Zone1 Calling/accusing other members "groomer"

[Damaged Eagle]

Idk how to stop all this. Wish I did. I know kids in kindergarten don't need to be putting condoms on bananas. I do know that.

Not possible by mere mortals...

*****SMILE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No, we accuse GROOMERS, of being groomers. Just because you are gay, does not make you a groomer.

But, if you are a hetero, and you sexualise children so that you can rape them, you ARE a groomer.

The same applies to the LGBTQ community, if you sexualise children you are doing it for the explicit purpose of raping them in the future.

That is the ONLY reason for grooming kids.

I just found out something interesting and kinda' related to the current subject.

I can't PM you. I appears you're blocked in some manner.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Natural Citizen]

But I wonder when I am accused of being a 'threat to democracy', 'terrorist', 'insurrectionist', supporting a coup or other illegal acts, why is that permitted but calling somebody a 'groomer' is not tolerated? What distinction makes the difference?...

...Singling out one or two illegal activities such as 'grooming' and 'pedophilia' does raise questions why those terms are protected by policy and other criminal activity is not?

Great question. I've asked it myself.

It's particularly concerning given that I've seen staff members insinuate the crime consistently.

 

[Mac-7]

Calling someone a "groomer enabler" is the same thing as calling them a groomer. Don't twist it. Don't imply it.

You can question people on their views without accusing.

View attachment 753952

Now you have crossed the line

If a member supports and defends school boards and public libraries that are engaged in grooming children those members should not be sacred cows who are above criticism

 

[Mac-7]

Great question. I've asked it myself.

It's particularly concerning given that I've seen staff members insinuate the crime consistently.

Also calling white conservatives “bigots” and “racists” which this mod seems to be ok with

 

[Man of Ethics]

Being Mr./Ms. Hyde is the natural state of many or most people. Mr./Ms. Hyde is extremely keen on accusing his/her opponents of all mortal sins and wishing the worst possible calamities on them.

Society requires people to be Dr. Jekyll. After all, Society can not function if everyone acts aggressively.

 

[Fueri]

Utter nonsense. Will the use of 'Nazis', used in a similar manner here for literally years, be similarly banned, and, no, I'm not suggesting that..

This is a joke, and I've never used the term here towards another member.

All groomers are not pedos, nor does the usage infer that, at this point.

Sometimes, quite often obviously, they're just morons supporting the latest narrative. Defending actions that would be undertaken by groomers etc.

We understand why the left hates this so much, although after years of being called Nazis in the same derogatory vein, I find it laughable that they are suddenly concerned about the use of this sort of loaded pejorative language.

Whiny little bitches.

 

[Mac-7]

Utter nonsense. Will the use of 'Nazis', used in a similar manner here for literally years, be similarly banned, and, no, I'm not suggesting that..

This is a joke, and I've never used the term here towards another member.

All groomers are not pedos, nor does the usage infer that, at this point.

Sometimes, quite often obviously, they're just morons supporting the latest narrative. Defending actions that would be undertaken by groomers etc.

We understand why the left hates this so much, although after years of being called Nazis in the same derogatory vein, I find it laughable that they are suddenly concerned about the use of this sort of loaded pejorative language.

Whiny little bitches.

The mod has his thumb on the lib side of the balance scale

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Now that pedophiles minor attracted persons are a protected identity group here at USMB, should we all assume that you are in discussion to make cannibals human flesh connoisseurs the next one?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Utter nonsense. Will the use of 'Nazis', used in a similar manner here for literally years, be similarly banned, and, no, I'm not suggesting that..

This is a joke, and I've never used the term here towards another member.

All groomers are not pedos, nor does the usage infer that, at this point.

Sometimes, quite often obviously, they're just morons supporting the latest narrative. Defending actions that would be undertaken by groomers etc.

We understand why the left hates this so much, although after years of being called Nazis in the same derogatory vein, I find it laughable that they are suddenly concerned about the use of this sort of loaded pejorative language.

Whiny little bitches.

"The revolution will be complete when the language is perfect" -- George Orwell.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Under NO circumstances are forum members allowed to call and/or accuse another member of being a child groomer.

If someone on this forum is suspected of being a groomer or pedophile, DM the mods and tell us why you suspect it and give us the evidence. We will look into it and notify the proper authorities.

This "ruling" applies to member-on-member usage. Posting threads about legit news and events concerning child grooming IS allowed. When posting replies in those threads, keep the personal attacks OUT - absolutely NO accusations towards members of this forum that can be construed as calling them a groomer or pedophile. You can and should question members on their views if you do not agree with them or do not understand them. You are NOT allowed to call them a groomer or imply that they are a groomer.

