"Groomer" Hate Speak and the usual suspects! Fascinating.

https://www.montclair.edu/newscenter/2022/11/29/study-use-of-groomer-hate-speech-increased-on-twitter-after-colorado-springs-nightclub-shooting/
A new study by the Joetta Di Bella and Fred C. Sautter III Center for Strategic Communication in the School of Communication and Media at Montclair State University points to what hate speech on Twitter could look like following Elon Musk’s offer of “general amnesty” to suspended accounts on the platform.

Specifically, the study showed a dramatic spike in the use of the term “grooming” (a slur used against the LGBTQ+ community) on Twitter in the period after the shooting at an LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs, Colorado, on November 19-20. (See key findings below).

How ‘groomer’ is misused as an anti-LGBTQ slur
“Grooming,” as defined by the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), is “manipulative behaviors that the abuser uses to gain access to a potential victim, coerce them to agree to the abuse, and reduce the risk of being caught.”

Historically, it’s been used as a dehumanizing slur to target, criminalize and ostracize the marginalized LGBTQIA+ community through the construction of fictional predators harming youth. Two contemporary events – the QAnon conspiracy and the discourse surrounding Florida’s “Parental Rights in Education” bill (popularly known as “Don’t Say Gay”) – echo this messaging.

As the danger of the term was more understood, social media platforms began to limit its use, including restrictions on Twitter which banned the use when directed at trans and non-binary people as an anti-LGBTQ+ slur. However, when Elon Musk took over as CEO of the platform, promising a reduction in “woke” restrictions on expression, users on the site anticipated a reduction in these sorts of constraints and an opportunity to more openly share hate content.

Highlights from the study on the use of the term “grooming” on Twitter:

112,140 tweets used the term “grooming” or “groomer” in the seven-day period around the attack in Colorado Springs.
The spike in usage of the term “grooming” or “groomer” peaked after the attack with an increase of 885% over the highest point prior to the shooting.
Potential impact for the “groomer” tweets studied was 599,575,603 with a potential reach of 390,207,542.
Content gaining traction in terms of impact and reach included messages rationalizing physical violence in connection with this slur.
Opposing content also gained a large share of voice, with many accounts and tweets opposing the slur attaining significant platform presence.
There was greater negative sentiment toward use of the term “groomer” than positive sentiment, as negative sentiment toward the term was 27.6% while positive sentiment was only 9.8% in the tweets analyzed in this study.
Key influencers on discussions surrounding the topic reveal a range of figures who reinforced linkages between the LGBTQIA+ community and “grooming.” These included accounts of those such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, Blaire White, Tim Pool, Matt Walsh and Jack Posobiec.
The data collected demonstrates the tensions that Twitter will navigate between content restriction and platform openness.

“We all understand the importance of freedom of speech, but there are dangers to running platforms like Twitter as a ‘free speech absolutist,’” said Bond Benton, associate professor in the School of Communication and Media. “It is troubling that every time there is a hate-fueled crime, those with extreme views may remain unchecked and will and have a place to spread hate speech and associated terms that demonstrate a lack of common sense, decency and compassion.”

The Montclair study was conducted by faculty Bond Benton, Yi Lu, Jin-A Choi, Keith Strudler and Keith Green from the Joetta Di Bella and Fred C. Sautter III Center for Strategic Communication, which provides social media analytics tools and training for faculty and students for classroom learning and research projects.

For more information or to set up an interview, contact the Media Relations team at Montclair State University.

Funny how it's also these Rightist deplorables using these tactics and when the word goes out of a new word, they all quickly jump on board.

eg I was accused of being a "groomer" by a Rightist not long ago in here:

Originally posted by cdtm
Ok groomer.

with trumpers, every accusation is a confession *cringe*

Originally posted by Robtard
Funny how it's also these Rightist deplorables using these tactics and when the word goes out of a new word, they all quickly jump on board.

eg I was accused of being a "groomer" by a Rightist not long ago in here:

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
with trumpers, every accusation is a confession *cringe*

Why are you defending groomers Whirl?

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Go be retarded somewhere else, Todd.

Standard leftist MO, when you lose a debate, use ad hominem.

A few trolls misuse the term and you want to ban it from legitimate use. This is also the leftist MO.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
with trumpers, every accusation is a confession *cringe*

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
looks like it, it really does.

eventually he'll call us deranged chronically unemployed incels, spending every waking hour on a dead forum, scapegoating strangers for their personal failures and shortcomings, and forever living in our mothers' basements.

