politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
While I understand the desire to mirror their own dumb logic back at them when they do something stupid, we really, really shouldn't be watering down the term "grooming" like this. All it's going to do is reduce the seriousness that actual grooming is taken with. Don't get me wrong - they've proven they have plenty of groomers - but this is not an example of that.
Hell, just call them a cult indoctrinating kids, because this behavior actually matches an aspect of that definition (unwavering set of beliefs that are considered outside the norms of society)
Actually, it is.
While it's true that in everyday conversation, the term "grooming" is often used in association with child predators. However, the term is used more broadly to describe any person who is conditioning someone else to commit an illegal act or do something they normally wouldn't do.
Your boss, for example, may pay you a bit over the normal salary for your job. He never denies your requests for personal time and doesn't blink when he notices you coming in a few minutes late or sneaking out early. He constantly praises you as an important member of the team. So when he's asking you to sign off on this documentation for the auditors, even though you know that the data is almost entirely fradulent.....I mean, it's no big deal and it's not like they'll ever check or anything......
Technically, that's also grooming.
Teaching children that LGBT people are bad, climate denial isn't really a thing, and slavery was good is also grooming. Start it off as a few cartoons here and there in the early grades. Then they make clubs and groups available in high school. Maybe even give some extra credit to entice kids to join. Then when they become adults, they become the next Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Really? I was not aware. I thought the actual definition required more "sexual" content.
However, I do still maintain that the specific example, which focuses only on climate change denialism and not the additional issues of further alienation of margianalized groups, does not by itself equal grooming, since, while there have been some instances of people commiting crimes with that motive, it's not a trend like hate crimes are.
That's a bit of a nitpick though because everybody knows that all that falls under the same "alt-right bullshit" umbrella, but being correct about things I say on the internet gives me a hollow sense of self satisfaction so I'm keeping the technicality.
Keep in mind that the term "grooming" has only recently (within the past decade or so) been considered something with a negative connotation, almost entirely as a result of the word being used to describe sex offenders. But as I said, it's been used for more than that historically.
Maybe I'm showing my age, but I remember times when the word was used in a much more positive manner:
And don't forget the end result of all of this: To churn out a generation of kids that become adults willing to spew out typical alt-right bullshit. This usually does include illegal activity, which is often justified by marginalizing the victims as if "they deserved it" or "it's only them, so it's no big deal", and that's assuming it's not outright accepted by their peers for attacking the "right" people. The fact that the subject is climate change makes little difference; they'll gladly attack the "tree huggers" the same way they gladly go after women or gay people now.