There is a move to rename the crime to "financial grooming" because the term "pig butchering" is an intentional form of victim shaming. Anyone who is still using the term pig butchering should be immediately discredited.
What on Earth gives you this ridiculous idea? "Grooming" certainly isn't a euphemism. It is an entirely accurate and descriptive term.
Financial grooming has money right in the name. And there's other victim grooming patterns, so I wouldn't think 'financial grooming scam' is something to do with recombing a president's hair.
That is why we have the old saying: "You can't fool an honest man"
That isn't true of pig-butchering scams, or in general.
> That is why we have the old saying: "You can't fool an honest man"
The saying is "You can't cheat an honest man". And it's also bullshit. Don't trust old sayings; you can quote me on that.
The most effective way is to get a 'finance' app approved on the Apple/Google store (which is easy), then you send your victims there after grooming them for multiple weeks, then show above average returns, but not exceptional ones, so they keep depositing their savings, then when they try to withdraw, you make a message like 'you have to pay 40% taxes on your total earnings, please deposit that much before you can withdraw'.
That's why I think 'pig butchering', despite the negative connotation, is accurate. Yes, grooming is part of the scam, but it isn't the majority of it.
No, you're the one who made a claim unsupported by TFA, that victims usually believe they're acting illegally.
The scammers might very well tell everyone carlosjobim put them up to it. You can't just assume something is happening because it technically could happen.
Frankly you seem to be looking for some kind of argument where there is none.
Your comment claimed that most scam victims believed they were doing something illegal; I don't think that's a reasonable claim without evidence.
I've never heard of 'pig butchering' which sounds rather victim blaming and certainly would not be used as a *descriptive* term by UK banks, government or media.
I'm obviously missing some context or nuance here, since you're the second person to identify the connotation. Is it the "pig" part?
Your first sentence was fine, although I disagree that the term is intentional victim shaming.
But you came into a forum where people know term A, and went on full blast with "anyone who is still using (well known) term A instead of term B (that many people didn't even know exists) should be immediately discredited."
That's needlessly aggressive and doesn't really help get your message across.
Is it because the word "pig" implies that the victim hasn't kept Kosher and that the scam is god's punishment for that? Is there a general consensus that people who are "butchered" deserve to be murdered? This stigma was obvious and immediate for you, but I'm not picking it up. I don't wish to perpetuate the stigma, but you haven't shared what it is.