OK Groomer – The Ethics of Inflammatory Rhetoric

Perverts and degenerates are getting more and more brazen in their attempts to groom our children. And it’s good to see the right-wing beginning to embrace calling a spade a spade on this matter. Nevertheless, there’s a certain kind of conservative–of whom David French is probably the most quintessential example–whose tender constitutions simply cannot stomach such harsh rhetoric. They shrink from battle with the LGBTP lobby and their sycophants just as they do every other relevant battle in the culture wars. If they attack anyone at all, it is only their own side from whom they expect gentler treatment.

Nevertheless, no man likes to think of himself as a coward, and these conservatives are no exception. Accordingly, they attempt to dress up their pusillanimity in more noble attire. And because they borrow the language of morality, strategy, and even theology to weave their costumes, they often sow confusion alongside fear. So let’s sow some clarity instead and learn how to see through some of the common objections these cravens offer up about groomer/pedophile language.

Objection 1: Groomer/pedophile rhetoric is too harsh/impolite/uncivil

First, just pause to appreciate the lack of proportionality here. There’s a movement seeking to not only pathologize healthy sexuality, but actively seeks to vivisect unstable children until they bear some vague resemblance to the opposite sex. So on one hand, you have a nightmare out of a hyper-sexualized version of the Island of Dr. Moreau, and on the other hand you have… manners. Straining a gnat while swallowing a camel doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Second, I’ve engaged with the meat of this kind of objection elsewhere, so I’ll just sum it up. Manners and civility are social contracts, not moral absolutes. While a person ought to do good though the heavens fall, there is no nobility in merely upholding your end of a clearly broken contract. If your employer refuses to pay your wages, you aren’t “sinking to their level” or “repaying evil for evil” by refusing to work.

I would love to return to a traditionally polite world with clear lines of propriety. But social norms are imposed by the winners of culture wars, not the losers. And I refuse the kind of “manners” the current winners are forcing on us that forbid testifying to the truth.

Objection 2: Groomer/pedophile rhetoric is impractical because this kind extremism just alienates the moderates.

I can’t help but wonder what planet those with this objection have been living on. By-and-large, those who self-identify as moderates are unprincipled sheep. They are repelled by extremism only insofar as extremism is used to drive them in one direction or another. Have you noticed how extreme the left has become in the past few decades? Have you noticed how they’ve gotten their way on virtually everything? Have you noticed how today’s moderates would have been considered radicals only a decade or two ago? Clearly, extremism isn’t the practical detriment you think it is.

The real desire behind this objection is to avoid being labeled as extremists by the left. They’re addicted to the approval of our cultural institutions and desperate to stay in their good graces, be invited to their parties, and be published in their magazines. But simping for the left isn’t different from any other kind of simping. Being super-duper nice will not return them to reason and make them like you. All you are doing is enabling the abuse they give you.

Objection 3: Groomer/pedophile rhetoric is a sin because it’s false. Most of its targets aren’t really pedophiles and groomers.

At least this objection finally touches on an aspect of morality: honesty. But while it is true that we shouldn’t slander even our enemies, those who make this objection mistake accuracy for precision.

Let’s consider the degenerates who are pushing LGBTP lies onto children at younger and younger ages. It is true that there’s a diversity of motivation at work. Some of them really are doing it because they’re evil and want to diddle kids. Some of them are doing it because creating a society that flatters their own preferred perversion requires corrupting subsequent generations. Some of them are doing it because they see people lionized for flattering perverts and want to create opportunities to receive that same worldly acclaim. Some of them have a sense of empathy that’s become so uncivilized that they think compassion requires it.

But no matter their motivation, the action is always the same: They’re deliberately inducting children into a highly sexualized ideology behind their parents backs and against their parents’ wishes. That is undeniably grooming. It doesn’t stop being grooming if they’re doing it for someone else rather than for themselves. It doesn’t stop being grooming if they don’t see it as grooming. “Groomer” is therefore an accurate label.

The same is true of “pedophile.” The motivation may or may not be personal sexual gratification. Nevertheless, they are absolutely trying to elicit sexual responses from children. That is unquestionably in service to pedophilia regardless of why they want those responses. On that score, the motive doesn’t matter anymore than the motive for murder changes the nature of what was done. These people love to call themselves “allies.” Very well; we ought to treat them as allies–ipso facto complicit.

Does “Ok, Groomer” truly capture all the nuance in the situation? No. But good rhetoric isn’t supposed to do that. If you read this blog, I can only assume you appreciate mountains of thoughtful text. But most people don’t, and you can’t make them. And yet, they still have their vocations. Parents and citizens alike still need to be aware of what is going on according to their ability and decide how to react according to their wisdom. They need accurate but imprecise rhetoric rather than precise dialectic to do their jobs effectively. Giving that to them is no sin, and calling LGBTP activists and their sycophants groomers and pedophiles is no slander.

Objection 4: Groomer/pedophile rhetoric is a sin because it is inflammatory and could result in violence.

This one is actually half-right. It is inflammatory and it could result in violence. The mistake here is in thinking that violence is always a sin.

This is another topic I’ve written about extensively, so I won’t labor the point. Sometimes violent self-defense is permissible because of Christian freedom. Sometimes violent self-defense is mandatory because of our God-given vocations. As a father, I have an obligation to protect my children from harm. If they come under violent attack and they need me to violently defend them, doing so is my job.

The same holds true with inflammatory rhetoric. I have been subject to a lot of that over the years. I’ve been called “Nazi” and “Hitler.” I’ve been called “bigot” and “white supremacist.” The list goes on & on, and it goes to some weird places–I’ve even been called a serial killer once. Sometimes these things were said generically by progressive politicians, talking heads, and the like talking about “my kind.” Sometimes they were said personally by strangers who read something I wrote. Sometimes they were said personally by people I’ve known my whole life–even family members.

All of it is slander, of course, but my present point is that all of it is clearly inflammatory. The whole point of calling people on the right “Nazis” is that violence against Nazis is socially acceptable. Antifa and all their murder and destruction is the natural conclusion of typical leftist rhetoric.

Just as it is often appropriate to defend yourself and your family against violence with violence, it is often appropriate to defend yourself and your family against inflammatory rhetoric with inflammatory rhetoric. Scripture says, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” That provision includes protecting my children from groomers, pedophiles, and anyone who would sacrifice them for woke points.

And that final point is what all the pearl-clutching by craven conservatives is ultimately about. They just want to be left alone and enjoy what they have. They don’t want to lose it all in a culture war. That desire, at least, is quite appropriate. In Romans, Paul writes “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” and in 1 Thessalonians, he says “aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you.” What they forget is, “so far as it depends on you.” They would not risk culture war, but war is upon us whether we would risk it or not. They’re all-to-willing to lie to the themselves about the current state of America if it means they can hold onto their comforts.

This is the fundamental failure of American conservativism. They can bloviate all they want to try and turn “ok groomer” into a sin. But the real sin at play here is a refusal to protect those who have been entrusted to you. First and foremost, that means protecting your family, but it includes your community and your nation as well. If you will not even take up rhetorical arms according to your God-given vocation, then you have abandoned it. And if you will not accept those basic responsibilities that even pagans and unbelievers understand, don’t be surprised when God cuts you off from the land.