Red Mosquito

there's still white people doing this? c'mon, you're making us look bad. it's one word, you will be fine w/o it

BurtReynolds wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Similar, but not identical lines:

Is that even close?

"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.

Peeps wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:There's no nuance needed lol. You can criticize or judge both. At no point does the idiotic argument "it's not your call to make" become a valid argument.

You’re comparing this to segregation lol.

I knew you'd get around to that one.

"How dare you have opinions on things of differing importance! You have to stop caring about things I don't want you to think about!"

Just admit you're wrong and move on.

You went there, not me. You okay?

So you're telling me that if the schools decided they would bar certain races from attending, you'd just shrug and say "oh well, that's their decision."

you cant make this stuff up

The current Adderall shortage is such a tragedy.

.

Classic (B)urt

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Similar, but not identical lines:

Is that even close?

"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.

The Senator seems to imply that the association of that word with LBGT+ community should be forbidden, at least socially, as it promotes violence. It doesn't have the same history as the other word, but it's not so different given the ongoing the global situation wrt the LGBT+ community.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Similar, but not identical lines:

Is that even close?

"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.

The Senator seems to imply that the association of that word with LBGT+ community should be forbidden, at least socially, as it promotes violence. It doesn't have the same history as the other word, but it's not so different given the ongoing the global situation wrt the LGBT+ community.

Language is fluid. And given all that's going on right now, I don't think it's out of bounds to implore the right to stop weaponizing a term that is resulting in actual deaths. Actual bodies. But, yeah, fine, let's argue about the power of words.

Do we really think the professor doesn't want pedophile terminology used to attack LGBT individuals. I understand that in his fever to protect marginalized individuals he didn't say exactly that, but do you really think picking apart the context of his statement to destroy the spirit benefits anyone?

Would anyone care who used that word if it wasn't weaponized? Maybe straight people won't be able to use "groomer" after it's been weaponized for 400 years.

.

Watch as none of us fight with you about that

Sex pest is a funnier term anyway.

spike wrote:Sex pest is a funnier term anyway.

BurtReynolds wrote:Watch as I effortlessly continue to call pedophiles "groomers" without the slightest bit of hesitation.

I bet you aren't doing it in 2422.

B wrote:Do we really think the professor doesn't want pedophile terminology used to attack LGBT individuals. I understand that in his fever to protect marginalized individuals he didn't say exactly that, but do you really think picking apart the context of his statement to destroy the spirit benefits anyone?

Would anyone care who used that word if it wasn't weaponized? Maybe straight people won't be able to use "groomer" after it's been weaponized for 400 years.

Would it be OK for an LGBT person to call another "groomer"?

Really feels like some folks here are super missing the point.

But I'm a braindead moron so what do I know

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.

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

epilogue wrote:Really feels like some folks here are super missing the point.

But I'm a braindead moron so what do I know

I think we’re supposed to be brainwashed, not braindead.

spike wrote:

epilogue wrote:Really feels like some folks here are super missing the point.

But I'm a braindead moron so what do I know

I think we’re supposed to be brainwashed, not braindead.

Ah, right. Thank you.

I guess I'm both

epilogue wrote:

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

His ass? Gotten.