Furthest Right

OK, Groomer

Bunches of rightists in Florida have decided to fight back against Pedo-Mouse. They have taken to calling anyone who protests the stance Florida Governor DeSantis has taken against the Walt Disney far left political party a groomer.

Therefore, we now face the predictable squishing from Conservatives that are more moderate. A blogger named Jeff Charles poses an interesting question. Should we call them ‘Groomers?’

For decades, the right has slammed the left for incessantly referring to anyone with whom they disagree as “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes,” and other false labels. Conservatives rightly pointed out that leftists who engage in this rhetoric are diluting the meaning of those words when they are used willy-nilly to score cheap political points. But it seems that now, conservatives don’t have as much of a problem with this political tactic as they have in the past, especially when it comes to calling folks on the left “groomers.”

Conservatives should grow up and accept street-level reality on this. Any mathematical game theorist would talk you through what has happened here. Back when, in Ancient Greece, the republic was suppossed to be a courteous affair. People debated issues. They did not call anyone “racist”; they simply attempted to argue against their point of view by marshalling whatever facts they could in efforts to refute it. Then two things happened.

1) They actually could not effectively refute Socrates. Socrates not only beat them, he humiliated them. They couldn’t outtalk the old man with the gift for argumentation. They assuaged their humiliation by making him out to be a bad person and Socrates drank the hemlock.

2) This tactic of ad hominem worked brilliantly and became a cheat hack that allowed the faction unencumbered by some silly code of ethics to dominate all debates.

This is where decent people can stop this sad rise of demotism in its tracks. Just work on your game. No, not that game. Your cooperative game. Democracy is at its core a mathematical game. Everyone submits to it and stops riding with Ghengis Khan when they think it is safer and more renumerative to cooperate instead of bashing skull.

Taking Ghengis out of the saddle does not make him stop wanting to rape and impregnate your daughter. People can change behavior in response to incentives. They cannot reengineer their DNA. Ghengis is still the same person regardless the society he lives in. He’ll do what gets him paid. He’ll do what gets him laid. It is up to the society to banish him, kill him, or make him chase these needs through incentives that do not involve boosting the neighbor’s new Lexus and raping his teenage daughter.

As a mathematical game, democracy gives players a fundamental choice. Cooperate, defect, or leave. Most of us cooperate on some level. We at least have our favorite groups and begrudgingly, perhaps, we support one faction of the corrupt and moilsome uniparty. Yet we do not cooperate with every other player.

When cooperation goes off the menu, we can defect or leave. Most of us do some of both. Many people who live near “the really good schools” do not have kids. They are exiting the game to the extent to which it involves them having to park their Lexus anywhere near Ghengis Khan. The other methodology is aggressive defection. That which you kill first makes you stronger.

This defection takes the form of insults or strongly implied violence. There is nothing inherently violent in loudly voicing the opinion “Black Lives Matter!” An individual with a high melanin count could choose to invest the time and work necessary to make themself very effective individuals. At that juncture, they have a high statistical probability of living a life with some degree of meaning. If the person yelling “Black Lives Matter!” also chucks molatov cocktails and demands that the local police force be defunded, then ignore their words and pay attention to the underlying behavior.

How does an intelligent game player react to this when exit is not an option? They engage in Tit-For-Tat. The Rightists in Florida so endeavor. LGBTQRSTUVWXYZs call them homophobes. They fire back with “Groomer.” If Lefty does not like being refered to as “Groomer”, then Lefty needs to stop telling kindergardeners how to lubricate the dildo. They also need to argue against logical points rather than trying to call anyone who does not buy their horse manure evil names. Until they stop this behavior, the only appropriate reponse to the Purple-Haired Freaks is “Ok, Groomer.”

The person I cited above does intelligently uncuck later in his blog post.

To put it simply, those who advocate for instilling progressive ideas in children’s minds without the involvement of parents do not deserve to be defended when they are called groomers. Parents should be given the ultimate say in what their kids learn about these issues. And no, the possibility of child abuse from parents is not a good enough excuse; if a teacher senses that abuse is an issue, states already have mechanisms in place requiring them to report it. The fact is, these people do not believe kids belong to their parents; they believe they should be the property of the state. Therefore, they do not have a leg to stand on when they complain about being called what they are: Groomers.

Bravo, Mr. Charles. To put even more simply, Tit.For.Tat. Threats, violence, and insults are met with threats, violence, and insults. Defection begets retaliation until Lefty gets tired of that particular sort of bastard as an offspring. Ghengis Khan will never want to behave like Adlai Stevenson. It is not expressed in his genetic code.

We can deal with Ghengis when stuck in a democracy three ways. We can kill him, we can avoid him, or we can massively rewire his behavior. As Mr. Charles intelligently points out, step one to dealing with Ghengis, is to confront him and call him out on his barbaric f**ckery. He calls me racist, and I reply. “Ok, Groomer.

Tags: , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn