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.

 

[Screamer]

The problem with words like "grooming" is that we live in different bubbles where they have a different meaning. Which is the crux of all this culture war stuff. People get upset and argue over what the other side thinks and is saying. Yet using completely different understandings and definitions of what they are saying.


Grooming in one context means pushing gender ideology that makes no sense and is confusing. Full of contradictions. Where sex and gender are deliberately blurred and confused. Pushing very rigid gender stereotypes based around sex aligning with gender. Instructing kids that if they don't align with their sex-based gender stereotype they are not of that gender. Where the solution to this is to push for another gender and do nothing but affirm. Which can lead to puberty blockers and physical harm to kids. Where the ideology has no allowance for any reversal. Where no one actually knows if any of it is in the best interests of the kids, it is taken on faith that it is. Despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Yet to the people on the left, Grooming means trying to force people to be something they are not. They know trans exists. So they don't see acknowledging that as grooming.

Where they don't understand what is going on. They're just accepting that more informed people than them have figured out gender theory stuff. It's scientific and in the best interest of the kids. Not understanding that while trans exists, there's a wild mix of psuedo-science attached to it. Which is informed the practices of dealing with it. Where they don't understand everything is experimental and the faith aspect of it means no one can actually question it or do the science to figure it out.

Then there's the problem where different people are pushed to think the others are deliberately acting in bad faith. So no conversation is happening. People just play to their group. Terms like grooming and their different definitions reinforce each group. They look at what the other side is saying, but apply their own definitions.

The terms are good in group, but not when engaging with the outer group. So much political discourse is happening where each group has completely different definitions and understandings. So no dialogue happens. What people need to do is lay out terms and definitions when engaging, otherwise discussions can go no where.

 

[verissimus]

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.

Who is to say they wouldn't have done that anyway? It's either that or they would be written off as "bigots", "transphobes", etc.

 

[axfaxf]

Regarding the discussion about buzzwords, effective or not : Nazi, racist, and all the -phobes are all Thought Crimes.
Grooming is an actual crime.

 

[Screw Danlon]

So no dialogue happens. What people need to do is lay out terms and definitions when engaging, otherwise discussions can go no where.

No one unironically using the term ‘groomer’ is looking for discussion on the subject. It’s a silencing tactic, the same as terms like ‘Nazi’, ‘terrorist’, ‘rapist’, ‘bigot’, etc.

You can’t debate with someone you’ve designated as a groomer for the same reason a fox cannot debate with a rabbit - you have already labelled them as a danger and an anathema to society, something that cannot be allowed to exist.

And that’s why, eventually, I agree with the concern it will stop working, because you can’t label every person opposed to you as a threat to society without eventually having to either put up or shut up to avoid looking like a lunatic.

But there’s also a lot of foxes out there that need to be hunted out first.

 

[Johnny Salami]

This article is just inferring that this works and we should keep doing it

This article subtly implies we should straight up accused them of being pedophiles

 

[Local FloRida-man]

The whinging about the term groomer is ridiculous. People thinking these groups are pedophiles isn't new, and the popularity of the term groomer isn't causing an uptick in the sentiment. Even if the word was deleted from the English lexicon, everyone would still think LGBT/public education crowds were full of pedos. "Groomer" has just let them put a succint word to the feeling.

This article and anyone defending it unironically think emulating the left portion of the "right-wing meme vs left-wing meme" is how we're gonna win the culture war.

 

[Trianon]

"Haha but it's working now" completely fails basic reading comprehension of the article. Every buzzword used to actually have effect and make people on all sides take notice. Now they mean nothing and nobody cares. "Groomer" is just going to become another buzzword that means nothing and nobody cares about because like absolute monkeys you see a tactic that appears to be working and think the best possible solution is to start slamming the button over and over again full force until it breaks.

If you want the accusation of groomer to continue to carry weight, stop using it on everyone who you don't like. Or keep doing it. This time next year there'll be a thread with a bunch of people stomping their feet, whining and crying about how degenerate the world has become because nobody cares when you call them a groomer anymore. KF is about pointing and laughing at people who inflict their own troubles upon themselves, so imagine that result will only be a net positive for the site.

