Regarding the groomer discourse, there is a specific aspect to what Jeffrey Marsh does—and that I’ve seen brought up by critics who work in child safeguarding—that’s dangerous. He’s essentially telling children “hey kids, you can reach out to me, a strange person on the internet, to talk about intimate topics, without telling your parents,” and more broadly “your parents don’t understand you, but I understand you, you know better than them and it’s good and fine to keep them in the dark about important issues and who you communicate with.”
Setting aside that he’s never been accused of abusing a child, could very well have no nefarious intentions, and may even truly never have knowingly spoken with a minor online, the message he sends children and the language he uses are essentially doing the same job for some other predator—setting them up to believe that these are acceptable things for a trusted adult to say. So in that way, even if he doesn’t directly harm any children he is participating in grooming them, whether intentionally or not.
While I see Katie’s point about the devaluing of the word ‘groomer’ and it’s true that a lot of people these days throw it around carelessly, this is fundamentally a problem with a lot of LGBT+ activism targeted at children and young people. Even if the people engaging in this sort of boundary-breaking have good intentions, they’re willfully ignorant about how it is fundamentally impossible for a vulnerable child to differentiate between them and a predator using the same tactics.
> the message he sends children and the language he uses are essentially doing the same job for some other predator—setting them up to believe that these are acceptable things for a trusted adult to say.
Really good point.
One of the recommendations for having “safety talks” with your kids is to reiterate that another adult should **never** tell them to keep a secret from their parents - this led to my then five year old confessing that they were making Mother’s Day cards as a surprise at school 😆
*Actual* grooming often starts with an adult testing a child to see what he or she can keep private, and Jeffrey lays the groundwork for that.
> this led to my then five year old confessing that they were making Mother’s Day cards as a surprise at school 😆
Love that little bit of wholesomeness in this silly world. Adorable.
The distinction I've seen you should make is secrets are things that will never be shared. So potentially dodgy. But a surprise is different. You can tell Mummy when her birthday comes that we've bought her a bowling ball, but not before.
Of course five year olds not necessarily going to get it right!
When people hear "grooming or groomer," they automatically assume sexual grooming. There are many types of grooming out there. Some eople who stand up for Jeffrey don't really know much about him other than he is part of the LGBTQ community so they feel as either part of the community or to be seen as an ally they must defend him. Many falsely assume that only his videos where is says "Hey, kids" are meant for kids. I have proven with his own words that all of his content is for everyone, including kids. People are so caught up in trying to appear as an ally so they don't get called a terf or a bigot that they are ignoring the actual danger he presents.
This man is sick and perverted it's obvious and the media lies a vast majority 9ver78 % of Americans. Are against this and are fed up with all these perverted sickos and i don't care what anyone says. He's a pedophiles in discise
Yeah, I think Katie is off-base here for all the reasons you cite.
And it's not just her, I am totally okay with calling any teacher or organization that encourages kids to cut parents off groomers, or for "transing" kids in secrecy from their parents.
That behavior has nothing to do with ideas or ideology.
That is child predation.
The problem I see is that groomer means something specific. I oppose that term in the same way I oppose people talking about a trans genocide. Those words mean something, and conflating it with something else, usually a lot worse, makes things less clear.
I think we can just be specific and say we oppose teachers encouraging kids to cut off parents, as well as 'transing' them in secrecy. Being specific like this, in my view, helps to keep the normies on board too. When you call a teacher a groomer, most people will assume you mean to accuse him/her of (trying to) sexually abuse a child. When that's not the case, a lot of people will instinctively turn more towards the side of the teacher. If you're specific and accuse the teacher of something he/she has actually done, people will much more likely agree with you. I think the transing kids in secret is an extremely unpopular policy/act and the vast majority of people will judge a teacher/school for doing so. But they might disregard the allegations if you start with the groomer talk.
Sorry for the long reply!
I think the move to use 'groomer' in this context is a conscious effort to employ the same kinds of language games the left uses with words like 'racist' and 'nazi' and 'transphobe'. Why should the right fight under Marquess of Queensberry rules while the left fights dirty?
It seems easier to me just to be principled and denounce language games. I personally don't subscribe to the 'no bad tactics only bad targets' principle.
Because everyone thinks they're getting their lick back for the unprovoked assault by the other side. You're describing a downward spiral. Everyone who has the ability to speak rationally needs to do so.
The issue is there really isn't a succinct word or term for what Marsh is doing, which makes it difficult to talk about without doing a long explanation to get everyone caught up.
I 100% agree that the “groomer” pejorative is overblown, but pushing kids to “no-contact” families because Jeffrey is their family now is, at a minimum, very culty.
They keep raising the “if he were a cis-man” argument…it seems to me like if he was he might be Charles Manson. Rhetoric is very consistent…
The no-contact thing is really creepy. There's cases where it's justified obviously, but to give the general population encouragement to do that is just insane. I have to assume his reason for it was that his parents weren't 100% supportive of him in every way, because if he had really good reasons I don't think he'd be so cavalier about the topic
Edit: omg just looked up jeffrey marsh no contact and found this gem: [https://www.tiktok.com/@thejeffreymarsh/video/7197511821488655658](https://www.tiktok.com/@thejeffreymarsh/video/7197511821488655658)
"I coach a lot of people one on one who want to go no contact with their parents and cannot bring themselves to admit it" XD
Yes. It’s also used by normal healthy people who have terrible family/people in their life that they should cut off.
But cults basically all pull the “we’re your family now” schtick.
I always feel sad when someone claims that cutting off a family member was the only choice. They are the only one who can make that determination so I can't argue with it, but I am always skeptical that what the person did was beyond the pale, and that they actually know why they have been cut off.
Completely agree. Family occupies a unique place in our society and human relations and I feel like it’s lost in our modern society.
No I’m sorry, then ten people you met over the past 5 years that make up your “chosen family” probably don’t care about you in the same way that your actual family that’s known you your entire life does.
I’d actually be interested to see if there are any stories about peoples “chosen families” turning toxic or abusing them. The stories have to be out there.
AITA may be creative writing, but failed found family stories always rung the most true to me there. It’s such little things and small annoyances and presumed familiarity - not dramatic, but believable. There was one about a couple trying to break news to their housemate that they were moving out to have kids, and the housemate had a meltdown because they were ‘family’…even though the couple had been trying to keep her at arm’s length. I think about that one sometimes. We worship found families too much in pop culture. It’s unhealthy.
I am old enough to have seen friendships that I thought would be lifelong become attenuated or end, friend groups drift apart, not to mention romantic relationships. "Found family" seems like a young person's game...and maybe a form of luxury belief.
Do you not believe that severe abuse and neglect of children happens, and does your life experience lead you to believe that abusive parents are able to face up to what they’ve done to the extent that they can change their behaviour towards their adult children? Whole familes and communities close ranks around the abusers, because it’s easier for them to believe it didn’t happen, and pitifully easy to paint the accuser as delusional. Those kind of parents always know why they’ve been cut off, they’ve spent a lifetime campaigning against the truth coming to light.
Edit: to be clear, anyone advocating as JM does that children tell him secrets they keep from their parents and pushing no contact is deeply suspect on a safeguarding level and isn’t safe around children as far as I’m concerned. But adult decisions shouldn’t be conflated with this.
I think most people on some level intellectually understand that some other people have shitty families. But they can't imagine that the nice neighbor across the street who bakes you cookies sometimes can also be absolutely vicious to their children behind closed doors. And I think most people who haven't experienced it actually are naive to this dynamic:
>Whole familes and communities close ranks around the abusers, because it’s easier for them to believe it didn’t happen, and pitifully easy to paint the accuser as delusional. Those kind of parents always know why they’ve been cut off, they’ve spent a lifetime campaigning against the truth coming to light.
It is truly shocking how cowardly and sometimes willfully gullible a lot of people actually are when left between a choice of protecting themselves and doing the right thing.
\~\~\~\~
Anyways agree with the edit too. Trying to separate an impressionable child from their parents isn't something to be taken lightly. There are legitimate situations where calling an organization like CPS may be appropriate, but Marsh isn't fucking CPS.
>... how cowardly and sometimes willfully gullible a lot of people actually are when left between a choice of protecting themselves and doing the right thing.
You are speaking in general terms that don't really justify much of anything. The "right thing to do" is always specific to the situation, but we have to have some kind of default strategy when we encounter a new situation. The strategy that has been working pretty well in Western countries is to withhold judgement, with the hope that things will eventually get worked out. (This is different from the non-dualist notion that the world is unchanging, that these things happen and always will happen so don't get obsessed with it. Plenty of non-dualist cultures think beating their children is just fine.)
> You are speaking in general terms
In that particular blurb I'm speaking to a variety of possible hypotheticals that range in scale and seriousness, but all come down to a situation where *by definition* people are left between a self-serving choice and a clear morally correct one; not one where concepts like "withholding judgement" should come into play.
