TikToker who exposed Jeffrey Marsh hounded bullied

I didn't know that - I am not on twitter anymore.

Thank you for the info though!

And so Shumirun is still responsible for the people who are responding to her public video.

yeah. we know.

Still victim blaming.

Your reading comprehension is...interesting.

LOJ stands for Owen Jones, but I'm sure you already know that.

As someone who uses the word "transphobia" so easily I'm pretty sure you have more than a working knowledge of MRA/TRA's.

Hey people!

It is absolutely fine to call out potentially creepy behaviour from anyone. Except that special group of people that season believes should NOT be called out. If you call out someone from that group, you deserve all the violent threats that you get.

Don't ever, ever include a video of someone saying something about that group. And If you DO.... edit it... oh! yeah! that is right.... if you edit it, it will simply be discredited and bring about the same result. Because? Reasons.

Apologies - the COMMENTS on her video were full of transphobia, not about JM.

She made a video about a male individual. That Marsh was TALKING about trans people in that section means that Marsh was TALKING about trans people.

Not one person on this thread has declared that 'all trans people are like that'. However, you keep attempting to use this and it is a cognitive distortion. It is a tactic and is being used to make Shumirun look responsible for the threats from people who cannot control their own violent actions.

Again, just you repeating that she could have just filmed a video of herself taking is a form of victim blaming.

How awful. She looks so absolutely terrified for her children's safety.

Shame on anyone that thinks she's responsible for terrorists threatening her children.

Then why were her videos filled with transphobia, if it was JUST about JM?

Words matter.

Why? This is a space for debate, not an echo chamber.

No idea what LOJ is.

Its fine to call out potentially creepy behaviour from anyone.

It is important to be aware that when you do so, you are aware that if this person belongs to a marginalised group that are often accused of being predator etc, that you make the distinction clear. Like not stitching your accusation video to one that discusses trans people in general.

@Seasonofthewitch83 off to Twitter please!

Are you LOJ ???

I saw the video, I thought it was about Marsh. I even thought that the nutters going after her now were Marsh fans.

I find it strange that the take that someone would have on a tiktok that's clearly about one man behaving inappropriately is that it's about all transpeople. It's either a persecution complex, projection or a guilty conscience.

Can I just check- is it ok to call out potentially creepy behaviour in relation to child safeguarding from "binary people"?

SHE made it about trans people.

No, she didn't. She didn't mention trans people. She just responded to a clip where JM was talking about trans people.

SHE made it about trans people.

She could have filmed a video of herself talking.

She didnt.

She stitched her own video making an accusation to a video of Jeffreys where THEY are talking about trans people. Its a pretty obvious implication.

I am not sure what point of this is unclear.

It is so so so damaging.

Whether she did it on purpose will never be known.

If she chose that video, then it was relevant to him posting inappropriately where children could access the video.

When someone says that freedom of speech does not mean there would be no consequences it should not mean that the speaker can now expect their children to be threatened and their car to be wrecked.

Yet this is what is happening in some parts of social media. Like "nice family you have here, too bad if something happened to it". Then the first person who spoke will silence herself...

This sounds like (dis)organised crime threats to me, and a major problem in some parts of political Twitter and other similar places, and also predominantly aimed at women who speak up.

That freedom of speech and speaking might have consequences is supposed to mean that others use their freedom of speech to argue back at the points the first speaker made.

I am furious about the organised crime type of threats, and thousandfold more when they are aimed at innocent bystanders in the debate, such as young children.

And again, go and find the video yourself.

I have watched it. Others have watched it as they have also confirmed that they have.

A standalone video?

What does that mean? Please explain that exactly.

Because to me, this reads that she should have created an 'unevidenced' video where the evidence was not embedded in her video and could then be easily discredited.

So, no. She did not make this about 'trans' people, she did make this about a 'male' person who was acting in a way that has been recognised as grooming by others as well.

However, you continue to make this about 'trans' people.

Err that will be because he is a groomer. He's posted no end of videos appealing to children; your parents fucked up, go no contact, I love you, I'll be your family etc etc.

You don't seem to understand the difference between being a groomer and a predator. Predators will nearly always groom or capitalise on grooming done by others but groomers pave the way for predators and abusers without necessarily engage in abuse directly. Some adults can unwittingly participate in grooming because they have been groomed themselves.

I remember that paedophile saying that even if they don't get to abuse the child, at least they would have prepared her for the next pedo.

Whatever JM's motives he is grooming children and that makes children vulnerable to predators and abusers.

No getting away from it. And people who have it spelled out a zillion times and still disagree are part of the problem.

And we will simply continue to point out the facts that you entered into a thread without doing your own research, and that content has been removed from public access and that settings have been changed.

So, you posting 'Still waiting for any evidence that isn't spliced clips from a right winger YouTube account....' is actually working against you at this point.

Says you who admits that they had not seen the videos discussed, and was not aware of the videos that were being discussed and cannot conceive that a male individual who has been accused of grooming has quickly changed their social media settings, including ... retrospectively changing the age on their patreon.

Marsh's Patreon WAS aimed at children as well as adults.

And it was open to under 18s until Marsh changed that.

Her video actually had a snippet of Marsh encouraging children to subscribe to Marsh's patreon.

Again, you are confidently making claims about video content that you have not seen and that video content has been deleted because of the threats agains Shumirun.

Woman ... hmmm maybe, maybe not. In the meantime pop off back to Twitter TIA