MerrySkeptic

joined 1 year ago
[–] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 43 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I feel bad for the people who didn't vote for this guy, but are stuck there and have to pay the price for these shitty decisions.

Also, let's not forget that DeSantis can't do anything unilaterally. A whole legislature made this possible.

[–] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 months ago

Exactly. You know who else felt blindsided?

[–] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

Thanks! I think that's my first Lemmy Best Of!

[–] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 months ago

Belt loops would have been for Cub Scouts. Merit badges are for Boy Scouts. There's definitely plenty you can do at home for both, but with merit badges you need a merit badge counselor, who may or may not be your leader

[–] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wish there didn't have to be any reading between the lines. They're sooo close...

[–] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Well they already tried suing them when they began accepting girls and changed their name the first time to Scouts BSA, but that didn't work. But truthfully the two organizations have different missions and methods.

Historically, a lot of girls who joined GSUSA thinking it was going to be Boy Scouts for girls were disappointed and would leave. GSUSA is more about empowering girls through community engagement and exploring careers. Yes there can also be camping, hiking, etc but these are more or less optional components, up to each troop to integrate. Rank advancement is based on age and grade level, while awards are based on merit.

Boy Scouts is much more focused on outdoor skills and citizenship. These are integrated into the program in that advancement in rank is based solely on merit and demonstrating proficiency with these skills. You can spend six years in Boy Scouts and never make it past Tenderfoot.

So for girls who want more emphasis on the outdoors built into their program, Scouting America would be the better option. For those that want more flexibility and are less outdoorsy, GSUSA is still an option. Both are good programs. I have kids in both. There are some things I like better about GSUSA and some I like more in Boy Scouts. I think Boy Scouts is a more challenging program overall, but GSUSA's Gold Award is way more challenging to achieve than an Eagle project. I definitely prefer GSUSA not having a religious requirement.

Both programs will continue to adapt and change. Both have been experiencing declines in membership for decades anyway, so there's bigger problems that they're facing.

[–] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 23 points 2 months ago (10 children)

Girl Scouts USA has always been a completely separate organization with no affiliation to Boy Scouts of America

[–] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Imagine saying this at a Civil Rights sit-in in the 60s

[–] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 78 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Fuck these counter-protestors. I hope the reporters press charges. It really seems like the majority of the violence is started by the counter-protestors, but apparently this is what Zionism is all about.

[–] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 43 points 2 months ago

I have lived in Texas my whole life. My knee jerk reaction is no, absolutely not.

First off, what part of Texas?Texas is a huge state with several metro areas, smaller cities, and lots of rural areas. Eas h has their own quirks.

There are parts of Texas that are so racist that POCs shouldn't drive there at night. There are parts that are as progressive as any other metro area in America (at least within the limitations of the state government). There are parts that are essentially artist communes. Texas is huge and diverse. No one viewpoint can capture it all.

[–] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

The point isn't about whether or not social media is bad for kids. The point is about the hypocrisy of a political party that is willing to minimize the legal and social consequences of parents opting to not vaccinate their kids, arguing that it is up to the parents even though it clearly has health risks to other people that the unvaccinated kids come into contact with, but then say that the state has a moral obligation to protect kids from the harms of social media regardless of how the parents feel about it.

While generally speaking, no, social media is not great for kids, there are some who can handle it responsibly. It's a clear case of how parental discretion should be used. But the state is removing that option. Vaccinations and herd immunity, on the other hand, have a century or so of evidence and the risks of not being vaccinated are clearly demonstrable, but consequences like no access to public schools are disappearing. The internal logic isn't there, it's all just pandering to an idiotic political base.

[–] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 59 points 3 months ago (17 children)

Holy shit I can't imagine the sheer terror. One second you're just doing your normal work commute, the next you just fell a hundred feet into freezing water. Without reacting immediately you're probably trapped in your car from the water pressure. Shit shit shit

view more: ‹ prev next ›