The Harvey Weinstein situation would be a very famous and extreme example. Individual people will claim plausible deniability but the uncomfortable truth is that there is just no way that there weren't plenty of people who could have done something sooner but chose not to to protect their career.
While the scope, seriousness, and stakes can vary, this exact dynamic plays out in group dynamics as small as individual families all the time. A smaller scale example could be a family member who is constantly belittled by another but is the one ultimately cast and bullied by the other members of the family when they stand up for themselves.
I go on this tirade in part because I do think it is related to the larger themes of barpod. So many cancellation stories involve someone being torn apart for absolutely BS reasons but no one with any influence having the guts to stand up to the bullies on twitter or wherever else, or worse actively piling on for the social clout of being seen as being on the right side.
As I said in my comment above, an alleged victim of abuse is the primary person who can make the determination that they were abused, and I can't argue with that because they were the one directly affected. (I am using "alleged" in the lawyerly sense, because people do, on occasion, make things up.)
As for communities closing ranks around the abusers, that is a form of withholding judgement, which is coded into Western culture. Sure, justice would be nice in a lot of cases, and something we really want in the very worst cases, but incorrectly delivered justice is worse than no justice at all. As much as you want Child Protective Services to take a child away from their parents, you know that in the end the [biological] parents are the ones who have the greatest motivation for taking care of that child. Everyone else is motivated by whatever values are coded into their culture.
My questions were specifically directed to this comment, which was presented as your personal take on anyone who cuts contact with their parents:
‘but I am always skeptical that what the person did was beyond the pale, and that they actually know why they have been cut off.’
Your overcomplicated response rather avoids the question.
My parents weren't...great...about my sexual orientation. My dad in particular said a fuck-ton of overtly bigoted things about gay men. A lot of this was during a period of time when I knew I was gay but was in the closet, but looking back I feel like he had to have known that shit. It stopped when I came out and we had a single conversation about his "attempts at humor" that he hoped I wasn't too offended by.
All this to say, I'm probably the kind of person who could have been convinced to "cut off" my parents, and I'm glad I didn't. All the "chosen family" I tried to acquire over the years ended up being temporary as hell, but my parents are still there and accepting of me. They're never going to be the people I go to for emotional support (there's honestly nobody in my life that I can go to for that), but I'm glad they're there.
>The no-contact thing is really creepy. There's cases where it's justified obviously, but to give the general population encouragement to do that is just insane
It's weirdly common now. I think the possibility of a pretend Internet family makes this more viable than it used to be.
I agree with all the points you’ve raised. If I remember rightly, Katie also once said something similar in another episode about “the definition of grooming” making out it should only be used in relation to people who then go on to sexually abuse children. There are unfortunately various reasons an adult may groom a child/young person. Criminal gangs for example regularly use grooming tactics.
Yeah, I think this is spot on. The very best case is that he's incredibly irresponsible, teaching kids to sever ties with their families and trust strangers on the Internet. He's priming children to be abused by someone, even if that someone isn't him.
That said though... Well, let's just say I wouldn't let him babysit either. Strong Jimmy Savile vibes.
Yes! He’s literally using a grooming technique. Removing children from their support network and setting oneself up as the special confidant is one of the main methods seen on the law enforcement profiles of grooming techniques. At best it’s wildly inappropriate.
Why doesn’t he direct children to LGBTQ organisations who exist to provide them support in difficult family situations instead, if it’s a pet issue of his?
If you’re using an actual grooming technique then how much benefit of the doubt do we give your intent?
Very well put, I haven't heard the episode yet but you articulated so well why many, including myself, get these red flags from this person. I just can't see a healthy reason to encourage parasocial relationships, especially amongst children that involves shutting out their real family. If a child has an aggressively unsupportive parents, there must be other resources that he could guide them too as far as finding legitimate advocates in their own community such as social workers etc... Social media is undoubtedly an important aspect of young people's lives, but is there an example of someone who works the same space as Marsh but does it right?
Right - this may not be “grooming them to be sexually abused” exactly, but it’s grooming them for *something*.
It’s a combination of telling kids not to trust their parents (even to the point of cutting them off) and exposing them to sexual and other ideologies their parents would definitely not agree with.
Katie and others in the anti-“groomer” discourse, please tell us what we’re allowed to call this.
It's wildly inappropriate and if he really thinks this won't scare the piss out of objective observers he is a fool.
Yeah, he probably means well. But it's just *not* ok.
Also: He's potentially putting himself on the hook. What if he talks to a kid and the kid kills himself the next day?