Will the victims of child abuse ever be made a protected class here, or only the perpetrators?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Great question. I've asked it myself.

It's particularly concerning given that I've seen staff members insinuate the crime consistently.

I had a moderator say I was "projecting" when I voiced my disgust for Delta4Embassy.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Also calling white conservatives “bigots” and “racists” which this mod seems to be ok with

When the groping happens, you feel shame and humiliation. You don't talk to anybody because of that shame. It makes you feel small. It makes it hard for you to trust. You know that if you do tell an adult, they won't listen to you and shrug it off because you are an 11 year old kid.

So you keep quiet.

It is really difficult watching an entire website trying to make it so that all 11 year olds remain quiet.

 

[strollingbones]

And that is what is changing..kids now know to speak up (hopefully)

 

[strollingbones]

I assure you no one shrugs it off now days..the kidlet said her daddy liked to tickle her bottom

That evening papa bear was called on the carpet and had to show us the tickling of the bottom..totally innocent ..we found out..but we found out

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Thanks!

Though I must confess that it's baffling to me why the definition being made applicable and to serve as the model for usmessageboard would be premised upon a for profit children's charity out of the UK with an agenda attached to it.

If it were me...which it is not...but if it were, it would seem that it would be more conducive to premise the terms of controversy on the definition provided by a source like...oh...I dunno...let's pick the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART)

Particularly given the glaring difference in depth and relevance between its definition and that of the foreign children's charity with the agenda attached to it.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-34/november-2015/understanding-sexual-grooming-in-child-abuse-cases/

Some highlights from the more relevant source and from within our own Legal jurisdiction...

Grooming is a method used by offenders that involves building trust with a child and the adults around a child in an effort to gain access to and time alone with her/him. In extreme cases, offenders may use threats and physical force to sexually assault or abuse a child. More common, though, are subtle approaches designed to build relationships with families.


''Sexual grooming is a preparatory process in which a perpetrator gradually gains a person’s or organization’s trust with the intent to be sexually abusive.

The victim is usually a child, teen, or vulnerable adult.''(see bulletpoints in reference to underlined - mine)

Some of the more germane/applicable aspects which are noted for the purpose of grooming as well as behaviors which may be used during the grooming process are activities that can be sexually arousing to adults who have a sexual interest in children.

These behaviors include:

• to manipulate the perceptions of other adults around the child.
• discussing sexually explicit information under the guise of education
• showing the child sexually explicit images.

Didn't see anything like that on the link which was provided to the children's charity in the UK.

Anyway. May we ask why the children's charity with the agenda attached to it over there in the UK was chosen to model usmessageboard's rules and definitions, rather than a more germane, more thorough model sourced from something like the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART)?

Additionally, was staff provided this children's charity source in the UK by the web site administration itself and therefore directed to model the definition/rule on it specifically? Or was it just a source that one of the mauds personally felt that it should be used because they were perhaps very eager to do their part and help or whatever?

These are just casual questions. Not interested in debating them, but more curious given the difference in geography and jurisdiction as well as the differing Laws and interpretations of the two jurisdictions. Notwithstanding the glaring different in relevance and depth between the Foreign agent and the the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking.

Thanks again!

Isn't it interesting how the poster who is demanding that libraries carry books aimed at children depicting underage sexual activity is now influencing the very policy in that regard here at USMB?

 

[miketx]

Protecting child molesters now.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Protecting child molesters now.

Yep. That's what it is all about.

You can call people who HAVE been groomed any name in the book. You get to call them bigots and homophobes, you get to tell them that they are crazy and need help, you can accuse them of being the actual pedos, you get to use any name you wish to use to describe your hated for them.

Say the word grooming to describe grooming and it's off with your head!!



This is all intentional. This is not about serving the people who post here. It is about serving something else entirely.

 

[BlueGin]

Yep. That's what it is all about.

You can call people who HAVE been groomed any name in the book. You get to call them bigots and homophobes, you get to tell them that they are crazy and need help, you can accuse them of being the actual pedos, you get to use any name you wish to use to describe your hated for them.

Say the word grooming to describe grooming and it's off with your head!!



This is all intentional. This is not about serving the people who post here. It is about serving something else entirely.

It’s interesting that they have no problem with the vile names and ridicule thrown at other posters from that particular protected segment though. Never have.

 

[Toro]

USMB has now normalized it.

Posters are now openly advocating providing minors with depictions of underage boys performing fellatio. USMB has now sanctioned this by banning the very word that describes the very process of doing so.

Then slam them for it. You can still do that. But don’t call them groomers.

The problem is that there are people on this site using the word to mask their homophobia. And now because of it, it’s banned.