Originally posted by cdtm
Standard leftist MO, when you lose a debate, use ad hominem.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
https://www.montclair.edu/newscenter/2022/11/29/study-use-of-groomer-hate-speech-increased-on-twitter-after-colorado-springs-nightclub-shooting/
A new study by the Joetta Di Bella and Fred C. Sautter III Center for Strategic Communication in the School of Communication and Media at Montclair State University points to what hate speech on Twitter could look like following Elon Musk’s offer of “general amnesty” to suspended accounts on the platform.

Specifically, the study showed a dramatic spike in the use of the term “grooming” (a slur used against the LGBTQ+ community) on Twitter in the period after the shooting at an LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs, Colorado, on November 19-20. (See key findings below).

How ‘groomer’ is misused as an anti-LGBTQ slur
“Grooming,” as defined by the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), is “manipulative behaviors that the abuser uses to gain access to a potential victim, coerce them to agree to the abuse, and reduce the risk of being caught.”

Historically, it’s been used as a dehumanizing slur to target, criminalize and ostracize the marginalized LGBTQIA+ community through the construction of fictional predators harming youth. Two contemporary events – the QAnon conspiracy and the discourse surrounding Florida’s “Parental Rights in Education” bill (popularly known as “Don’t Say Gay”) – echo this messaging.

As the danger of the term was more understood, social media platforms began to limit its use, including restrictions on Twitter which banned the use when directed at trans and non-binary people as an anti-LGBTQ+ slur. However, when Elon Musk took over as CEO of the platform, promising a reduction in “woke” restrictions on expression, users on the site anticipated a reduction in these sorts of constraints and an opportunity to more openly share hate content.

Highlights from the study on the use of the term “grooming” on Twitter:

112,140 tweets used the term “grooming” or “groomer” in the seven-day period around the attack in Colorado Springs.
The spike in usage of the term “grooming” or “groomer” peaked after the attack with an increase of 885% over the highest point prior to the shooting.
Potential impact for the “groomer” tweets studied was 599,575,603 with a potential reach of 390,207,542.
Content gaining traction in terms of impact and reach included messages rationalizing physical violence in connection with this slur.
Opposing content also gained a large share of voice, with many accounts and tweets opposing the slur attaining significant platform presence.
There was greater negative sentiment toward use of the term “groomer” than positive sentiment, as negative sentiment toward the term was 27.6% while positive sentiment was only 9.8% in the tweets analyzed in this study.
Key influencers on discussions surrounding the topic reveal a range of figures who reinforced linkages between the LGBTQIA+ community and “grooming.” These included accounts of those such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, Blaire White, Tim Pool, Matt Walsh and Jack Posobiec.
The data collected demonstrates the tensions that Twitter will navigate between content restriction and platform openness.

“We all understand the importance of freedom of speech, but there are dangers to running platforms like Twitter as a ‘free speech absolutist,’” said Bond Benton, associate professor in the School of Communication and Media. “It is troubling that every time there is a hate-fueled crime, those with extreme views may remain unchecked and will and have a place to spread hate speech and associated terms that demonstrate a lack of common sense, decency and compassion.”

The Montclair study was conducted by faculty Bond Benton, Yi Lu, Jin-A Choi, Keith Strudler and Keith Green from the Joetta Di Bella and Fred C. Sautter III Center for Strategic Communication, which provides social media analytics tools and training for faculty and students for classroom learning and research projects.

For more information or to set up an interview, contact the Media Relations team at Montclair State University.

This isn't even a new tactic. The Nazis did the exact same thing in the 1930s in order to demonize queer people (labelling them child predators and accusing them of "grooming" and "recruiting" the youth) so that no one would stand up for them when the Nazis started rounding them up (along with the Jewish people, Gypsies etc.). History seems to be repeating itself.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
This isn't even a new tactic. The Nazis did the exact same thing in the 1930s in order to demonize queer people (labelling them child predators and accusing them of "grooming" and "recruiting" the youth) so that no one would stand up for them when the Nazis started rounding them up (along with the Jewish people, Gypsies etc.). History seems to be repeating itself.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
This isn't even a new tactic. The Nazis did the exact same thing in the 1930s in order to demonize queer people (labelling them child predators and accusing them of "grooming" and "recruiting" the youth) so that no one would stand up for them when the Nazis started rounding them up (along with the Jewish people, Gypsies etc.). History seems to be repeating itself.

