Skip to main content

grooming

 

Political parties have long used wedge issues to encourage their members to turn out to vote.  Sometimes these issues are inflammatory, employing demonization, occasionally to the point of being dangerous.  I fear that this year, we are witnessing such an issue: the accusations of pedophilia.

  I realize that the Q-Anon conspiracy theorists have made this an issue for a couple of years now, but there is a new, and much more dangerous twist, that is surfacing that may turn out to be far more insidious.  Rather than merely accusing all Democrats and liberals of being child-trafficking pedophiles who drink children’s blood, they have broadened out the accusation to include grooming children for pedophiles.

  A bit of background:  you may remember the ardent believer who took a gun into a New York pizza parlor where he was told children were being kept in the basement by a cabal of pedophiles led by Hillary Clinton among others.  Fortunately, when he arrived, he was persuaded that no children were being abused, in fact there was no basement, and he surrendered to police without injuring anyone.

  But the “grooming” twist to the conspiracy theory is, to me, much more unsettling, because the scope of accusations can include anyone.  The theory is that pedophiles groom children, sometimes for years, before molesting them.  Moreover, they occasionally have accessories who help with the grooming without engaging in the molestation.  Grooming can include any acts to gain the trust of the child.

  Here’s the insidious nature of this theory:  anyone can be accused of grooming a child simply by being a good neighbor or friend.  If you babysit for a relative or neighbor, if you help a student with their homework, if you give them a Christmas present, any normal act of kindness can be twisted into an act of grooming.  The more acts of kindness you perform, i.e., the nicer you are, the more you may be vilified.

  It’s a brilliant and evil way to demonize the most loving people in one’s community.  I hope I’m wrong about the danger this may manifest.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

 Bannon Up! This analogy is far from perfect, but it represents to me a futile mindset.   A sacrifice bunt in baseball involves giving up an out to advance a runner into a better position to score a run.   Occasionally, a pitcher tries so hard to throw pitches that are difficult to bunt, that he ends up walking the batter, which moves the lead runner into scoring position, gets no out, and puts another runner on base.   I’ve heard former coaches and players announcing games cry, “He’s trying to make an out.   Let him!”   I believe Steve Bannon wants to go to prison, to make himself a martyr and hero to the right-wing nuts who support him.   I say, let him.   I’ve heard some pundits worry that convicting him would further infuriate the right-wing nuts.   I think it’s time to abandon that type of thinking.   We have seen time after time that making concessions to appease these people is completely unproductive.   They see conces...

Musings

  Right-To-Lifers Don’t Go Far Enough       I was pro-choice, but I’ve changed my mind.   The problem is not that the State should govern what a woman does with her body, the problem is that the State has not gone far enough.   The argument is that to protect the life of a fetus, the State must overrule a woman’s privacy and bodily autonomy and regulate her body for her.   Fine.   If we want the State to be in the business of protecting life through bodily regulation, then go all in.   Stick to the prime directive.   Protect all life.   The State should govern both men and women to protect life.   The State should tell any healthy person what to do with their body in order to protect life.   So, if someone needs a kidney, liver, or any organ transplant to save their life, the State should find someone and take whatever parts are needed to save that life.   If not, then we are allowing organ-icide.   (...
Inspired by "Is religion a force for good in the world?" - the debates with Christopher Hitchens Let's compare general religious tenets with general humanistic tenets: I assert that to be a good humanist you must follow the rules.   To be a good religious person you must break the rules. Religious:                                             Humanistic: love thy neighbor                                   love thy neighbor do good works                                       do good works live according to the scriptures              live according to what can be drawn from evidence (science) try to follow the dictates of god       ...