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.
It's a literal translation of the original Chinese term. This scam has been popular in Asia for years. One can use a euphemisms but it doesn't really help the victims. Also the term "grooming" has a negative connotation itself since some Western media outlets started using it to downplay child gang rape. See the British "grooming gangs".
People have to use words understood by others to communicate. this is the first time i've ever seen this term and agree it's better but don't think it's fair to discredit people using the current term
Financial grooming is a better name anyway. Maybe not the best, but I assumed a pig butchering scam had something to do with pigs or butchery, like maybe selling other meats as pork or pork as other meats, or selling products sourced from pigs as vegan.
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.
Seems to me that the name is an extremely vivid explanation of what's happening, and might therefore prevent it happening, by sticking in people's minds. Better to prevent it happening at all than name it to make people feel better about themselves.
Honestly that makes sense, the main reason the public doesn’t hear about these things is because victims don’t want to speak on this. They just got swindled, can you really blame them?
In almost every scam there is an element of "grey legal area", where the victim thinks that they are doing something slightly illegal or completely illegal and that's why it is going to pay out so well for them. That is to make sure victims don't tell police or really anybody. "Hey I was putting all my money into this criminal scheme, but instead I got scammed, can you help me?"
That is why we have the old saying: "You can't fool an honest man"
> In almost every scam there is an element of "grey legal area", where the victim thinks that they are doing something slightly illegal or completely illegal
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.
How are you so sure, and why are you so angry as to rage against old sayings? The pig butcher scammers might very well tell their victims that the supposed crypto investments are not allowed in China, to make them seem more lucrative.
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.
I was talking about why victims are many times reluctant to talk to the police or others when they've been scammed. My comment was not in response to the article, but to another comment.
Frankly you seem to be looking for some kind of argument where there is none.
If not most, then very many of the victims when it comes to scams for large amounts of money. There's good reason for this, if the victim wants to keep their dealings secret then there's less risk that somebody finds out and tells them they're being scammed.
"Financial grooming" is the term in common use in the UK.
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 also in the UK and I'm not seeing the victim blaming part of it. I don't think it's a great term, given that I had no idea what it meant until I read the article. Then again, I would have assumed "financial grooming" was a service offered by a concierge banker to lower my direct debits. Out of the two phrases, I do feel that saying "my uncle is being butchered" will get law enforcement to act more quickly than saying that he's being "groomed".
I'm obviously missing some context or nuance here, since you're the second person to identify the connotation. Is it the "pig" part?
This place is ridiculous. How do I get downvoted for trying to help the victim from being stigmatized? The term is horrible, and there is no legitimate reason to use it.
> 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.
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.
You're right that this place is ridiculous. However, as I mentioned in a cousin comment, I don't see the stigma and you haven't done a good job of explaining it.
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.
As far as I know the "pig" part is about fattening (increasing trust and and thus the payout) them up before butchering (scam exit). Really doesn't seem like victim shaming. If anything it makes me feel worse for the victim because its a long con involving trust and feelings.
As I've been told long enough "be strict in what you give, be liberal in what you accept". We're all welcome to apply (arbitrary) strict rules to what we say, but we ought to live with the fact not every does (or, anyway, have the same set of rules to start with)
