCoyote]

Well, separate bathrooms and changing rooms are obviously for privacy reasons. When you're doing scouting activities, you're usually not naked.
That being said, I personally wouldn't mind a more lax separation in bathrooms for example. I think urinals should still be kinda separate but I wouldn't mind men and women using the same stalls. I mean, there are walls in between and I don't really care who uses the stall next to me.

"If they let in girls, it's not a boys-only club anymore". That's right. Things change. Oh well. This is kind of a non-argument because it assumes that a mixed club is a problem, which is yet to be demonstrated. When Brown vs. Board of Education passed in 1954, there were also people who said "but if you let negroes students into all-white schools, they won't be all-white schools anymore" - to which most people today would probably reply "So?"

[Naydyonov]

Boys and girls are seperated into different scouts for the same reasons.
When with the opposite sex people act differently and are less concentrated on the tasks at hand.

Except there are differences between men and women, boys and girls.
Behaviorally they are different.

If I there is an all Chinese club I do not expect to be let in as a non Chinese person — unless the exception is that I can just watch or do very specific activities with them.
A all Chinese club would exist to allow people with a similar cultural background to talk and feel close together.
Maybe you're against any type of club that carries a demographic characteristic?

[BronzedAdonis]

2static2.fjcdn.com/.../...5c91abb39f6034e20451.jpg

[TheCookieDealer]

Rightists are also conservatists, and they're scared of any kind of change even if it doesn't impact their own lives. It's a bitter way of living

[dancing_in_nebulas]

I dont get why they had to blend? There were already boys and girls ones? Were the girl scouts too full or something?

[Sabretooth]

it's actually a good thing-creates a better relationships among the two genders. i think that those who have issues with it are either guys with to be an ego-or feminists who are finally showing their true colors. i've noticed that for all the talk about wanting equality-they actually prefer things as they are so they can continue bitching and spreading their hatred.

[dancing_in_nebulas]

@Sabretooth

Weird, theyve been functioning well separate, Im shocked this is even a big deal right now lol

[Sabretooth]

But they haven't functioned well together.

[dancing_in_nebulas]

@Sabretooth

Really? Youd think itd just be like coed school or summer camp lol?

[Sabretooth]

Hmm?

[BlueCoyote]

To answer your question, I think the Boy Scouts organization simply decided that it was 2018 and therefore time to let some girls participate in boys' activities... which I think is a good thing. But even for the people who disagree with that, which I respect, it shouldn't be such an emotional issue. Especially when they criticize others for dramatizing everything.

[Trolloween]

What is inherently wrong about a club for one gender? I don't understand what problem has apparently been solved.

[Duke07]

You do realize the dems are the ones that created "safe places" fact check bro. Just a heads up to stop you from ranting on false knowledge. ;)

[goaded]

"In educational institutions, safe space (or safe-space), safer space, and positive space are terms that, as originally intended, were used to indicate that a teacher, educational institution, or student body did not tolerate anti-LGBT violence, harassment or hate speech, thereby creating a safe place for all LGBT students." The bastards! How unreasonable!

[Duke07]

Lol I agree. Thanks brother. Cause if you or I wanted to speak our rights are not valid and we are instantly called hateful names. Just fir having a difference in opinion.

[goaded]

Firstly it wasn't "the Dems", it was educational institutions.
Secondly, if you're really in a despised minority, unlike the white evangelical christians who just think they are, a place where people can be safe from violence, harassment or hate speech is a good thing.
Finally, if you're polite and willing to listen you'd be welcome there; if not, you're a welcome there as a satanist loudly praying in a church.
Most of the world is a safe space for people who conform to society's norms; the whole world should be safe for everybody who's not hurting anyone else.

[BlueCoyote]

We can argue over the effectiveness of safe spaces. I'm not trying to push any particular ideological point here. However, IF you go around complaining about safe spaces and oversensitive people, you come across as particularly unserious and pathetic if you yourself have oversensitive reactions about relatively unimportant issues. That was my major point here.