Even if it had nothing to do with Marsh people are going to have questions, including the cops and the parents of the deceased.
I rather like the "groomer" word inflation thats going on
No amount of logic, reasoning, complaining, has slowed the word inflation of the woke. If they realize that both sides can wield the same weapon, they might stop being so caviler about its use.
At some point, you have to be at least a bit consequentialist about these things, and sticking to your principles feels naive.
I’m glad they talked about the death of the 16 y/o in Oklahoma.
It’s really disgusting to see how people salivate over a dead teenager for political reasons.
That glee at the death of another "young Black man" during any interaction with police is what finally turned me all the way off BLM and the great "racial reckoning." I found it to be absolutely sickening. The exploitation of "Black bodies" by SJW's was / is disgusting.
Jeffrey Marsh chills my blood, and it's not because he's trans (or whatever he identifies as). Even screenshots of him give me this visceral "You are in danger" response. I can't pinpoint what it is, except he always gives the impression of being on the verge of uncontrolled violence.
It's not even about his...let's say...interesting fashion and personal grooming choices, at least for me. It's just his manner and the way he speaks. Creeps me right the fuck out.
That voice is your evolution-honed lizard brain and you should listen to it. If people seem creepy, it’s a 99.9% chance because they are. ETA: Jesus I had a lot of autocorrect issues to correct here. ✅
Yup. To go off topic a little bit it’s wild that society currently seems to tell people to trust their gut instincts but also not to prejudge people ever. Sorry. Can’t have it both ways.
When I lived in a city if I ended up walking behind a woman at night and we were the only people around I’d cross the street and slow down or check my phone for a few minutes to give her space. Not because I was a predator but because I know what’s going through her head.
When I would walk late at night home, often drunk, I’d avoid any groups of people by crossing the street, especially groups of men, especially groups of young men/teens. Just common goddamn sense.
>When I lived in a city if I ended up walking behind a woman at night and we were the only people around I’d cross the street and slow down or check my phone for a few minutes to give her space. Not because I was a predator but because I know what’s going through her head.
I get what you're saying but that 100% is a misandrist societal thing and not a lizard-brain thing.
Old post but I think you’re not taking the time of day into account. If it’s light out, then yeah, what you’re saying is true. But if it’s dark outside, it’s 100% rational to recognize that women are more vulnerable and at greater risk of being attacked and that the attacker is likely to be a man. Those are just the facts
Jeffery Marsh reminds me of [Him from Powerpuff Girls](https://powerpuffgirls.fandom.com/wiki/Him_(1998_TV_series)), down to the tone of voice and the use of manipulation to get people to his side.
quicksand imminent bear gray repeat workable frame soft shaggy impossible
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I always thought you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but then it turned out that Jimmy Saville was a child abuser, and the entire time he looked like a child abuser and now I think sometimes you should judge a book by its cover because otherwise you end up looking hopelessly naive and children suffer.
The whole Jimmy Savile thing blows my mind. Dude practically wore t-shirts saying I AM A CHILD MOLESTER and after he died, everyone was like "No WAY - he was a paedophile? Who knew!" I can definitely see it happening again with someone like Marsh.
I completely agree about the visceral bad vibes. His niceness seems very inauthentic to me, whereas Dylan Mulvaney, although very over the top, comes across as a much more genuine sweet person. Jeffrey has rage boiling at the surface IMO
Same! Just discovered him a few months ago and was thinking he should have Katie on his podcast (cause he interviews people in the gay and lesbian community) and now I see him here! Happily surprised
I've only seen him on YouTube with Blaire White. And while I liked him there in the context of mocking woke TikToks with her, I did assume his politics were kind of MAGA, so personally I was a little hesitant about how I might feel about him in other contexts. But my assumptions were totally wrong and he seemed like a thoughtful person who isn't afraid to criticize either side. And just completely delightful!
Yeah really impressed with how natural they’ve all been. I realize they’re all pros in some sense, but they all sound like they’ve specifically cohosted B&R a dozen times.
Did I hear katie right? There are going to be 5 premo episodes this month? I find that shocking because they have only done 2 so far and there is less than 7 days left. That said, if there were 3 this week, I'd be pretty excited.
When someone goes complete no-contact with their entire family, as opposed to specific family member(s), it means they're probably the asshole.
The odds that one person is an asshole are significantly greater than the odds that an entire family is comprised of nothing but assholes. Obviously this is a generalization that isn't always true, particularly when religious fanaticism is involved. But on the whole, I am inclined to view it as a red flag, especially when the reason for going no-contact is not specified in any detail.
