> 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.
>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.
> 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.
This is a pretty odd statement.
In any case: if you want to try and split hairs about this, that’s your call. What I’ll say is this: nobody seemed to care much about a “grooming” epidemic until a few months ago, and since then it’s only been about LGBTQ people.
Nobody else is making the distinctions you’re trying to make here.
>In any case: if you want to try and split hairs about this, that’s your call. What I’ll say is this: nobody seemed to care much about a “grooming” epidemic until a few months ago, and since then it’s only been about LGBTQ people.
Not really. Mild and reasonable concerns have been raised on the right-wing websites for at least a year. The media swept it under the rug. Then the attention-seekers from the right side picked it up and started exaggerating the issue to get visibility to their personas. The media labeled them "far right extremists" and completely dismissed the point of their complaints. Now it's reaching the state where every meme-maker with an MS paint feels compelled to photoshop something about groomers, and that's where you can't ignore the problem anymore. Congratulations, you have suppressed the voices of reason and you will now have to deal with an angry mob.
>Nobody else is making the distinctions you’re trying to make here.
Some people are. Most people aren't. That's exactly why your country will splinter. In some states you will get a ticket for showing up in public with a same-sex partner. In others teaches will be financially incentivized to reach the quota of trans students, as it will be seen as helping people find their true identity. Both extremes are idiotic, but that's how tribalism works and that's how empires fall. You can safely ignore it for a single-digit number of years, but you will see it in your lifetime.
It’s interesting that you’re putting so much blame on the media here, when - as you said - “Then the attention-seekers from the right side picked it up and started exaggerating the issue to get visibility to their personas”.
> Mild and reasonable concerns
The concerns are not reasonable, and not mild. This idealistic “all orientations have this problem” take is blind to the fact that this is criticism leveled at the LGBTQ community for decades.
The media “swept it under the rug” because the association with LGBTQ people isn’t necessary to address the societal issue of sexual abuse. They rightfully didn’t want to revive the tired slurs of the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
> In others teaches will be financially incentivized to reach the quota of trans students, as it will be seen as helping people find their true identity.
This is just nonsense. I’ve been trying to engage in good faith so far, but the idea of “trans quotas” is completely ridiculous.
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.