[Duke07]

Ok so let me clear it up for you probably going take two responses continued. 1) "The history of safe spaces is an interesting one and a recent article in Fusion cited the concept as originating in the feminist and gay liberation movements of the 1960s.
But the concept of the ‘safe space’ didn’t start with these movements, it started in a much more unlikely place – corporate America – largely thanks to the work of psychologist Kurt Lewin." So not colleges. Sorry but It was adopted by them. And mainly ran by political party called the left.
Im going to address all the comments. This is part 1

[Duke07]

Part2 cont. The use of sensitivity groups began to gain currency in corporate America and the idea was taken up by psychologists such as the humanistic therapist Carl Rogers who, by the 1960s, developed the idea into encounter groups which were more aimed at self-actualisation and social change, in line with the spirit of the times, but based on the same ‘safe space’ environment. As you can imagine, they were popular in California. It’s worth saying that although the ideal was non-judgement, the reality could be a fairly rocky emotional experience, as described by a famous 1971 study on ‘encounter group casualties’.
From here, the idea of safe space was taken up by feminist and gay liberation groups, but with a slightly different slant, in that sexist or homophobic behaviour was banned by mutual agreement but individuals could be pulled up if it occurred, with the understanding that people would make an honest attempt to recognise it and change."

[Duke07]

Part3 cont.
And finally we get to the recent campus movements, where the safe space has become a public political act. Rather than individuals opting in, it is championed or imposed (depending on which side you take) as something that should define acceptable public behaviour.
In other words, creating a safe space is considered to be a social responsibility and you can opt out, but only by leaving.

[goaded]

You could just have posted the link:
mindhacks.com/.../

And it states that your "fact check" was wrong; it wasn't dems, it wasn't even colleges, it was corporations that created them!

[BlueCoyote]

I appreciate your long answer but you don't seem to get my point. What I'm criticizing, first and foremost, is the hypocrisy of the alt-right. They criticize LGBTQ people or feminists for creating safe space at colleges; for shutting themselves off because "they're scared to interact with opinions they might not like".
Yet, the very same people who utter these complaints, usually in a very hateful and hostile way, want to have a safe space where "boys can be boys", where no boy needs to interact with the otherness of the other sex, where you get to be "among your own kind".

It's exactly the same thing but in their fanaticism, they don't realize this because "it's different if it's about me". These people think the rules they make for other people don't apply to them.

[Duke07]

Im sorry that you assume im complaining, when its suppose to be a convo on facts. Plus I never once made condescending remarks like the both of you have. So clearly what I say speaks to value. About "safe places" basically being if you dont agree you will be ridiculed. Second I never complained. I pointed out it wasn't schools and it wasn't the right. So dont know how you both got confused. I think as much as others I should have a right to my views and not be a target as much as the left doesn't want to be a target. I think the need for safe places is absurd. Any place you go anyone should feel safe a free to speak. Open communication is key and maturity. But then again can't argue with closed minded people. Im friendly and am able to have a discussion. Thats the whole point but I expect better and/or not so hostile responses.

[BlueCoyote]

And yes, it wasn't Dems who created safe spaces.

[Duke07]

I can agree both sides for laft and right are hypocritical but i am not willing to generalize all left as evil and hypocrites as i dont think you or others should generalize all right wingers are snow flakes and hypocrites. isn't that statement alone hypocritical and judgmental. And by saying it you contridicted the point I saw you were trying to make but it came out wrong. If that makes sense.

[BlueCoyote]

I didn't say that YOU complain. I said that certain people do. This was in no way a personal criticism against you.
And of course you can have your opinion. I just don't like the people who freak out over this and turn it into a big deal. It's like the people who freak out over flag burning. One cannot go around calling people snowflakes and oversensitive and then have a meltdown because someone burns a piece of cloth. That just comes across as childish and, frankly, imbecile.

[BlueCoyote]

Tell me where the left is being hypocritical.

[Duke07]

I am merly stating if you look at colleges and the statical facts. Colleges generally (not all) but most are liberal colleges. Take a look at UC Berkley. My buddy went there and got a F for not believing what the teacher was pushing. That should not be aloud. Needless to say he won his case and passed.

[Duke07]

So as for the flag. I fought for that. Im a former Marine. That i would never tolerate. If people hate it here. Pack your bags and leave. I guarantee you have less freedoms elsewhere. Having traveled a lot. I know and I also know our media never says whats really going on. Since i was actually in a place saw the situation and heard how they reported. Completely distasteful and disrespectful. Shame on them. And I'd ask anyone show me a country any country that hasn't came to be by force. No one can. So I say stop complaining to all those people who live in the past and want to distroy history like our statues. It happened can't change it. Move on. Make a better future for our kids. I hope you understand what im saying. Its in general not directed at you.

[BlueCoyote]

Well, there is no way I could know if this story is true. Maybe your friend was also just angry and blamed his professor. It is true that many college professors are liberals but because of this, many conservatives you political affiliation as a cop-out. It's kinda like me getting arrested by the police and screaming "you're only arresting me because I'm not a conservative!"
Maybe that's true - but likely not. The more likely possibility is that I get arrested because I've actually done something and those conservative students get an F because they did a bad job at their schoolwork.

