Ello Sailor wrote:What even is the point? 90+% of groomers you hear about are hetero, cis white males. This is nothing but shit-for-brains, main character nonsense. Unbelievable.
Exhibit A
yep
also, the cis het parents of many LGBTQ+ kids will be their first abusers; "groomer" is being used as a deflection from abuses that LGBTQ+ people *ourselves* have been trying to highlight for years; but people have over and over again responded with more abuse
in the wake of a gay club shooting, I have seen people effectively arguing "if they want the violence to stop they need to stop being so sexy with kids, or something", when it's literally THIS rhetoric getting us killed
if you don't believe me its literally because you have the luxury of not having to live on the receiving side of the violence
"Groomer" isn't a forbidden word. There are certainly abusers who groom children and parents for abuse.
If you use "groomer" because someone is gay or supportive of gay rights, you're equating being gay with child abuse, which makes you a bigot, and fuck you.
Yet this dumbass California politician is associating "groomer" with "LGBTQ". Almost like he's trying to normalize the association. Kinda weird, isn't it?
Probably because the latter use of the word is far and away the primary current use.
yes, and I'd argue it always was, because attacking the LGBTQ+ community with blanket accusations of paedophilia has *always* been the net result of rhetoric like this from the right-wing / Conservative / Christian faction that has used us as a scapegoat for its own abuses
anyway I shared this dumbass's tweet and agree with it
LGBTQ+ people have named and shamed abuses time and time again (including those within our own community) but when we do it, it's just dismissed as "cancel culture"
when "groomer" is thrown back at us, though, there are vast swathes of people being fine with it, even when it results in us being shot dead
literally just yesterday I had to open Twitter and read someone saying that if Drag Queen Story Time didn't exist, these violences wouldn't happen
which is just a plain as day threat really, isn't it: stop trying to proudly exist in public in and amongst our (obviously cis het) school children, or you give us no choice but to keep putting bullets in you
Apologies that the context for this went off the rails, I was attempting to find another word that might be considered 'socially forbidden' but isn't banished like more frequent hate speech (which I will not be typing here).
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
social media is virtually my only access to regular socialisation, I'm not gonna be told that all I need to do to avoid anti-LGBT+ rhetoric is to go out and touch grass; should I quit coming here too?
Going on Twitter and complaining about the level of discourse is like going to a Dinosaur Jr. club show and complaining that it's too loud. Or eating a bowl of shit and complaining that it tastes shitty.
I have as much right to enjoy any social interaction I want as you do, but only one of us is experiencing daily violent threats when I try; if your answer to this is "just don't do anything then" instead of "how can we stop our social media being full of hate", then you can honestly get all the way fucked
fuck it, you know what? can someone with the power please ban me? it's been years and I've had good times but I'm done, and I need to have no way of coming back
