Groypers, Quo Vadis: Decorum and Profanity

If we are, indeed, Christians, we should act like it. "Can you imagine standing before Christ at your judgment, saying, 'You don’t get it, when I was saying she was a stupid bleep bleep, it was a joke!'"

From Crisis

By Kennedy Hall

While the Groyper movement claims to be fighting for a return of Christian society, much of the way they speak and act would say otherwise.

In my last article on the subject of Groypers and Groyperism, I focused on the concept of race in the Groyper worldview. In this article, we will discuss the public behavior made manifest in Groyperism and why it represents a deeper problem. I did my best to be constructively critical in the last piece, and I still hold to the same opinion about what the Groypers generally get right. It is not my intention to “pile on” or unnecessarily alienate its proponents, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t sharp criticisms that are warranted. 

For those who identify with the movement, I would ask that you take the criticisms seriously. If you do believe you are on to something—and success means anything to you—it behooves you to try and improve. Of course, you can ignore me and stay in your echo chamber if you like.

In any event, Groypers love to swear and use profanity in their public displays, whether that be social media posts, memes, or, especially in the case of Nick Fuentes, a barrage of foul language. Now, far be it from me to adopt a puritan perspective on the use of words; I am certainly not above uttering harsh words under my breath when I stub my toe or a technological tool glitches when I need to get something done. Uttering cuss words could be sinful, and it could also be sort of involuntary and not sinful, and it would depend on intention, context, etc. Words have meaning; this is true, but we also have filler words and words that mean different things in different contexts, and these things all have to be taken into consideration when we consider the morality of curse words.

At the same time, we must all admit that it is common sense to acknowledge what are “bad words” and that we shouldn’t use them in mixed company, especially publicly. This isn’t pearl-clutching puritanism but merely a recognition of the commonsense mores that govern our conduct with others. 

However, Groypers disregard this entirely. Even the ones who often speak about the Catholic Faith and complain about the moral rot in society essentially swear like proverbial sailors. Of course, I imagine the reaction to this from a Groyper would be something like, “What a ***,” or, “Okay, Boomer.” Well, it is true, I am sure that I can be a **** or a *****!!###, and so on, but I am not a Boomer. 

In any event, the way that we use words, especially “bad words,” is indicative of our command of virtue. There may be times when certain words are appropriate and even useful, just like there are times when throwing punches would be so. But our use of them should be judicious. Navy SEALs on deployment can be excused for speaking harshly in a harsh environment, as they do battle with the evilest men in the world; we could even argue that speaking in that manner is sort of a professional requirement. But a SEAL should not speak that way when he comes home to his wife and children or in his reports that he submits to his administration.

When a man cannot control his use of such terms—or intentionally chooses not to control such use—he demonstrates that he has no intention to act in a way that could elevate the decorum in his midst. In essence, he will act in ways that are beastly or uncouth no matter the situation he finds himself in, which sends a message to others that refinement of speech and behavior is not to be expected. Granted, one may protest that it shouldn’t matter how a man speaks, and if people don’t like it, they don’t have to be around him or converse with him. Well, that is certainly one way of thinking, but it is out of step with virtually every civilized society and worthwhile philosophical and moral thinking in the history of the human race.

Now, the reasons for this perennial insistence on cautiousness of speech and behavior are not merely superficial or for specious reasons. We implicitly understand that if a man comports himself poorly in the way that he speaks in a public setting, this is a sign that how he speaks privately is even worse. This is the case with all sinfulness and bestial behavior: the sins and faults that we expose to others are always more minor than those we commit privately. 

When I see legions of Groypers posting with profanity or off-color jokes, or sharing clips of Fuentes and others who drop an “F bomb” every three words, it is evidence that the level of discourse is as immature as the behavior. I say immature and not unintelligent because one could be a complete beast behavior-wise while also being wildly intelligent. Nonetheless, the prevalence of profanity demonstrates a harshness and, at root, a certain selfishness. It shows a level of selfishness because when one speaks in such a way, it is obvious that he couldn’t care less if his language is off-putting. 

Why should we care if our language is off-putting? Well, why should we care if we stink? Or if we say, “Thank you”? Or if we open doors for elderly ladies? We should care because how one acts and presents himself should be a matter of importance.

In addition, along with the unmitigated profanity so common in the movement, there is a culture of hurling vicious insults at those whom the adherents to the movement oppose. Not long before Charlie Kirk was assassinated, it wasn’t uncommon to see altered images of him being shared by innumerable Groypers. It was an attack on his appearance, which was justified by Groypers because they disagreed with Kirk’s positions. 

As I said in my last piece, I do agree with the Groyper disdain for feminism; however, the way that they generally speak about women is completely unacceptable. One does not have to be a feminist to say that calling women—however detestable they may be—“f’ing b’s” repeatedly on broadcasts is sinful. You can say it is a joke, but that does not save it. If the Groyper movement is truly interested in promoting Catholicism to the public, they should ask a priest if it is okay to speak as they do about whoever they dislike. Can you imagine standing before Christ at your judgment, saying, “You don’t get it, when I was saying she was a stupid bleep bleep, it was a joke!”

Perhaps that may come off as sanctimonious—because I could surely be accused, as I have accused myself privately, of failing to live up to my own standard. This is true, but it is true because there is a standard. We need not expect Groypers to speak like saintly Thomists, but they should at least hold themselves to a standard that does not accept linguistic degeneracy.

Ultimately, the prevalence of vile language demonstrates deep moral rot, and the constant hurling of wicked insults at opponents can be nothing other than detraction and calumny. 

I try to envision a defense of general Groyper language and comportment, but it is indefensible by any sensible Catholic. This doesn’t mean that the political points are all wrong—I believe many, if not most, are reasonable; and it doesn’t mean that Nick Fuentes, or whoever, is unintelligent or undeserving of having an opinion. It just means that if you are a Catholic man, you can’t speak like that, act like that, or talk about others like that. This is literally something that should be understood by every kindergarten student in North America, and there should be no argument.