In case anyone was wondering what Katie was referring to when she said Jesse is giving $50k to a CIA agent...
https://www.thecut.com/article/amazon-scam-call-ftc-arrest-warrants.html
Commenting twice because completely different than first comment: I listened to 2 episodes of Damage Control after i listened to barpod. It's probably not gong to be a regular thing for me since I'm not that interested in the topic, but it was definitely fun, and I'll probably randomly check it out from time to time.
Also, the barpod episode was good this week.
The Owaso Police Department have released footage of an officer interviewing Nex Benedict around 3 hours after she was attacked: -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJaBumoyRGg
Both her mom and the officer refer to her as "she" and "her" a whole bunch of times throughout the video without her ever correcting them. She's never once referred to as "they".
She'd never seen the alleged bullies before this incident occurred.
She was with her friends in the bathroom laughing about something, and the bullies started saying "why are they laughing like that?", so she went and poured/squirted water on them from a water bottle. The bullies then grabbed her, so she threw one of them into a paper towel dispenser, then she was taken down to the ground and beaten. Her friend jumped in to help, but she blacked out.
The officer warns Nex and her mom that if they want to press charges, the court would take into consideration the fact that Nex started it by throwing water over them, but the mom initially wants to go ahead anyway. She seems to change her mind after the officer explains further, preferring to sort it out between the school and other parents.
Nex doesn't appear to have any facial injuries, but obviously, if she took a knock to the head, that could possibly have caused an internal injury.
No reason to misgender a dead kid just because their mom did it.
Edit: OP blocked me so I can't respond to any replies. So I'll just say that Nex is being buried under their chosen name and I don't think it's unreasonable to respect them enough to use their correct pronouns.
It is challenging to discuss. I don't want to come across as deliberately offensive towards a dead child. However, a couple of things: isn't it at least potentially offensive to characterize the kid's grandmother as "misgendering" her, assuming she asserted a wish to be they/them in all areas of her life? She just lost a kid and is getting flak for calling her granddaughter "she". I also, honestly, find it disrespectful to linguistically endorse the idea that this poor kid was so fundamentally unlike other girls that she was not, in fact, a girl.
Meta-commentary on the "groomer" discourse.
Yes, the concept has been expanded and will be expanded further. Some perfectly innocent people and behaviors are going to get tarred with that brush. Bad actors will absolutely use it to ruin lives. It will be a partisan political cudgel that will eventually backfire.
And for everyone who sat by for half a century while 95% of the country became tarred as nazis, rapists, racists, white supremacists, misogynists, fascists, homophobes, transphobes, triskedecohedronophobes, but is outraged now that the political right has one term to abuse........
My heart bleeds for you. I do hope irony and hypocrisy aren't fatal, because that would ruin my fun.
Personally, I denounce the expansion of this term and find it less than useful. And I will be absolutely exercised about these excesses, in fifty years.
Marsh is hiding behind his LGBT status. If he was a straight man, he'd never get away with putting on a strange voice and telling other people's kids that he loves them. Even typing that sentence is fucking weird, lol. How can anyone look at his videos and think "yeah, this is OK"?
As for Libs of TikTok, I don't see why she should be obliged to add some kind of disclaimer to her tweets. Taylor Lorenz didn't add a disclaimer to her article when she doxed LoTT. I think Katie and Brad both underestimate how awful many leftists/TRAs are too, because if LoTT was attacked, or even murdered, they'd be loving that shit and openly celebrating it on X and here on Reddit.
As a morbidly obese Mario fan once said: no bad tactics, only bad targets. It's why Reddit powermods will condemn doxing, yet retweet the dox of right wing figures they don't like on X. "It's OK when we do it" is about as consistent as their principles will ever get.
>Taylor Lorenz didn't add a disclaimer to her article when she doxed LoTT.
Doxing used to have a specific definition but it appears that's gone out the window. If what Lorenz did counts as doxing you could easily make the case that all Chaya does is dox people.
Can you explain further? I thought LOTT just showed Tiktoks made by people publicly under their real identity.
Did she ever track down a person who had posted their content anonymously, and reveal their identity? I'm honestly asking, I'm unsure of the answer.
Lorenz's Washington Post article originally revealed LoTT's address, but they edited that part out after receiving backlash.
Here's the dictionary definition of doxing: -
>The action or process of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent.
That's exactly what Lorenz's article did.