At any rate: even if your friend was treated unfairly, that's not hypocrisy. That's just a professor being an asshole. Hypocrisy is when you preach about certain values but don't live up to them yourself.

[Duke07]

Explain how i dont live up to my values since you assume you know my values without asking.

[Duke07]

And by the way i in all seriousness want to say thank you for having a discussion with me. Wether or not we agree. I do respect you for talking with me and appriciate it. So thank you

[goaded]

"show me a country any country that hasn't came to be by force"
Germany.

"In spite of rumours that the Communists were planning a massacre on 9 October, 70,000 citizens demonstrated in Leipzig that Monday, and the authorities on the ground refused to open fire. This victory of the people facing down the Communists' guns encouraged more citizens to take to the streets. The following Monday, 16 October, 120,000 people demonstrated on the streets of Leipzig."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989

[Duke07]

Gotta keep going when it was Prussia. It was fought for before that. Actually even says it on Wikipedia. I just looked. Just like before America was America. English, Fench and Spanish were here. There is no land on this earth that hasn't spilt blood before. Thats my point. Just like people want to talk about the land America was before it was America. Lets talk about the land before Germany became Germany. No one in that country complains like these people do over here.

[Duke07]

Cont... Its like they feel entitled. For what? They never did anything but complain. Go work. Fight for a just cause. Make a difference and stop being PC and labeling me a racist or judging me without knowing me (general statement). If you (meaning others who do) can be so quick to judge me then isn't it only fair to let me do it as well. Not that I will but thats the argument they want to make right? Its about fairness if im correct. So then why if I am a right side person. Then why Do people like you, say offensive words and categorize me as a snow flake or racist without hearing me out first or knowimg me. Fyi you dont know which side of the isle I sit on and my guess is cause my place on the discussion is you prob assume im right side ilse guy. But that just goes to my point. Not all left think left or all right think right on all subject material.

[Duke07]

Cont... So I think all people need to slow down, take a step back and pay attention to how a majority of people know a days let emotions control their actions over a better use of logical decision making.

[goaded]

"No one in [Germany] complains like these people do over here"
I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, here, but is it related to your earlier comment about "all those people who live in the past and want to distroy history like our statues"?

Believe me, if someone put up a statue of Hitler or Rommel in Germany, there would be massive complaints, and they wouldn't be around long. Not many countries put up statues to people on the losing side. I mean, leaving a statue standing that was already there before the war is understandable; putting new ones up after they lost is just wrong.

[Duke07]

So Lincoln and Washington owned slaves is the Lincoln memorial next. Cause they tore down a statue in northern California of a former President. President McKinley in the center of the square in Arcata, Ca.
He wasn't on the losing side. Its history. I think comparing Hitler to our civil war is just ludicrous. I dont in anyway condone the actions of making any person a slave. But certian stautues I can understand. But it seems to be out of hand. And not only that history books leave a lot out. Im for more knowledge for us and our younger generations so we do not repeat such horrible crimes. Hitler was wippingbout a race which in its self was hypocritical of him. Since he was a Jew too. I think genocide and slavery are bad. But i dont think you can say they are the same.

[goaded]

OK, ignoring Hitler (who wasn't a jew), Rommel was by all accounts a brilliant general, but nobody's going to put up statues to him.

The Confederate statues were removed because of the reason they were put up - a show of force against former slaves by the people who had lost the war.

The Arcata case is more like the statue of "Bomber" Harris in London, which went up despite significant protest in 1992.

It's possible that it may be replaced in the future by people who find the bombing of Dresden, killing 25,000 in a few days, and the attitude of "I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier", less than three months before Berlin fell, repugnant.

[Duke07]

Good info. Thank you. Seriously I appriciate the convo.

[goaded]

It's been fun!

[BrianMerritt]

I find it hilarious that nobody is falling for this baited question.
I also find it hilarious that you don't know what thd word hypocrisy means.
I appreciate your attempt at satire though.