No, it works. Because they write endless articles about how they're totally not grooming children, they're just helping them understand their sexuality. It flushes them out because they can't help but overexplain and create new ammunition against themselves. They prove the groomer charge is correct with their own words.

 

[xQc]

Whats up with the whole don't say gay bill. Wasn't it for like grades K-3, ya know little children? Fuck I remember getting my first sex ed lesson but that wasn't till like 6th grade. Why are they fighting to teach like 8 year olds that some teachers like to suck dick or want to chop said dick off. Pretty absurd.

 

[CaesarCzech]

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. Does that help your crippling ADD?

Ok Groomer.

 

[Allanon]

Whats up with the whole don't say gay bill. Wasn't it for like grades K-3, ya know little children? Fuck I remember getting my first sex ed lesson but that wasn't till like 6th grade. Why are they fighting to teach like 8 year olds that some teachers like to suck dick or want to chop said dick off. Pretty absurd.

It's a bill that just says you can't teach graphic sex ed to kids for like K-3, yeah. It's actually an incredibly minor and relatively ineffectual bill, but it was created just to kick a hornet's nest and make Ron look good with the easy snipes he'd get when the Dems reacted as they very predictably would. It's barely more than a PR stunt, really, but the opponents to the bill have succeeded in making themselves look like absolute jesters in an attempt to make Ron look bad.

 

[CaesarCzech]

The problem with words like "grooming" is that we live in different bubbles where they have a different meaning. Which is the crux of all this culture war stuff. People get upset and argue over what the other side thinks and is saying. Yet using completely different understandings and definitions of what they are saying.


Grooming in one context means pushing gender ideology that makes no sense and is confusing. Full of contradictions. Where sex and gender are deliberately blurred and confused. Pushing very rigid gender stereotypes based around sex aligning with gender. Instructing kids that if they don't align with their sex-based gender stereotype they are not of that gender. Where the solution to this is to push for another gender and do nothing but affirm. Which can lead to puberty blockers and physical harm to kids. Where the ideology has no allowance for any reversal. Where no one actually knows if any of it is in the best interests of the kids, it is taken on faith that it is. Despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Yet to the people on the left, Grooming means trying to force people to be something they are not. They know trans exists. So they don't see acknowledging that as grooming.

Where they don't understand what is going on. They're just accepting that more informed people than them have figured out gender theory stuff. It's scientific and in the best interest of the kids. Not understanding that while trans exists, there's a wild mix of psuedo-science attached to it. Which is informed the practices of dealing with it. Where they don't understand everything is experimental and the faith aspect of it means no one can actually question it or do the science to figure it out.

Then there's the problem where different people are pushed to think the others are deliberately acting in bad faith. So no conversation is happening. People just play to their group. Terms like grooming and their different definitions reinforce each group. They look at what the other side is saying, but apply their own definitions.

The terms are good in group, but not when engaging with the outer group. So much political discourse is happening where each group has completely different definitions and understandings. So no dialogue happens. What people need to do is lay out terms and definitions when engaging, otherwise discussions can go no where.

Hopefully the Massacre starts soon so we can get back to normal.

 

[Jubileus]

Yeah, this Marquess of Queensbury rules shit can fuck right off, along with all the McCain and Romney wannabes that keep wanting to look good while they cordially lose by 5pm so they can get to their 6pm cocktails with the people kicking their asses. Fuck your idea of a self-righteous moral high ground. Know what the actual moral high ground is? Not grooming children, that's the fucking moral high ground here, and anybody opposed to that stance is, in fact and objective reality, a fucking groomer and should be called out as such, loudly and often.

There's no rainy day to save the word for, assholes. They're grooming your goddamn children right now. That makes them groomers right now. Call them on it. If you're squeamish and iffy about that, then you're groomer-adjacent and fuck putting "-adjacent" so you're just a groomer too and I'll call you as such too, groomer.