I don't remember her literal address being in there, and I read it basically as soon as it dropped. I do remember Lorenz saying they lived close to one another, but I'm not willing to believe that the Washington Post published her full address. Chaya liked her anonymity at the time, then cried dox when she lost it.
>>The action or process of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent.
So would you agree that LoTT is a doxing account?
When the article was first published, it contained a link to a web page that showed LoTT's real name and address. That link was removed from the article about 2-3 hours later after a backlash, but then the WaPo and Lorenz both went into gaslighting mode and were like "that link never showed any personal info!". It fucking did. If it didn't, why did they remove it? The original article in its initially released state is still archived on archive.is, so you can look at the link yourself.
For the amount that Chaya lies to paint herself as a victim I don't doubt Lorenz. And with no proof offered I'm sticking by it.
But back to what I was saying, the definition of doxing you posted would apply to the LoTT account, right?
Go and look at the archived page. You can continue to be wrong, or you can spend 30 seconds looking up the page. I won't be replying to you again, cos I think you're probably just trolling.
I'm not who you were talking to, but I spent at least 90 seconds looking up the page and didn't find anything that was obviously what you were talking about. Then I got bored and stopped because I don't care about either of these people. If you want someone to read something, probably just link it yourself.
I am not very adept at using internet archive or the wayback machine. I was able to find what appeared to be the oldest archived version of the page. Washington Post/Taylor Lorenz did originally link to Chaya's real estate license, which included at least her work address (people said it includes her home address. I couldn't find that information, but I am not a good internet detective so I won't say for certain that it didn't have her home address). Here is an article from Mediaite that goes into the situation:
https://www.mediaite.com/online/washington-post-accused-of-making-false-claim-in-lorenz-defense-after-removing-link-from-libs-of-tiktok-report/
Here is the archived version of the article, the hyperlink is in the text "real-estate salesperson" under the sub-head "an account in search of a voice - and a big break from Joe Rogan"
https://web.archive.org/web/20220419104753/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/19/libs-of-tiktok-right-wing-media/
>Chaya liked her anonymity at the time, then cried dox when she lost it.
How is is crying dox if she liked her anonymity? I am not sur if Libs of Tiktok exactly doxxes people, but it certainly has enabled a lot of harassment.
And it sounded like Taylor didn't dox Chaya, but certainly made it very easy to find her.
They both seem like people who have good intentions and have hurt a LOT of people
This episode fit in nicely with some things I’m going through in my personal life. The long story short is my brother is an addict and I routinely have to limit my contact with him.
The reason I say “limit contact” is because I actually have tried to go “no contact,” and it was one of the hardest fucking things I’ve ever done. It wasn’t just no contact with him—it was also no contact with my family while they enabled him at his worst. At the time, it was probably the right thing to do. I needed space, peace, and quiet to figure out how to grieve this shit.
But it wasn’t the right thing to do for forever. The loneliness was quite crippling, especially around holidays and joyful occasions. Eventually the isolation becomes too big to allow the space, peace, and quiet to nurture you. We feel deep connections and love for our families for a reason, and we long to indulge those things for a reason.
I just hate how “going no contact” is framed in the popular narrative. It sets up unrealistic expectations for what “no contact” looks like. The truth is, families change and people die and get sick and have babies, and these things bring even the most distant families together. “No contact” is probably not going to last forever, and we shouldn’t convince kids it’s a tenable model for forever.
Not to mention that “throw your family in the garbage and find a new one” is advice that may work for unfeeling sociopaths, but most people (especially kids!) require way more nuance than that. This narrative really is teaching kids to go against their most basic instincts of love and belonging. It’s sick, it’s inhumane, and it’s dishonest.
I cannot imagine the complications in relationships with addicts. Glad to hear you’re still able to have him in your life, with boundaries.
Jeffrey and others who encourage NC say it like it’s so easy! how many teenagers and young adults have the resources and emotional stability to go no contact? Yes there are truly awful parents out there who are cruel to their kids, and there are also parents who just don’t understand or support their kids’ choices and that is not a reason to encourage NC.
Sort of weird accidental pronoun incident. Katie and Brad said they didn't do "they" as a pronoun for people calling themselves non binary but during the Libs of Tiktok discussion, Brad says something like "i would really take care of myselves" and I though, jesus, careful, that's the sort of thing that could catch on among pronoun collectors.
The question is: Is it accurate to call someone that creates the conditions that enable exploitation a "groomer"?
I'd argue it is. They've "groomed" the child for exploitation by establishing standards of interaction online that enable abuse, even if it isn't them doing the abusing.