[BlueCoyote]

I'm pretty sure I know what hypocrisy is.
I'll give you another example: Ben Shapiro and his diehard followers cry and scream about the evil liberals being anti free speech and de-platforming public speakers at colleges. Yet, just recently, a pro-Palestinian speaker was de-platformed at a college due to the protest of a conservative, pro-Israel campus group. Where was Mr. free-speech-hero? Where were his bootlicking supporters? Nowhere to be found. None of them had anything to say about this. These people pretend to care about free speech, in reality they only care about THEIR kind of speech.
A lot of alt-righters complain about the ACLU having a "liberal bias". Yet, you know what they did? The ACLU actually FOUGHT for the right of a bunch of neonazis to peacefully march through a jewish neighborhood. THAT'S called being principled: vehemently disagreeing with someone but still supporting his/her right to state their opinion.
Shapiro and lots of people on this website are hypocrites.

[BrianMerritt]

Oh, this is a Ben Shapiro rant?
Ben Shapiro continuously calls out right leaners as well as left leaners, because he gets equally annoyed when right leaners act cray as when left leaners act cray. So no valid point there.
You also cannot point to hypocrites--hypocrites was the right term in THIS context--and not point to the hypocrites on the other side.
If one side is pointing to hypocrites on the other side, but not pointing out the hypocrites on the other side, doesn't that make them a double-hypocrite?
Please spare me your whiny rants, I don't want to read them.

[BrianMerritt]

I'll never understand why people think that supporters and fans are the same thing. I'll also never understand why the actions of fans = the actions of who thry are a fan of. If Patriots fans destroy a street after a game, the Patriotsxare not at fault.
You need your brain checked.

[dropkicknj13]

Sooooo you've been the kettle so long everything looks like a pot to you now? Lol

[Kriegg]

Yes, read what you just wrote and put it next to any of the many leftist arguments, yer all sad little people in my opinion.

[BlueCoyote]

Well, the ironic part is that I actually agree (to a degree) with their anti SJW rhetorics. I'm liberal but I'm not authoritarian by any means. Also, this question is not meant to attack any conservative or right-wing person. I specifically criticize the ones who are extremely loud because those are also the ones who are extreme hypocrites. Unfortunately, there's quite a lot of those on G@G.

[Kriegg]

Tis clickbait, you know you'll get someone to bite or create a nice comfy echo chamber for like minded people. Honestly i got more important things to worry about. I just like being an ass. You seem te be on the defence tho, i don't care about your political affiliation. Do what you gotta do , just eh be rational regardless of your believes. Shit slinging and finger pointing and trying to force "your" beliefs on others is just a no no. Now i'm hungry so y'all play nice , and get a nice unbiased education and be all you can be. ( or be an ass like me!) Oh taxes boooo!

[BlueCoyote]

I'm not offended or "on the defense".
Anyway, enjoy your meal then.

[NovissimumVirorum]

The Girl Scouts already exists, and honestly why the hell is it a problem in this day and age for men to have men only social clubs, schools, activities, etc. when there exists female only clubs, schools, etc.

[OatsnWhey]

I hate your liberal bullshit that you constantly preach on this website. I’ll read this when I’m sober enough to give a fuck.

[Anonymous]

"No you're the snowflake!"

"No YOU are the snowflake!"

"Nuh-uh you are"

"You are!!"

That's my impression of both you and the right wing people.

[BlueCoyote]

I can tell you why that impression is wrong: because I don't mean my insult genuinely. I guess I wasn't being clear enough but I was writing this in a sarcastic tone. What bugs me isn't even the fact that people are sensitive. Like, I think it's childish to lose your shit over flag burning (or over this issue) but hey, whatever. What really pisses me off is people who go around calling themselves "straight shooters" and "facts over feelings" guys and then they have an emotional meltdown because of some bullshit issue. Perhaps the most extreme example would be Ben Shapiro (who is loved by many guys on this website) crying about liberals being anti free speech. Now, you can complain about that, that's fine. Some liberals (the authoritarian leftists) ARE against free speech. But Shapiro is a partisan hack who doesn't actually care about free speech. He only cares about it when it's HIS type of speech. When a pro-Palestinian speaker was de-platformed from a college campus (cont.)

[BlueCoyote]

recently (just as Milo was), Shapiro had nothing to say about it. None of those free speech warriors was anywhere to be found. It's this hypocrisy that gets on my nerves. It's like the Catholic Church preaching purity and priests secretly fucking little boys. IF you're going to put yourself on a moral pedestal, which the alt-righters do, you need to be at least principled about it.

[SwagsMcBags]

Oh yeah this sounds like a really unbiased question and I'm certain that you don't intend for this thread to act as a feedback bubble.

[Anonymous]

You really should attempt to educate yourself more thoroughly on opposing viewpoints. It would help you to sound more thoughtful, and less like the sort of bigoted idiot you think you're railing against.

