Article by Kurt Schlichter in Townhall
Call Groomers 'Groomers' Because of Their Grooming and Because It Annoys David French
See, it’s important that you not use undeniably accurate terms to describe our enemies because by doing so you may convey truthful information that hurts liberals and, according to our conservative cruise ship betters, that’s not who we are. Well, that’s certainly not who they are, because if there’s one thing they simply cannot accept it is victory. And that includes victory over perverts who what to chat up your young ‘uns in kindergarten.
Accordingly, we are not supposed to call groomers “groomers” anymore because people draw the right conclusions when we do, and that certainly will not do.
If there’s anything the failurecons, who constitute a concentric circle with the Never Trump sissies, hate is winning. And we are winning the world’s easiest argument by taking the position that molesters and those excusing and facilitating them are bad.
David French, who has famously made the conservative case for drag queen story hour, CRT submission, and everything else except conservative success, is very upset with us again for accurately conveying the truth of the Democrat campaign to make the classroom safe for creepy perverts to talk about sex with your kids. Now, normal people, as opposed to Pastor French – who is the very best Christian that David French knows, according to David French – don’t like weirdos trying to steer convos toward genitalia during the limited periods in which adult strangers get to interact with other people’s children, like in school. And only weirdos try to do so. There is literally never any good reason for any non-parent to have a talk with toddlers about sexual topics. None. Zero. Zip.
But the groomers have a bad reason. They want to use the access we grant to schools to indoctrinate your kids into their bizarre world view, and some of them want to molest your kids – wanna speculate on the motive of the mutant who was teaching first graders how Jeffrey Toobin makes a Zoom call?
Neither objective is acceptable, and we are going to say so no matter how fussy it makes the sorry likes of David French. Rarely has someone’s surname been so apt. In the current culture war, this surrender flunky is aiming to be the Vichy conservative Marshall Pétain.
Weird how these guys never got upset when the left was lying that we are racist, but are in a tizzy when we accurately observe that the left is pro-pedo.
They want, at best, to excuse perverts. We want perverts hunted for sport.
The “Stop calling us groomers ‘groomers’” outcry is hilarious because it’s so transparent how the libs are just cribbing from the establishment narrative enforcement playbook.
They will insist that to oppose groomers is an attack on LGBTQ4*^hldghj&+dghfedh Americans. Remember how the Florida law was “Don’t say gay,” though the only thing that didn’t say gay was the Florida law? Plenty of folks within that ever-expanding acronym see grooming for what it is and refuse to be enablers. As DeSantis spokeswoman Christina Pushaw pointed out, it is a grievous libel to try to co-opt them to defend the indefensible. And many gay folks like Spencer Klavan are not having it.
Then the perv-progs try to neutralize the attack by distracting and getting you to engage on some peripheral issue. “The Qanon people are behind the child abuse conspiracy theory!” We’re supposed to respond “But we don’t like Q” and “This is not a conspiracy theory.” Except the smartest among us will not engage, except to mock. That’s why when they try this pivot, instead of observing that the last time anyone heard of Q gas was under $6 a gallon, hardcore cons just respond “OK, groomer.”
Remember that argument should be reserved for good faith opponents who will consider facts and evidence and change their mind accordingly. What our enemies, who are not good faith opponents, do is turn argument into a morass where we sink into the mire weighed down by bullSchiff slurs and slanders. So don’t argue with stupid, obnoxious people. Don’t accept that people who clearly hate you want the best for your kids – they just want your kids, period. Don’t think that teacher’s free speech rights – of which they have none on the job – trump your right to keep your kids’ innocence intact. And don’t credit lame explanations about how adult male transexuals suddenly want to hang out with kiddies and read them stories for some non-sexual reason no matter how hard the David Frenchies plead that this is just what the Founders had in mind.
Instead of arguing with nincompoops, do what Ron DeSantis does and simply smash their hideous dreams into little pieces.
Nor should you argue with the Conservative, Inc., chin-strokers who fret that “groomer” might not be the perfect term to describe teachers and other public school functionaries who want to use their special access to your kids to pursue their own strange-o agendas. In fact, it’s the perfect term. Groomers thrive on secret interactions where they shape and mold the minds of their victims away from those who would protect them.
If it walks like a groomer, talks like a groomer, and does Tik Tok vids like a groomer, it’s a groomer.
And when the pearl-clutchers sputter because we point out that these people are objectively pro-pedophile – because they excuse it and refuse to protect kids from it – there’s no point in debating it. Remember that every Democrat, plus Mitt Romney (to the extent there’s a difference), voted to confirm a SCOTUS judge who thought pedos were getting a bad rap. “But the blue-haired mutant teacher is not the one personally touching the kids xisself so you can’t lump xir in with the pedos even though xe makes it easy for the pedos!” the fussy tone police whine. Hey pseudo-cons, we’re not interested in making fine distinctions between pedo-friendly, pedo-adjacent, and fully pedo-engaged. If there is any ambiguity about that sordid topic, we can defer to the experts in the Lincoln Project to the extent we care to distinguish the sex pests from the sex pest enablers. And that extent is quite limited.
As Liz Wheeler has observed, it is not enough to not be a groomer. One must be actively anti-groomer.
We are. If you want to use your job to contaminate our kids with your bizarre sexual obsessions, you’re a groomer and we are saying so. And if David French et al doesn’t like it, good.
