4 ms·

Well, it depends. I've never heard this term "groomer" before. I don't even understand the term but it sounds like there's a community or subculture out there t

by chrsw 4y ago

Well, it depends. I've never heard this term "groomer" before. I don't even understand the term but it sounds like there's a community or subculture out there that takes it very seriously. So, if I were in public spaces where people from that community where known to communicate with one another I would absolutely want to know if something I said was offensive or hateful. I would expect to have the issue brought to my attention if I inadvertantly said something problematic. I'm not trying to hurt anyone, I just want to talk with people. I don't feel like my free speech is being impinged upon either.

iudqnolq 4y ago
The term originally referred to an adult gradually influencing a child to make them vulnerable to sexual abuse. Now it's commonly used to refer to teaching children progressive values, which I think is hateful. It's also generally used in extremely low signal comments. For example, a person might talk on Twitter about how they think teachers putting up posters saying they support gay students is helpful. They'd then get tens of replies with only the exact phrase "Ok groomer".
- the_doctah 4y ago
  >The term originally referred to an adult gradually influencing a child to make them vulnerable to sexual abuse. Now it's commonly used to refer to teaching children progressive values, which I think is hateful. The problem is, you seem to be intentionally misconstruing the definition of the word "hateful" in order to categorize words you don't like as "hate speech". There is no other way that the thing you described meets any reasonable definition of "hate".
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    Saying teaching a child progressive values is similar to teaching a child to be vulnerable to sexual abuse is accusing progressives of being like sexual abusers of children. That's hateful. (I deliberely didn't say hate speech)
    - tiahura 4y ago
      teaching a child progressive values We aren’t talking about lectures extolling high marginal rates. Some parents object to exposing children to inappropriate sexual themes for the purpose of conditioning them to accept the same as normal, i.e. grooming.
      - iudqnolq 4y ago
        I wasn't talking about that. When that happens I find it alarming. I've yet to see the snide throwaway line "Ok Groomer" used in a case of actual child sexual abuse.
      - pgcj_poster 4y ago
        That is not generally occurring, and even it were, it would not qualify as "grooming." Grooming is when an adult tries to gain the trust of a child so that they can manipulate and eventually sexually assault them. If a teacher showed furry porn to kids in class to teach them that it's normal to be a furry, that would be extremely inappropriate, but it would still not be grooming unless the teacher also planned to have sex with them.
  - boplicity 4y ago
    Hate speech is usually full of euphamisms, indirect language, and inference. It also often depends a lot of context. In the specific case of the use of "grooming," I can see how it is not obvious that this is hate speech, but once you connect the dots, based on the context, it becomes quite obvious. For example, teaching books that feature any LGBTQ characters has been called "grooming." What is the usual definition of grooming? Preparing a child for sexual abuse, which is morally reprehensible -- a behavior that is, frankly, deserving of hate. However, when the only reason "grooming" is brought up is specifically because a book feature a gay character, we are expected to "hate" the "morally reprehensible." Why is it morally reprehensible (hateful), in this context? Certainly not because children are being groomed for sexual abuse. The only reason is that the gay character is in the book. Now, some people might think that presenting characters that are gay is morally reprehensible. They might think the same thing about featuring Black characters, Asians, Jews, or some other group. It's all hate speech. Even if it's not using the most blatantly obvious inflammatory language.
  - dillondoyle 4y ago
    It does in the context we are talking about it. The only reason it's up for discussion is because it's being used as hate attack against queer communities and those standing up against censoring of teachers, students, and banning of books on lgbtq topics and gender.
dillondoyle 4y ago
We are talking about it because Republicans are using it as a slur in political arguments. There is strong pushback against DeSantis' Don't Say Gay Bil, there has been a mass banning of LGBTQ books in schools, and plenty of other attacks/laws on the community (mostly in just a couple states whose Govs are running for Pres...) The response of the proponents, which sadly seems politically effective, is to label anyone who objects to these laws groomers. Implying/whistling that queer people exist because they were groomed, e.g. sexual predator turned them gay. It is aimed at queer people. * And ironically those of us who are standing up against, you guessed it.... free speech. *

by chrsw 4y ago

iudqnolq 4y ago

The term originally referred to an adult gradually influencing a child to make them vulnerable to sexual abuse. Now it's commonly used to refer to teaching children progressive values, which I think is hateful. It's also generally used in extremely low signal comments. For example, a person might talk on Twitter about how they think teachers putting up posters saying they support gay students is helpful. They'd then get tens of replies with only the exact phrase "Ok groomer".

the_doctah 4y ago
>The term originally referred to an adult gradually influencing a child to make them vulnerable to sexual abuse. Now it's commonly used to refer to teaching children progressive values, which I think is hateful. The problem is, you seem to be intentionally misconstruing the definition of the word "hateful" in order to categorize words you don't like as "hate speech". There is no other way that the thing you described meets any reasonable definition of "hate".
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  Saying teaching a child progressive values is similar to teaching a child to be vulnerable to sexual abuse is accusing progressives of being like sexual abusers of children. That's hateful. (I deliberely didn't say hate speech)
  - tiahura 4y ago
    teaching a child progressive values We aren’t talking about lectures extolling high marginal rates. Some parents object to exposing children to inappropriate sexual themes for the purpose of conditioning them to accept the same as normal, i.e. grooming.
    - iudqnolq 4y ago
      I wasn't talking about that. When that happens I find it alarming. I've yet to see the snide throwaway line "Ok Groomer" used in a case of actual child sexual abuse.
    - pgcj_poster 4y ago
      That is not generally occurring, and even it were, it would not qualify as "grooming." Grooming is when an adult tries to gain the trust of a child so that they can manipulate and eventually sexually assault them. If a teacher showed furry porn to kids in class to teach them that it's normal to be a furry, that would be extremely inappropriate, but it would still not be grooming unless the teacher also planned to have sex with them.
- boplicity 4y ago
  Hate speech is usually full of euphamisms, indirect language, and inference. It also often depends a lot of context. In the specific case of the use of "grooming," I can see how it is not obvious that this is hate speech, but once you connect the dots, based on the context, it becomes quite obvious. For example, teaching books that feature any LGBTQ characters has been called "grooming." What is the usual definition of grooming? Preparing a child for sexual abuse, which is morally reprehensible -- a behavior that is, frankly, deserving of hate. However, when the only reason "grooming" is brought up is specifically because a book feature a gay character, we are expected to "hate" the "morally reprehensible." Why is it morally reprehensible (hateful), in this context? Certainly not because children are being groomed for sexual abuse. The only reason is that the gay character is in the book. Now, some people might think that presenting characters that are gay is morally reprehensible. They might think the same thing about featuring Black characters, Asians, Jews, or some other group. It's all hate speech. Even if it's not using the most blatantly obvious inflammatory language.
- dillondoyle 4y ago
  It does in the context we are talking about it. The only reason it's up for discussion is because it's being used as hate attack against queer communities and those standing up against censoring of teachers, students, and banning of books on lgbtq topics and gender.

dillondoyle 4y ago

We are talking about it because Republicans are using it as a slur in political arguments. There is strong pushback against DeSantis' Don't Say Gay Bil, there has been a mass banning of LGBTQ books in schools, and plenty of other attacks/laws on the community (mostly in just a couple states whose Govs are running for Pres...) The response of the proponents, which sadly seems politically effective, is to label anyone who objects to these laws groomers. Implying/whistling that queer people exist because they were groomed, e.g. sexual predator turned them gay. It is aimed at queer people. * And ironically those of us who are standing up against, you guessed it.... free speech. *