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

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-groomer-accusation-is-counterproductive/

https://archive.ph/2NxWp

“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.

 

[The handsome tard]

I will stop calling you groomers when you stop being pedophiles

Which is never

These people are not innocent of grooming children for bodily mutilation.

And you don't even have to know anything about queer theory to know that they intend to prep your kid for sexual abuse as well.

Fuck these limp-dicked conservatives, and their fear of WINNING for once.

They are controlled opposition. RINOs

Thats why, despite being conservative, I kind of hate how passive they are, at least the ones that could do some real difference.
Thats why we adore DeSantis, he feels like someone actually ACTUALLY doing something towards solving the problem without giving a shit what these fucks say about him.

 

[Allanon]

I tend to lump in pedophiles with pedophile enablers.

If they're directly enabling them, sure. But most of these people have no sexual interests toward kids whatsoever and would be horrified by the idea of anyone having sexual interest toward children. The kinds of people who believe in teaching kindergartners about genderfluidity and gay marriage are also the kind of people who think if you like the idea of Rogue from the X-Men movies getting with Wolverine in a fictional context you're enabling pedophiles and should therefore die. They are not themselves groomers nor do they support it intentionally, and so using the term on them repeatedly devalues it.

More importantly, the article is less about this specific situation and more about the fact that people are starting to use the term 'groomer' more and more, and the perceived success of it in this situation will only cause it to happen with increasing frequency going forward, under the false impression it will get 'wins' when what's really going to happen is that it's going to devalue into uselessness like every other buzzword.

 

[b0x]

If they're directly enabling them, sure. But most of these people have no sexual interests toward kids whatsoever and would be horrified by the idea of anyone having sexual interest toward children.

Can you be sure of that? If they are willing to teach 5 year olds about sex, whether intentionally or not, they've entered grooming territory in my book. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Fomo Hoire]

I read it, it just seems like it could be summed up with "stopping using terms that are effective." Like when all the National Review types went to their fainting couches over being called cucks. They had to get their wives two bulls that night to recover.

Term may lose effectiveness, sure, but it's working now. Stop being McClellan to the base's Grant.

The funny thing is they don't even really show that terms lose effectiveness. They included a list of other terms in the article, themself

And it’s not because leftists, who habitually dehumanize and smear their opponents as racists, rapists, bigots, and nihilists, don’t deserve it.

YMMV regionally but, as far as I can tell, people aren't afraid of being racist, rapist, or bigot. But they are afraid of the consequences and mob mentality following the accusation. We even got boys pre-emptively accusing girls of rape so the girl can't Title IX them.

Nihilist? Do the left use that as a smear? I'd expect it to be the other way around, what with the religious right and all.

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?

It worked for Democrats with Wuhan, it worked for them in Minnesota, it worked for them in Georgia, and it's still fucking working now. Again YMMV regionally but over here we still got mask mandates this year, and some organizations (that are not primarily focused around Healthcare, Food, or the Elderly) still have those mandates today.

It might not always work, but it works often enough to keep doing it. And look what happens when it works. Little Hitlers, a disarmed and terrorized populace, control of the senate (and they didn't even have to pay the full 2k for it!), and people so desperate for any sense of normalcy that they'll forgive any transgression and lick boots just to be permitted temporary access to their old freedoms.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Full offense but these mucho texto essays are not gonna be read by anyone but yourself

They're not even that long, though. They just packed with stuff you don't like, presented as "uncomfortable truths"-- the reality of truthfulness aside.

And, you know what? I kind of agree. At some point, this is going to stop being effective-- either because they'll go mask-off and all but say they want to groom your children while being in a position of being supported by society and its powers at large, or because they'll stop caring about the jeers of people who mostly aren't truly thinking about what they're communicating when they call someone a "groomer" (there will likely come a time when a substantial portion of people throwing around this epithet will not be able to explain exactly why they're doing so), much less people who generally ideologically oppose them-- especially since the situation is technically somewhat more nuanced than "they're grooming your kids!". I imagine the majority of the teachers that give instructions like "don't talk to your parents about what we talked about here", or administrators that keep away from parents the fact that they're providing spaces for their children to crossdress and act out a sexual delusion, aren't themselves trying to prime these children for "willing" sexual activity with adults. Rather, it's more likely that they're suggesting to students to do what they had to do themselves as closeted teenagers, delusionally believing them to be kindred spirits.

That doesn't mean that what they're doing isn't any less harmful. They encourage children to become sexually confused based on not neatly fitting sexual stereotypes. They will then, based on a disposition they instigated, encourage them to take drugs that will render them infertile and globally stunted, in addition to setting them up for a host of chronic illnesses like gonadal cancers, sepsis, and osteoporosis. They introduce their gender studies nonsense even in the course of subjects such as English or math. In particular jurisdictions, they will allow students to leave campus in order to pick up their puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

But the current efficacy of the epithet cannot be understated, and I couldn't say what epithet that better addresses the issue as a whole would also be at least as effective as "groomer". Especially since, even if it's not an accurate barb, those to whom it's directed then have to explain themselves, and it becomes clear that what they're actually doing isn't much better. More than that, the chance to reconsider the epithet is almost certainly long gone-- trying to change course now could only be seen as ceding ground to an actually harmful opposition, and merely making longer but more accurate charges against said opposition won't have the same offensive power as "groomer".

