3 ms·

>By whom? From where I stand, a lot of folks have stated calling me and mine “groomers,” which is pretty critical in my book. That's a very specific thing. Chi

>By whom? From where I stand, a lot of folks have stated calling me and mine “groomers,” which is pretty critical in my book. That's a very specific thing. Children of certain ages would go great lengths to feel different from the previous generation, "cool", "hip". Decades of various subcultures from Punks to Emos is pretty solid evidence. Grooming is trying to use the need to feel different in order to convince them to do sex-related things before they have a solid intrinsic feeling for it. The motivation for groomers could be finding these children sexually attractive, trolling (deliberately convincing someone to do irreversible changes that will cause them long-term suffering), or compensating for the groomer's own childhood trauma by forcing others to relive it (the worst bullies are former bully victims). I think, this is a legitimate problem and it's important to distinguish it from initiatives that actually help children (e.g. preventing bullying based on looks). >They seem free enough to criticize to me? No mainstream media outlet ever covers this angle - it's a complete taboo. But there are plenty of examples where rather mild criticism is immediately branded homophobic/transphobic and actions are taken to prevent other people from considering this point of view. >The world broadcasts heterosexuality on every corner. I would be interested to hear some examples. >You can’t say that one group is being given “different rights” and then in the next breath say that it’s actually “non-monetary tokenism.” Rhetorically, that’s nonsensical. Respectfully disagree. People do have an intrinsic need for some amount of other's attention, and can feel it very well. Many social rituals are built around it: networking (periodically paying attention to each other), arts (having others pay attention to what you create), the concept of celebrities. The HR departments have figured out long ago that some amount of coworkers' attention can substitute a raise (in terms of lowering the % of resignations). Like the whole "employee of the month" posters. I call it non-monetary because it doesn't cost the employer nearly as much as a sizable pay raise. But it's something people subconsciously feel and track very well. You take a small amount of everyone's attention and you direct it towards a specific group or individual. People belonging to that group feel slightly rewarded, people outside it feel slightly demotivated. Like if your boss congratulated your coworker with their birthday, but didn't congratulate you.

drewbug01 4y ago
> No mainstream media outlet ever covers this angle - it's a complete taboo It isn’t a taboo; it’s fallacious. That’s the reason mainstream media doesn’t cover it: there is no epidemic of LGBT people “grooming” children. It’s a made-up thing designed to whip up a frenzy of hatred towards LGBTQ people and justify rolling back civil rights. I appreciate your lengthy discussion of what grooming is, and how you think it’s a real problem. However, in context it sounds like you are saying that my example of criticism isn’t legitimate because LGBTQ people are “groomers.” That isn’t what you meant, is it? > Respectfully disagree. Everything you say after this point is interesting, but utterly unrelated to what I said. I said it’s rhetorical nonsense to elevate “non-monetary tokenism” to a “right,” and I don’t see where you’ve engaged with that idea.
- UkrainianJew 4y ago
  >there is no epidemic of LGBT people “grooming” children. It’s a made-up thing designed to whip up a frenzy of hatred towards LGBTQ people and justify rolling back civil rights. In a country of 300M+ people there will be always plenty of examples of both. And a civilized society would attempt to discern the 2 different behaviors and find a reasonable way to distinguish them formally. The media is not doing that - it artificially divides people into 2 polar opposite camps and forces you to take side based on identity, rather than discussing specific behaviors. >However, in context it sounds like you are saying that my example of criticism isn’t legitimate because LGBTQ people are “groomers.” No, I am saying that some people are groomers. And some people are LGBTQ. And the groomers (some percentage of them being LGBTQ) would yell "homophobia" and claim that their critics are trying to steal civil liberties (while some of the critics would actually be trying to do that and trying to use anti-groomer guise for cover up). So it's important to make a distinction between behaviors (e.g. allowing gay people to marry) and affiliation (like identity-based quotas and virtue signalling), because the former is rather hard to abuse, and the latter is an abuser magnet. >Everything you say after this point is interesting, but utterly unrelated to what I said. Oh, I would argue it is. Attention is a legitimate intangible asset. Pride month is taking a small "attention tax" from everyone, and redistributing it based on identity. Stop doing that and the tensions in the society will decrease. If you want activism, divert it towards actions (like bullying is bad, regardless of the victim's identity) and you will get people to actually agree rather than splinter.

drewbug01 4y ago

> No mainstream media outlet ever covers this angle - it's a complete taboo It isn’t a taboo; it’s fallacious. That’s the reason mainstream media doesn’t cover it: there is no epidemic of LGBT people “grooming” children. It’s a made-up thing designed to whip up a frenzy of hatred towards LGBTQ people and justify rolling back civil rights. I appreciate your lengthy discussion of what grooming is, and how you think it’s a real problem. However, in context it sounds like you are saying that my example of criticism isn’t legitimate because LGBTQ people are “groomers.” That isn’t what you meant, is it? > Respectfully disagree. Everything you say after this point is interesting, but utterly unrelated to what I said. I said it’s rhetorical nonsense to elevate “non-monetary tokenism” to a “right,” and I don’t see where you’ve engaged with that idea.

UkrainianJew 4y ago
>there is no epidemic of LGBT people “grooming” children. It’s a made-up thing designed to whip up a frenzy of hatred towards LGBTQ people and justify rolling back civil rights. In a country of 300M+ people there will be always plenty of examples of both. And a civilized society would attempt to discern the 2 different behaviors and find a reasonable way to distinguish them formally. The media is not doing that - it artificially divides people into 2 polar opposite camps and forces you to take side based on identity, rather than discussing specific behaviors. >However, in context it sounds like you are saying that my example of criticism isn’t legitimate because LGBTQ people are “groomers.” No, I am saying that some people are groomers. And some people are LGBTQ. And the groomers (some percentage of them being LGBTQ) would yell "homophobia" and claim that their critics are trying to steal civil liberties (while some of the critics would actually be trying to do that and trying to use anti-groomer guise for cover up). So it's important to make a distinction between behaviors (e.g. allowing gay people to marry) and affiliation (like identity-based quotas and virtue signalling), because the former is rather hard to abuse, and the latter is an abuser magnet. >Everything you say after this point is interesting, but utterly unrelated to what I said. Oh, I would argue it is. Attention is a legitimate intangible asset. Pride month is taking a small "attention tax" from everyone, and redistributing it based on identity. Stop doing that and the tensions in the society will decrease. If you want activism, divert it towards actions (like bullying is bad, regardless of the victim's identity) and you will get people to actually agree rather than splinter.