[BlueCoyote]

I do educate myself on opposing viewpoints but it's not about that. It's about the unbearable hypocrisy that I'm so sick about. For instance In America, there's a whole industry of alt-right douchebags now who praise themselves as the gods and saviors of free speech. Ooooooh free speech, oh yes, how it gives them orgasms. EXCEPT of course when anyone DOESN'T AGREE WITH THEM. Where were all these jackasses when Chelsea Manning was denied to speak at a university a few weeks ago? Where are they when pro-Palestinian speakers get de-platformed? Nowhere. I hear fucking crickets. None of these bigoted hypocrites has ever spoken out publicly and said "I don't agree with person x BUT I fight for their right to speak." These people rant about angry college liberal college kids and praise themselves as free speech warriors. In reality, they don't give a shit about free speech. They only want free speech for the people who already agree with them.

Now, you could say that some liberals are (cont)

[BlueCoyote]

also authoritarian hypocrites and that's probably true but at least liberals don't make a point of making this society more hateful. I mean, the alt-right has invented an entire language of insults, the same can't be said about the left.

[britpop]

That is amusing we've had girls in the scouts for years here in the UK I do feel though why are we allowed to join traditionally male groups while still keeping our female only ones

[Smegskull]

Not really. Freedom of association is a constitutional thing and the right wingers are usually pretty heavily pro constitution.

[BlueCoyote]

Well yes, but freedom of association isn't targeted here, especially since freedom of association is only a right in regard to the actions of the government (like with free speech too).

[Smegskull]

I guess they still have the freedom to create a new organisation that acts like the old scouts if the scouts have gone in a direction they don't like, free market and all that.

I do think you are being slightly disingenuous by conflating safe spaces with gendered spaces (or any segregated group space).

[Jorgumander]

It's effing hilarious! They are so fragile!

[BlueCoyote]

I agree. I just saw that Tommy Lauren, the girl who's made an entire career out of being "anti snowflakes" and "anti free speech police" and "anti micro-aggressions" has made a segment on Fox News where she cries about the jokes the comedian on the President's Correspondence Dinner made, calling them "completely over the line", "offensive" and "outrageous". Argh, my brain cells hurt.

[Jorgumander]

Haha I know. I love her dears. They are delicious.

[Anonymous]

I think girls should be able to be in it if they want to

[Opinion Owner]

I do think it's ridiculous that they had to drop the boy in Boy Scouts though

[jacquesvol]

Right-wing snowflakes are losing their temper over about anything.

[Anonymous]

What are you even talking about?

Bracing for you to be full of it.

Also that’s not technically identity politics. So you’re not off to a great start.

[Anonymous]

I don't think anyone's losing their temper. Yah people are taking but it's not like how the left reacts every now and then at every fking thing the right does...

[Anonymous]

Why are strong, empowered women so intimidated by the idea of a male only space that fosters comradery, integrity and celebration of boyhood?

[BlueCoyote]

I don't know if they are. Maybe there were some tomboy girls who actually prefer being with the boys though. I think it's often overseen that genitals are one thing but sometimes, personalities don't exactly align with whatever genitals you have. Some girls like being very boyish and get along much better with the boys, and vice versa.

All I can say is that in my country, girls have been allowed in Boy Scouts for as long as I can remember. I was a Boy Scout for a long time myself and I never minded it. Most of the girls in our group were really cool and it felt enriching to have them. Besides, we still did all the boyish things we would have otherwise done... like extinguishing a camp fire by standing around it and peeing on it. I don't think any of us boys felt censored in his speech or actions just because there were some chicks.

[Nachowedgie]

We it's kina straight forward, there's the girl scouts for girls and the boy scouts for boys, it's kinda in the name "Boy scouts"

[GuyFieri69]

If there's girls in a boys club it's not really a boys club. Stupid libs

[disgustingweebtrash]

I honestly don't care as long as it goes both ways

[Casus_Angelus]

One of countries from the third world

[Casus_Angelus]

Has scout that allowed boys and girls join in together, why is this even a problem for first world

[Pineapple_Boy]

Can boys join the girl scouts?

[BlueCoyote]

I don't know about that. They should be able to do that though, to be fair to everyone.

[LadyAvon]

What exactly happened?

[BlueCoyote]

Boy Scouts America was male-only until a few days ago. Now they decided that girls should also be able to learn about leadership and go to summer camps and help in charities. Some people find that outrageous.

[Astoriana]

Indeed.

[name_is_eric]

Yikes.