Now clutch those pearls of yours and fuck off, groomers.

 

[The Ugly One]

The problem with words like "grooming" is that we live in different bubbles where they have a different meaning. Which is the crux of all this culture war stuff. People get upset and argue over what the other side thinks and is saying. Yet using completely different understandings and definitions of what they are saying.


Grooming in one context means pushing gender ideology that makes no sense and is confusing. Full of contradictions. Where sex and gender are deliberately blurred and confused. Pushing very rigid gender stereotypes based around sex aligning with gender. Instructing kids that if they don't align with their sex-based gender stereotype they are not of that gender. Where the solution to this is to push for another gender and do nothing but affirm. Which can lead to puberty blockers and physical harm to kids. Where the ideology has no allowance for any reversal. Where no one actually knows if any of it is in the best interests of the kids, it is taken on faith that it is. Despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Yet to the people on the left, Grooming means trying to force people to be something they are not. They know trans exists. So they don't see acknowledging that as grooming.

Where they don't understand what is going on. They're just accepting that more informed people than them have figured out gender theory stuff. It's scientific and in the best interest of the kids. Not understanding that while trans exists, there's a wild mix of psuedo-science attached to it. Which is informed the practices of dealing with it. Where they don't understand everything is experimental and the faith aspect of it means no one can actually question it or do the science to figure it out.

Then there's the problem where different people are pushed to think the others are deliberately acting in bad faith. So no conversation is happening. People just play to their group. Terms like grooming and their different definitions reinforce each group. They look at what the other side is saying, but apply their own definitions.

The terms are good in group, but not when engaging with the outer group. So much political discourse is happening where each group has completely different definitions and understandings. So no dialogue happens. What people need to do is lay out terms and definitions when engaging, otherwise discussions can go no where.

The purpose of the grooming accusation isn't to convince people with nonfunctioning brains who believe whatever CNN tells them. Those people still believe Trump was a Russian plant. The purpose is to rally the troops to action, get them to purge the perverts and pedophiles from our schools and institutions, to stop treating the troon menace as something that can be reasonably compromised with. The goal is to get people on the right to stop treating anyone promoting this trans shit as well-meaning, if a bit misguided, or perhaps even representing a valid group in society we can compromise with. It's to convince our side to treat them the same way we treat pedophiles, because functionally, anyone who wants to troon out kids is no better than a pedophile. Maybe worse. No amount of therapy can recover a boy from having his penis amputated and his puberty denied.

In politics, the loudest, angriest side wins. Up until now, that's always been whatever gaggle of freaks and savages the left is promoting. Time to push back. Time to push these freaks into the sea.

It's a bill that just says you can't teach graphic sex ed to kids for like K-3, yeah. It's actually an incredibly minor and relatively ineffectual bill, but it was created just to kick a hornet's nest and make Ron look good with the easy snipes he'd get when the Dems reacted as they very predictably would. It's barely more than a PR stunt, really, but the opponents to the bill have succeeded in making themselves look like absolute jesters in an attempt to make Ron look bad.

The Democrats proved that their goal really is what we've been saying it is. They're perverts who want to groom kids. None of them said, "Fucking what, there's a picture of dudes sucking each other off in a book for seven-year-olds? What the FUCK. Who let these sick freaks into our party? Fucking fix this, somebody get these motherfuckers out of our schools!" No, instead they went into a hysterical meltdown, insisting that the ability of teachers to show gay porn to children is an essential part of early childhood education.

 

[Male Idiot]

Lgbtq=pedophile.

You forgot about weimar did you guys?

 

[Kknd]

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.

Just stop grooming children. Just stop

 

[The Wicked Mitch]

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.

Anyone who wants to bother children with their sexual degeneracy and overall mental illness should be banned from working with them or being in any way involved with shaping their minds.