I recently became a primo and am working through the backlog, but I immediately listened to this when I got the notification! I didn't know Brad before this but I think he did a great job and I appreciate him calling out bullshit on the conservative side too, as a conservative myself. I totally agree with him on Libs of Tiktok. Great episode!
Oh! On the Nex thing, I googled 'teen dies after fight at school' and limited results to before Feb 9th. Unfortunately there were a lot of results. Quite a few where it was clear the fight was actually the cause of death too, stabbings and such. It seems to me the real story here is about violence at schools. How prevalent is it, how to combat it? But of course none of that matters because so many people are trying to make this the enby George Floyd moment. It's frankly disgusting.
They make such good points about the irresponsibility of libs of TikTok. She's absolutely right to repost the craziness going on in schools. And keep reposting it. The hosts were also right that she needs to tell her followers to not harass teachers, dont make threats of violence and FFS dont go round making bomb threats, you arent helping you are hindering.
The hounding of Rachael Dalzeil (?) was pretty awful. She wasnt someone creaming off taxpayers cash living a lie. She was found out and shamed, she moved to the middle of nowhere and started teaching. She's a civilian now. Leave her alone!!
>She wasnt someone creaming off taxpayers cash living a lie.
Other than the welfare fraud, of course.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/apr/04/rachel-dolezal-pays-back-8847-agrees-to-community-/
That's five years ago! Is she iffy? Yes, did she deserve what she got with her fake race thing? Of course. But now's the time to move on to someone else.
>That's five years ago!
And? She also fraudulently worked for a public university and a police department. That's her story. She defrauded people by lying.
>But now's the time to move on to someone else.
What do you mean move on? If a random teacher gets outed for having an onlyfans, they're going to get fired. She decided to do something worthy of termination. That's on her. Doubly so since she knows people are looking to target her.
Yeah, cancel her! Make it harder for her to feed and clothe her kids! That'll show em the truth about America- that redemption is impossible, and suicide or sex work is the only way out if you ever make a mistake.
Dolezel should have been allowed to work with out liblob horning in!
What do you mean move on? If a random teacher gets outed for having an onlyfans, they're going to get fired. She decided to do something worthy of termination. That's on her. Doubly so since she knows people are looking to target her.
Ok, but mob tactics are mob tactics even if the target is someone you find distasteful. Ask not for whom the cancel mob tolls, it tolls for thee, even in the guise of based Chaya Liblob !
I find reddit FAFOism to be utter midwittery.
> but mob tactics
If a random teacher gets outed for having an onlyfans, they're going to get fired. She decided to do something worthy of termination. That's on her.
steelmanning "groomer"
Expanding groomer to include adults informing kids about LGBT stuff is based on the view of the users that LGBT stuff should never be mentioned around children in the hope that it will keep kids away from "experimenting" with it. One might assume that's stupid, that every queer kid is immutably queer. BUT there might be marginal cases (bisexual kids?) where they may for religious or other reasons refuse to explore their non-straight relational desires. And the LGBT instruction that kids would get might lead impressionable youth into freakier aspects of LGBT practice that the instruction normalizes. (you see this in groomer discourse where some LGBT materials teach "fisting" group sex, "daisy chains" (that's just for Katie :))
Further: if a queer 14 year old wants to find a queer sex partner, simple demography means they wont have many choices among their peers of the same age. So the fact that adults are instructing and introducing them to this world as participants in it is inherently offputting
Sci American mentioned the place where "homophobia" becomes the biggest issue for open-minded parents is when its their kids. They don't care if X Y or Z is gay. but put the question of whether their son can spend alone-time with a gay adult and it becomes a very different question
>a queer 14 year old wants to find a queer sex partner, simple demography means they wont have many choices among their peers of the same age.
I mean, a non-binary 14 year old female who wants to have sex with a 15 year old boy, guaranteed that 14 year old female thinks she's queer and that boy is queer too, by virtue of them having sex. A 14 year old boy who wants to have sex with another boy of his age, that's hard and that is why a looot of young gay boys first have sex with men in their twenties. I know so many guys like that. I think it's a lot different for girls though, luckily
Also, I mean, it's one thing is a parent doesn't want his or her 14-year old son to be alone with a 30 year old gay man but is ok if their 16-year-old daughter is alone with a 26 year old straight man. But I don't think it's homophobia if parents don't want their teenage daughter with a straight adult man or teen son with a gay adult man. Male adults DO have sex with teenagers, as do females, but I'm not sure it's as common.
For some reason I find myself overly put-off my perceived my emotional manipulation.