Perhaps it's not necessary to be as accurate as conceivably possible when trying to smother clearly harmful trends.

 

[Allanon]

Can you be sure of that? If they are willing to teach 5 year olds about sex, whether intentionally or not, they've entered grooming territory in my book. Actions speak louder than words.

That's a pretty wide definition, though. It's fair if that's your individual definition but what matters for the subject at hand is what the average person is going to think. The average person is going to recoil at the idea of teaching a five year old about sex - this has been repeatedly proven recently - but they're probably not going to jump to "everyone who supports this idea literally wants to have sex with those children". It's an extremely serious accusation, but it's going to become way less serious if the morons flopping around going "LOL WHEN YOU CALL A GROOMER A GROOMER THEY GET UPSET AND WE WIN GUYS!!" continue to treat it like some kind of trump card they can pull on their political opponents over and over.

You can say that's not what's happening, but I think the thread responding to the article with comments like 'lol cuckservatives can't stand winning' indicates it is.

 

[Absolutego]

Really the groomer sperging is just making it easier for the media to reframe anyone questioning LGBT education for elementary schoolers as QAnon-tier schizos. Take HHH using that as his go-to insult over the last few weeks as an indicator of the narrative your average shitlib is going to start pushing in response, and it'll probably work on unplugged moderates.

Talking more about what, specifically, is being taught, and asking why the hell literal children need exposure to that level of detail to what are fundamentally adult sexual concepts, will win you more with the masses than replying to any and all opposition with "LOL OK GROOMER".

 

[RodgerDodger]

The goal of the National Review is to get Conservatives and Republicans to lose, but lose politely. They are complete frauds.

 

[TerminalTryHard]

Ah yes the "if you kill your enemies, they win" argument. I have to say I'm kind of impressed, Its probably hard to be such a cuckservative that you become indistinguishable from a Canadian liberal.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

if the entire breadth of your strategy to own the libs is calling them a mean word until it no longer matters, you're a cuck.

This argument assumes that you're correct and the word is being overused. You haven't proven your point, just explained your theory.

Does that help your crippling ADD?

Your inability to keep it succinct is not your readers' ADD.

calling them a mean word until it no longer matters, you're a cuck

hahaha ok doomer groomer

 

[Exelxi]

Reminder that National Review was literally created by an "ex"-CIA to provide a controlled opposition.
Of course they would criticize a 'conservative' strategy that actually works.
Those people are groomers, they sexualize and mind-bend the kids with the intend to use the positions of authority to exploit their not-yet-developed-sexuality for political and self-masturbatory gains of "liberation" .

That's a pretty wide definition, though. It's fair if that's your individual definition but what matters for the subject at hand is what the average person is going to think. The average person is going to recoil at the idea of teaching a five year old about sex - this has been repeatedly proven recently - but they're probably not going to jump to "everyone who supports this idea literally wants to have sex with those children". It's an extremely serious accusation, but it's going to become way less serious if the morons flopping around going "LOL WHEN YOU CALL A GROOMER A GROOMER THEY GET UPSET AND WE WIN GUYS!!" continue to treat it like some kind of trump card they can pull on their political opponents over and over.

You can say that's not what's happening, but I think the thread responding to the article with comments like 'lol cuckservatives can't stand winning' indicates it is.

Look at this fucking faggot. You're completely out of your mind if you think any of your political enemies will pat you on the back for saying "look gawys akshually nobody wants to actively fuck kids, it's not as simple mkay" or will stop grooming your kid into becoming a tranny via discord or just the education system.

The fact that even 'conservatives' are writing about it means it's working.

 

[InsulindianPhasmid]

I don’t think all of these people are paedophiles. However, the ones that aren’t have extremely poor understanding about safeguarding children from predators. The “wisdom” they are imparting on very young kids is confusing and very age-inappropriate, and it teaches little kids it is fine for an adult to talk to them about masturbation (for example), which erodes boundaries and makes them vulnerable to actual paedophiles.

A lot of these people are well-intentioned, but their problem is they think their opinion is the morally correct one, and they want to remove the rights of parents to decide what principles of sexual ethics they teach their own kids! It is incredibly disrespectful to parents, as well as dangerous to children.

In my opinion paedophiles will be much less of a problem if there wasn’t an entire army of useful idiots making it easier for them to groom children and erode their boundaries and the parent/child relationship.

I think sex and relationship education is extremely important and it needs to be delivered gradually, in age appropriate increments, without any ideology (be it leftist genderwank or right wing abstinence only crap). Teachers should stick to facts, keep things neutral and keep their own personal anecdotes out of it- kids don’t need to know shit about their teacher’s personal life outside of school.

