The ‘Groomer’ Accusation Is Counterproductive - Cuckservatives are too afraid to call groomers out for what they are


“Groomer” has become the fashionable charge to level against anyone who opposes Florida’s parental-rights bill. It’s counterproductive. And not because it isn’t super creepy to see so many liberals invested in ensuring prepubescent kids, trapped in state-run schools, are force-fed post-modern, pseudoscientific ideas about sexuality and transgenderism in direct contradiction of the wishes of their parents.

And it’s not because leftists, who habitually dehumanize and smear their opponents as racists, rapists, bigots, and nihilists, don’t deserve it. Just this week, the head of the DNC called a U.S. senator “a maggot-infested man.” We would be knee-deep in feigned outrage had this been aimed at a Democrat. Professional hysterics would be calling it “pre-genocide talk.” So please spare us the tone-policing.

And it’s not because the political frustration isn’t understandable. The entire “Don’t Say Gay” accusation is based on a lie, perpetuated by virtually every mass-media outlet. Democrats not only get to give their bills misleading names like “The Freedom to Vote Act” or “Build Back Better,” they get to misname Republican bills, too. Which must be nice.

Rather, the accusation is wrong because it isn’t really true. Most opponents of the bill, I’m sure, aren’t “grooming” kids for sexual acts. They simply don’t believe that parents should have a say in their kids’ education. They want to normalize half-baked identitarianism and gender ideology against the will of parents. That’s bad enough.

Though most of this “groomer” debate is very online, I also question its political efficacy. The pugilistic inclination among conservatives these days isn’t a bad one. You can’t bring a knife to gun fight, and so on. But, in this case, it makes little sense. Turning it to eleven on every issue has diminishing returns. It didn’t work for Democrats in Virginia. And it isn’t working in Florida. Why do some conservatives believe it will always work for them? Florida Republicans passed the parental-rights bill — a far more consequential victory, incidentally, than dunking on Twitter accounts — without using hyperbolic language. Every poll quoting the bill verbatim, or even framing it a halfway-honest way, finds overwhelming bipartisan support. “Groomer” is a distraction that allows progressives to stop defending the idea that kindergartners should be taught that there are 72 genders, and instead, make it about how Republicans think every teacher is a would-be pedophile.
 
They're right, though. Any time you turn a word into a buzzword it loses all meaning and severity. Nobody cares about being called a Nazi except if it means you're going to get physically assaulted by crazies. Nobody cares about racist, homophobe, or transphobe except the people who are doing the accusing. The words don't mean anything anymore because they apply to anyone who disagrees with the person speaking. Cuck, simp and incel are also pretty much meaningless words. If you just toss around groomer constantly, people are going to start tuning out the moment they hear 'groomer' sooner rather than later.
 
Grooming doesn't have to be sexual, it can be political.

Reading, writing, arithmetic and the god damned hickory stick, more of that, please, less about the percentage of white people who are evil and whether or not your brain is wrong for your body, please.

Mother of fuck.

The author is a fag who is writing for the National Review, for the love of god.
 
They're right, though. Any time you turn a word into a buzzword it loses all meaning and severity. Nobody cares about being called a Nazi except if it means you're going to get physically assaulted by crazies. Nobody cares about racist, homophobe, or transphobe except the people who are doing the accusing. The words don't mean anything anymore because they apply to anyone who disagrees with the person speaking. Cuck, simp and incel are also pretty much meaningless words. If you just toss around groomer constantly, people are going to start tuning out the moment they hear 'groomer' sooner rather than later.

The difference being that we're actually telling the truth when we accuse them of being groomers or pedophiles.

A big part of a reason why a buzzword loses meaning is because it wasn't true in the first place. Or because the word had no concrete definition in the first place, like "capitalism."
 
The difference being that we're actually telling the truth when we accuse them of being groomers or pedophiles.

A big part of a reason why a buzzword loses meaning is because it wasn't true in the first place. Or because the word had no concrete definition in the first place, like "capitalism."
That's the thing. You're not. Most people who want to teach kids about trans crap or gay sex do not actually want to have sex with kids. Some do, but most do not. What they're actually after is that kids are highly impressionable, and if you want to convince a generation of people to believe a certain way you do it when that generation is young, not once they're adult and have formed their life-opinions. If you just mindlessly call people pedophiles and groomers who very obviously are not, you're just throwing around meaningless words and watering them down into uselessness. And the average person knows that most people are not, in fact, pedophiles looking to bang kids. So when you swipe a broad brush saying that everyone opposing the don't say gay bill just wants to have sex with kindergartners, you sound the same as people who say every person who voted for Trump just hates women and black people. The end result will be the same: people will quickly stop listening to what you have to say.

And yes, as someone noted up thread, 'grooming' does not always have a sexual connotation, but that is semantics in this case. Molest doesn't always have a sexual connotation, but if you go around saying a guy molested you, there's gonna be problems when you try to backtrack and say "I don't mean sexually" when you're called out for it.
 
National Review, where the latest leftist degeneracy is actually a deeply held conservative principle! Not surprised that they’re out there getting mad that groomers are getting called out. That only means it’s working and we should double down on it.
William F Buckley without a doubt is spinning his grave.


Gays in Buckley Jr's time: We just want the same rights as you.
Gays after Buckley Jr: We want the order of society that has happily worked for the majority of the populace to be upended. Put them kids on Hormone Blockers bigot.

If we don't stop the bullshit now we already have a glimpse of the future across the pond where lefties like Graham Linehan and JK Rowling are now considered hatemongers for saying the shit the common populace knows but is too intimidated to say it out loud.
 
No, the National Review has always existed to channel the energy of the American Right away from things that actually work. That's why Buckley wrote the Paleo-Cons and Birchers out of the party.
Interesting point. I don't think that's entirely fair to Buckley because that was back in the 1960s. The Democrats and Republicans were not the absurd diametrically opposed enemies as they both stand today. John Birch was out there by accusing Eisenhower of being communist sympathizer. It was straight up political suicide to attack Eisenhower.

There's only one brand of Republicanism that needs to be kept in the gutter, and that's Neo-Cons.
 
Back