Those two scouts programs aren't even remotely comparable, both in substance and prestige. Many girl scout troops barely did any camping/outdoor activity, whereas boys got to earn the prestige of "eagle scout" and go on various outdoor adventures (multi-day treks through the mountains, building igloos and camping inside them, camping on an island only accessible by a canoe, etc). It was a tragedy that girls didn't have the opportunities available to boys.
(Source: My sister and her friends were the type that would have thrived in boy scouts, but they had to join a "venture crew" run by the same scout leader as our boy scout troop)
Whether a boyscout group sits around and does lame crafts or goes into the woods to start fires and hit each other with sticks is entirely down to the leadership (boys and adults) in that troop. So to is it with girlscouts. There is nothing intrinsic about boyscouts that makes it more exciting, except that it was lead by guys.
> There is nothing intrinsic about boyscouts that makes it more exciting
The chance to obtain Eagle Scout status is itself more exciting. It difficult to deny that it is one of the best leadership programs for children available. The girl scout equivalent is not even close to producing the leaders the Eagle Scouts do. They also have their own network for eagle scouts to connect. It can be an opportunity to get into a Good ‘ol Boys club (future business & money connections) before moving out of their parent’s house.
If a male or female wants to learn more about extracting money from family/shoppers by selling cases of cookies, or learn about female social empowerment and financial skill, instead of learning leadership through self reliance/accountability skills mixed with teamwork, then why not let them choose the programs they want? -- but they are different. Their Gold Award is nothing like earning Eagle Scout status.
The credentials and awards is definitely the least important aspect of boyscouts. As for leadership learning opportunities, there is no reason the girl scouts couldn't have this too.
Flip your own framing around - aren't there likely boys who would have preferred the Girl Scouts coded activities, and being disallowed from membership is therefore also an unfair dis-opportunity?
Yup exactly. Same as all the "feminist" groups campaigning to disallow trans women from such groups, usually using the excuse that they'll get assaulted by the "really just men" trans women a la "won't somebody please think of the children!" when the incidences of this happening is almost 0 comparatively.
Turns out some are allowed to have special clubs, but others not so much. And we only have societal perception of women to blame; the thing they're relying on for all this "they need their own space to protect them" is demeaning, imo. Besides the fact that the majority of victims of crime are male (and before someone points out that the majority of criminals are also male - did you know that's a sexist statement to make? It's judging an entire sex by the actions of individuals).
Uh, no, I'm sorry you had to find out this way, but the primary reason was because the boy scouts have rampant sex abuse scandals like the catholic priesthood.
Also Tiktok means fewer young boys so bored that they set things on fire.
Quit trying to read the article after the 15th video went to full screen and had to be dismissed hitting the tiny x in the upper left… 3 more interfered with me trying to go back to this page
Keep in mind that these sites are run by AI researchers, not dedicated UX teams at major tech companies—so the interface can feel a bit rough around the edges.
That said, your critique is still valid; it’s just fair to cut them a little slack given their priorities.
Slight overstatement… break dancing was one of the locally picked sports and the next Olympics had already selected different sports before she performed…
But she is a good example of degrees not equaling skill
It should also be noted that she doesn't have a degree in "performing," as far as I'm aware, she has a degree in "studying the culture" of break dancing. So, we (or at least any of us who haven't read her work) don't actually know if she's good at what her degree is in. We just know that she's not good at performing.
Great. Even accepting your case (I assume you mean the US revolutionary war, which, for the record, I don't think is that great of an example to begin with), you provide a n=1 in support of your argument.
On the other hand, there are literally dozens of examples of civil society organizations organizations and protest movements successfully countering government overreach or military coup d'etats with peaceful means and bringing about profound political change:
While armed resistance against injustice can sometimes be effective (and certainly not all peaceful movements succeed), there is well established qualitative and quantitate research that violence comes at much higher cost (in terms of life lost) and risks (to subsequent democratic and evononomic development) than peaceful resistance. Erica Chenoweth is one particular scholar worth checking out in that regard: https://www.ericachenoweth.com
It makes sense if you think about it for a second: resisting violently against tyranny requires you to build up systems of violence (duh!). Those systems have the tendency to stick around, even if you are successful in removing or fending off tyranny.
You can see this live in the US, if you are willing to look: Tens of thousands of people die every year solely because the US treats firearms differently from the entirety of the rest of humanity. At the same time, the US does not seem to be uniquely resistant to the undermining of democratic institutions, as Trumps current antics demonstrate (this should hold true no matter which side of the Trump/Democrats divide you sit on. Both sides claim that the other is (successfully) undermining democracy).
Peaceful protests, even if they’re successful, have nothing to do with the discussion of “Trying to guard against tyranny by increasing private gun ownership is dumb“
The entire argument for private gun ownership to guard against tyranny is that it is effective and more so than other approaches. If private gun ownership is not more effective against tyranny than other approaches, why accept its considerable and provable downsides (gun crime, gun-assisted suicides, domestic violence, accidents, etc. etc.)?
But peaceful resistance (which goes beyond protests and can – depending on situation and definition – encompass everything from sabotage to strikes, espionage, boycotts and "Work to Rule") has been demonstrated to be more effective to both establish long-term democratic rule, as well as safeguard it against authoritarian rollback, when compared to violent means.
There simply is no actual argument based on historical facts that widespread civilian gun ownership is particularly effective at establishing democratic rule or deterring authoritarian tendencies. Which makes sense, because (again) guns are only good at projecting or threatening violence and authoritarian actors (in contrast to democratic ones) are quite comfortable with violence.
That's the entire issue and the point of his attempts to poison his music from AI training: you can't opt-out of having your work used to train GenAI. I'd encourage you to watch his video.
GP clearly understands this. The comment makes perfect sense in the context of the thread. It is directed not at the artist, but at those who believe that AI companies training on art without permission aren't stealing anything.