 

[RodgerDodger]

The goal of the National Review is to get Conservatives and Republicans to lose, but lose politely. They are complete frauds.

Bill Kristal and the National Review are the same pack of "Cruise Ship Conservatives" that keep trying to push McMuffin on us.

They also harbor actual pedophiles, in case you are wondering why they wish us to take the high road over "Groomers" . One of the top Lincoln Project guys is a Groomer

 

[X Prime]

So let me get this straight.

Anyone left of Mussolini can overuse terms and words as much as they like, without any significant pushback, for literally 4+ years.

We're in month, let's say 2, of "OK groomer" and it's already a problem?

That seems a bit convenient.

 

[More AWS-8Q Than You]

So let me get this straight.

Anyone left of Mussolini can overuse terms and words as much as they like, without any significant pushback, for literally 4+ years.

We're in month, let's say 2, of "OK groomer" and it's already a problem?

That seems a bit convenient.

The entire American political and foreign police structure post WW2 is about preventing WW3. Part of that is our pie-in-the-sky insistence at making liberal democracies with globally integrated economies over seas, the other part is a simplistic "Hitler right wing, right wing bad," view. The American Right must be contained and bled of energy, or else the next Hitler will magically appear. This is part of why the Republicans never get anything done, just bled the base of its energy. Even Rush Limbaugh realized towards the end that he'd been used as a pressure valve by the establishment.

Amusingly, this very simplistic view will likely produce the next Hitler or Caesar or whatever, once Americans actually have nothing to lose.

 

[X Prime]

I'm not convinced that the constant drumbeat of "Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!" is actually ineffective.

Yes, normies may tune it out. However, tuning it out includes throwing up their hands and letting whiny left-wing brats have a good chunk of what they want in the hopes that maybe they will shut up. Which they never do.

 

[Allanon]

Reminder that National Review was literally created by an "ex"-CIA to provide a controlled opposition.
Of course they would criticize a 'conservative' strategy that actually works.
Those people are groomers, they sexualize and mind-bend the kids with the intend to use the positions of authority to exploit their not-yet-developed-sexuality for political and self-masturbatory gains of "liberation" .

Look at this fucking faggot. You're completely out of your mind if you think any of your political enemies will pat you on the back for saying "look gawys akshually nobody wants to actively fuck kids, it's not as simple mkay" or will stop grooming your kid into becoming a tranny via discord or just the education system.

The fact that even 'conservatives' are writing about it means it's working.

Forming all of your opinions based on 'what will my political enemies think?!' is brain dead. But so is thinking that you, a random nobody, has 'political enemies'. Being extreme and painting people you dislike with a broad brush of some mean word or another is idiotic and ineffective when leftists do it, and it's idiotic and ineffective when people on the right do it. If you think somehow 'groomer' is in any way different from cuck, simp, or sjw in the long term just because it's indicating criminal activity, I question whether you suffer from brain damage.

I'm not convinced that the constant drumbeat of "Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!" is actually ineffective.

Yes, normies may tune it out. However, tuning it out includes throwing up their hands and letting whiny left-wing brats have a good chunk of what they want in the hopes that maybe they will shut up. Which they never do.

Normies just ignore it. It's ineffective. The only reason it appears to have an effect is because it's used to label acceptable targets and unwanted elements by their own side. Until there are groups of right wing thugs running around punching people for being called an SJW groomer and hugely powerful conglomerates who are deeply devoted to right wing politics and ready to fire and blacklist those who dare step out of line, you will never replicate this effect from the other side. You will only see the true effect, which is engagement fatigue.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

A lot of these people are well-intentioned, but their problem is they think their opinion is the morally correct one, and they want to remove the rights of parents to decide what principles of sexual ethics they teach their own kids! It is incredibly disrespectful to parents, as well as dangerous to children.

> Well Intentioned

Probably makes it even more insidious if what you're saying is true. But you really have to work hard to justify it to yourself regardless.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”​

- CS Lewis

 

[Weppers]

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.

This is a lie and you know it. There are millions of people who hear someone called a nazi 10,000 times and their mental image of that person becomes a nazi, to the point where every Republican office holder feels the burning need to insist they are not a nazi at all every time they speak. It plants the idea in the heads of everyone that's not really paying attention, hearing the accusation over and over. It creates the frame of reference the bulk of the population works within.

Today's Democrats do want to abuse children and make life easier for other people that want to abuse children. It is true that they are groomers, and calling them that over and over will plant the idea in millions of people's heads. That needs to happen and it is a good thing that it finally is. You are just being a useless, retarded autist by insisting that it's all wrong because you think you've found some technical inaccuracy in calling groomers what they are too much, too often.

Stop posting and kill yourself.

 

[Marvin]

I tend to lump in pedophiles with pedophile enablers.

I agree although there's wisdom in keeping the association tight. I keep it within anyone arguing for childhood transition and puberty blockers.