TikToker who exposed Jeffrey Marsh hounded bullied

[DerekFaker]

Meet the new progressiveism. A muslim woman being hounded and bullied for criticising a white man.

This is disgusting. I hope she and her family are going to be ok.

IdeoloGY not ideoloGISTS, sorry. Not enough coffee yet.

Seasonofthewitch83 · 13/03/2023 15:13

No - but she chose to stitch a video about trans people and grooming. Why?

Because he's Groomy McGroomerface, grooming kids on the internet, that's why. I don't know why you're highlighting the fact that she's made a compilation video, as if that were some kind of gotcha. It's not, we can see him speaking his creepy, "Hi kids! Talk to me in private and don't tell your parents!" schtick.

We can watch and hear him condemn himself in his own words.

Then you claim not to have seen anything like it and ask for a link, despite there being linked videos a few posts before yours. Then you asked a gain.

Then, you seem to know all about one of the videos and pretend that, because it's a compilation, it's irrelevant. I mean, what's anyone to think of you? That you have an agenda to support creepy weirdos, who target kids and get them to keep it a secret from their parents? Or something else?

You're a sealion, among other things.

Anyone with an ounce of safeguarding knowledge knows that everything marsh does goes against the fundamental rules to protect children from a wide range of harms.

☑️ communicates directly to children.

☑️ love bombs - various repetitive phrases about how much he loves them, targets their egos, makes them feel special.

☑️ gaslights and dismantles their red flag radars by telling them that he's not a 'strange man.' Sacred caste.,

☑️ a range of specific words and aesthetic dress to appeal to children and appear more 'feminine' and so 'safe.' Sacred caste

☑️ encourages them to ignore or leave their parents.

☑️ tells them he loves them and they can trust him.

☑️ creates a private message/ content account for children to contact him directly.

☑️ makes money out of children via private subscriptions. Children with additional needs are at greater risk of sexual and financial exploitation. These children are over represented in the trans community.

☑️ encourages denunciation of anyone who criticises him. Channels ideas around hate crimes and minorities. Jokes about killing critics. Sacred caste.

☑️ uses a social media platform very accessible and popular with children that works on algorithms that increase the viewing of similar content. Many parents allow its use below age.

☑️ encourages children to consider taking unproven and unlicensed drugs and mutilate and their bodies using unproven methods.

There will be more, please add.

He's waving more red flags than a team of labour morris dancers. (Visual reference only.)

And anyone who's done the Prevent Duty training will recognise a number of key radicalisation techniques there.

In any other situation this encouragement would be red flags. The pic is from the bbc about romance scams this morning . But when it find to kids and the T, the same warning signs have to be ignored.

I've posted peer reviewed journals on mumsnet before only to be told by GC cultists that it "doesn't count" or something.

I think this post should stand so I'm not going to report, but if we posted about trans rights "cultists" it would be deleted in a flash.

Since words actually mean something, I would really be interested in a break down of how 'GC' (and you would need to define what you are meaning by 'GC' for the purposes of your argument for it to make sense) fit the actual, easily Googlable criteria for the term 'cult'. Please do match up the evidence, it would be a most interesting read and I'm ready to be persuaded if you can prove it.

Tbh, I’m not sure that people who don’t know the difference between journals and the articles published within them are well equipped to evaluate the quality of either the research or the journal itself (or even to know that, like newspapers, not all academic journals are equally authoritative).

That is, of course, why they can’t understand that just being published doesn’t make academic research unquestionably right. In fact, one of the reasons for publishing it should be so that it can be subject to critique by others.

That’s without even considering the ‘cultists’ stuff.

WarriorN · Today 09:01

Anyone with an ounce of safeguarding knowledge knows that everything marsh does goes against the fundamental rules to protect children from a wide range of harms.

Yes, yes! But apart from all that, what's he done wrong? I need a thousand links, please. And I still won't believe you, so neuuurrr!

If it was a middle-aged man (or woman) doing this it would be denounced. Because it’s a Jeffrey Marsh doing it, it’s transphobic to denounce him.

HTH

If someone posts content that states or implies they believe sex is immutable, in what way are they not "on the gender critical side"?

The average person would be really surprise to find that a belief in the immutable nature of biological sex put them on a "side' at all which is entirely understandable because anything else is utter batshittery.

just being published doesn’t make academic research unquestionably right.

Exactly.

Nor can you try to separate the 'should be believed and is right' from 'is wrong and should be discarded' using only the criteria of 'research that props up my personal beliefs'.

Tbh it’s always a bit ‘tell me you don’t understand academic research without telling me you don’t understand academic research’ really.

Lisa M always nailed this spot on:

p_

That's fascinating and horrifying, in equal measure.

That is, of course, why they can’t understand that just being published doesn’t make academic research unquestionably right. In fact, one of the reasons for publishing it should be so that it can be subject to critique by others.

This, and also sometimes the research is sound, but extrapolations are made from it and interpretations made that aren't justified, either deliberately or because the person doesn't really understand it, and the research is used to claim something it doesn't support.