You're ignoring context.

Many parents simply don't want their kids exposed to sexual content, such as graphic depictions of intercourse as seen in some of these "educational materials".

If it's so graphic a legislator stopped a parent from reading it, it is certainly too graphic for a kid to read imo.

So, if it's just a matter of"don't tell my kids about sex yet" as you just claimed, why demonize the person doing it and call them a groomer?

It's wrong. Someone accusing someone else of being a groomer is pretty much just revealing their own inner twisted desires, IMHO.

Originally posted by truejedi
So, if it's just a matter of"don't tell my kids about sex yet" as you just claimed, why demonize the person doing it and call them a groomer?

It's wrong. Someone accusing someone else of being a groomer is pretty much just revealing their own inner twisted desires, IMHO.

Not just tell, but graphically show.

That's the controversy, some of the books show graphic displays of erections, fondling, sex, felito, anal..

They never went that far in sex ed when I went to school, if they had there would have been the same response we're seeing now from some parents.

Originally posted by cdtm
Not just tell, but graphically show.

That's the controversy, some of the books show graphic displays of erections, fondling, sex, felito, anal..

They never went that far in sex ed when I went to school, if they had there would have been the same response we're seeing now from some parents.

I guess. We all sure entered our teen years really ignorant about sex though. I could have benefited from a better sex education.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
This isn't even a new tactic. The Nazis did the exact same thing in the 1930s in order to demonize queer people (labelling them child predators and accusing them of "grooming" and "recruiting" the youth) so that no one would stand up for them when the Nazis started rounding them up (along with the Jewish people, Gypsies etc.). History seems to be repeating itself.

And again in the U.S. during the Pink Scare of the 1950s.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
And again in the U.S. during the Pink Scare of the 1950s.

YouTube video

I think in the case of McCarthyism it basically backfired though... the idea was that queer people would be national security threats and need to be rooted out lest they become foreign assets through blackmail. But the net effect was to stoke homophobia, making it much scarier to be outed, making the "national security" threat, if anything, slightly more credible.

Sorta like imagining a gun, creating it, loading it, and giving it to your enemy.

Originally posted by cdtm
You're ignoring context.

Many parents simply don't want their kids exposed to sexual content, such as graphic depictions of intercourse as seen in some of these "educational materials".

If it's so graphic a legislator stopped a parent from reading it, it is certainly too graphic for a kid to read imo.

It's a long leap from disliking educational content for being too graphic to accusing people of being groomers (along with the clear implication of what that term means). And even if that's how it started, it's clearly being co-opted by many people who simply hate the queer community and are looking for an excuse to demonize them.

Queer people who have nothing to do with the content of educational material are being targeted and harassed and accused of all kinds of vile shit because of this buzzword the queerphobes have rediscovered. I have queer friends who aren't even American and they're being called groomers, r*pists, receiving death threats etc. because of this shit simply for being openly gay/lesbian/trans etc. online. And it's a lot more than "a few trolls" doing this.

The fact is that there has been a ramping up of rhetoric against queer people in places like the USA, where you have people like the Texas AG trying to make a list of transgender Texans, for example. Nothing good comes from putting minorities on a list, especially when the people doing it are historically opposed to that minority.

I also find it interesting how all these people claim to want to protect children, yet they clearly don't actually give a damn about queer kids (which, despite what they would tell you, do exist) and none of them seem to care when children's hospitals get bomb threats based on false information spread by social media accounts like Libs Of TikTok.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
I also find it interesting how all these people claim to want to protect children, yet they clearly don't actually give a damn about queer kids (which, despite what they would tell you, do exist) and none of them seem to care when children's hospitals get bomb threats based on false information spread by social media accounts like Libs Of TikTok.

Remember, every conservative accusation is a confession. They label LGBTQ people "groomers" to distract from the fact that they are the ones ****ing children.

No child has been molested by a drag queen or at a gay bar, but thousands have been molested by pastors and in churches.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Remember, every conservative accusation is a confession. They label LGBTQ people "groomers" to distract from the fact that they are the ones ****ing children.

No child has been molested by a drag queen or at a gay bar, but thousands have been molested by pastors and in churches.

Indeed. And that's not even getting into their fondness for child marriage (often tied to their religious beliefs) or the fact that 28 Republicans voted against the Respect for Child Survivors Act recently, with a number of them also being the same people throwing around the groomer accusation, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, to score points with their voter base.