 

[Allanon]

The purpose of the grooming accusation isn't to convince people with nonfunctioning brains who believe whatever CNN tells them. Those people still believe Trump was a Russian plant. The purpose is to rally the troops to action, get them to purge the perverts and pedophiles from our schools and institutions, to stop treating the troon menace as something that can be reasonably compromised with. The goal is to get people on the right to stop treating anyone promoting this trans shit as well-meaning, if a bit misguided, or perhaps even representing a valid group in society we can compromise with. It's to convince our side to treat them the same way we treat pedophiles, because functionally, anyone who wants to troon out kids is no better than a pedophile. Maybe worse. No amount of therapy can recover a boy from having his penis amputated and his puberty denied.

In politics, the loudest, angriest side wins. Up until now, that's always been whatever gaggle of freaks and savages the left is promoting. Time to push back. Time to push these freaks into the sea.



The Democrats proved that their goal really is what we've been saying it is. They're perverts who want to groom kids. None of them said, "Fucking what, there's a picture of dudes sucking each other off in a book for seven-year-olds? What the FUCK. Who let these sick freaks into our party? Fucking fix this, somebody get these motherfuckers out of our schools!" No, instead they went into a hysterical meltdown, insisting that the ability of teachers to show gay porn to children is an essential part of early childhood education.

I mean, not really, though? It's sad and pathetic that they didn't react in a human and normal way, but politics have become so mindnumbingly extreme at this point that they no longer care what they're saying in the moment, only that it is opposing the opposite side. That's why none of them are having a meltdown about the actual content of the bill, and why the bill itself isn't really some silver bullet. The bill is designed to provoke the democrats by targeting gay propaganda, but in such a safe - and therefore ineffective - way that he can't get in trouble for it. The Democrats then saw a bill targeting gay things in school by a popular Republican, ignored the actual content of the bill, and attempted to leverage it for outrage points with their own and moderate parties.

In this case it made the Democrats look like clowns, but there's no cultural shift going on, no 'pushing them off into the sea'. This literally isn't even the first bill designed to stop explicit sex ed for kids in kindergarten. Zero ground has been gained against actual indoctrination, because even though explicit material was available most of the kids those age weren't actually reading it. Democrats aren't being ostracised or 'outed' by this. People are just doing what they've consistently done since the W era (maybe since Reagan) and run with tiny victories like they're huge paradigm shifts that change everything, rally the troops, and rout their enemy.

Anyone who wants to bother children with their sexual degeneracy and overall mental illness should be banned from working with them or being in any way involved with shaping their minds.

I don't disagree. If you can't stick to actual life skills as a school teacher, you shouldn't be one.

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

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.

Then it should be relatively simple to shame them into fucking off.

"Ohhh noooo but you're being mean and unfair to them."

Yes, and they're grooming children so let's call it a wash.

 

[Meth Kennedy]

I have to agree with the general idea that calling everyone a groomer is very counterproductive long-term, but a hit dog will holler and there is real evil out there who wants to prey on your kids. A lot of the people who get really mad about this give me the stranger danger heeby jeebies and I would not let them have access to a goddamn goldfish let alone a child unsupervised. The word is actually working.

However... This reminds me of "Pizzagate" because the same schizophrenic retards who get mad when you tell them to cool it a little bit ran that right into the ground too. I'm not saying everyone had to be on their best behavior and do the "optics" game, but for Pete's sake maybe remember that most people are not permanently on the internet.

 

[Allanon]

I have to agree with the general idea that calling everyone a groomer is very counterproductive long-term, but a hit dog will holler and there is real evil out there who wants to prey on your kids. A lot of the people who get really mad about this give me the stranger danger heeby jeebies and I would not let them have access to a goddamn goldfish let alone a child unsupervised. The word is actually working.

However... This reminds me of "Pizzagate" because the same schizophrenic retards who get mad when you tell them to cool it a little bit ran that right into the ground too. I'm not saying everyone had to be on their best behavior and do the "optics" game, but for Pete's sake maybe remember that most people are not permanently on the internet.

This is generally my take as well. The same morons who took a small victory and ran it into the ground because they have zero discretion or ability to read a room are the same ones taking a small victory and starting the cycle over again.