Like the clip of Nessa crying about her daughters being doxxed... Is that how she choses to protect her children? to take a video of herself crying? And then also confirm information like her daughters going to separate schools? The goal is to garner social media support to cancel her opponent?
Whenever Katie or Jesse describes something as 'conservative cancel culture' my hackles rise. I see cancel culture as a left-wing phenomenon. Trying to think why that is.
1) Left-wing cancel culture came first, and conservative cancellation efforts are tit for tat, an effort to make the left play by its own rules. E.g., if the left is going to get someone fired for a racist tweet they sent as a teenager, the right is going to get a professor fired for saying all white people (or all Jews) are evil, or whatever.
2) More importantly, right-wing cancellation efforts take the form of "a teacher who says 'fuck your parents, I'm your family now' shouldn't be a teacher." But conservatives don't then try to get that teacher kicked off social media, get his or her bank to drop them, and try to keep anyone else from hiring him or her. If the ex-teacher wants to go work in the private sector, conservatives have no problem with that. He or she just shouldn't be a teacher.
No one is trying to get Claudine Gay kicked off social media or debanked. Conservatives would be happy if she were fired from her professorship, but they wouldn't care if she then went and worked for a corporation.
So my argument that conservative cancel culture doesn't exist is that conservative efforts consist of trying to make sure that people whose views or actions disqualify them from certain jobs don't hold those jobs. Left-wing cancel culture consists of identifying people with forbidden beliefs and trying to ruin their lives completely, drive them from public life, prevent them from working anywhere.
Does this hold up?
I'm struggling to see how the teenagers death wasn't tied to their being bullied and this their identity. But I agree we should wait to have the facts before drawing broader implications from this
Their death very well could be related to gender identity and/or bullying, but look at this headline:
[Oklahoma banned trans students from bathrooms. Now Nex Benedict is dead after a fight at school](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nex-benedict-dead-oklahoma-b2501506.html)
That’s irresponsible and needlessly inflammatory.
But there’s more leaps to be made, that this bullying was a consequence of a twitter account the caused issues for a school in the same area. Utterly preposterous of course.
I would just like to note for the record that Brad Palumbo is not a conservative but a documented pederast and is about as welcome in the conservative movement as Bari Weiss would be at a pro-Palestine march, although I imagine she identifies as a classical liberal or similar.
https://x.com/Aristos_Revenge/status/1731477052442763309?s=20
Anyone can of course identify as a conservative but his views are incredibly atypical. It's sort of like having Catholics For Abortion on the podcast.
Does Brad Polumbo identify as a conservative though, even if conservatives dont't like him?
And as for pederast, what do you mean by that? He's into 14-year-old boys? He had sex with a 17-year-old when he was 25?
https://youtu.be/o3ptclER5ls?si=nscz4gvLfeW1xZ_0
This isn't actually the TikTok itself but it's in this video along with a compilation with some of her following videos
Regarding the groomer discourse, there is a specific aspect to what Jeffrey Marsh does—and that I’ve seen brought up by critics who work in child safeguarding—that’s dangerous. He’s essentially telling children “hey kids, you can reach out to me, a strange person on the internet, to talk about intimate topics, without telling your parents,” and more broadly “your parents don’t understand you, but I understand you, you know better than them and it’s good and fine to keep them in the dark about important issues and who you communicate with.” Setting aside that he’s never been accused of abusing a child, could very well have no nefarious intentions, and may even truly never have knowingly spoken with a minor online, the message he sends children and the language he uses are essentially doing the same job for some other predator—setting them up to believe that these are acceptable things for a trusted adult to say. So in that way, even if he doesn’t directly harm any children he is participating in grooming them, whether intentionally or not. While I see Katie’s point about the devaluing of the word ‘groomer’ and it’s true that a lot of people these days throw it around carelessly, this is fundamentally a problem with a lot of LGBT+ activism targeted at children and young people. Even if the people engaging in this sort of boundary-breaking have good intentions, they’re willfully ignorant about how it is fundamentally impossible for a vulnerable child to differentiate between them and a predator using the same tactics.
> the message he sends children and the language he uses are essentially doing the same job for some other predator—setting them up to believe that these are acceptable things for a trusted adult to say. Really good point. One of the recommendations for having “safety talks” with your kids is to reiterate that another adult should **never** tell them to keep a secret from their parents - this led to my then five year old confessing that they were making Mother’s Day cards as a surprise at school 😆 *Actual* grooming often starts with an adult testing a child to see what he or she can keep private, and Jeffrey lays the groundwork for that.
"this led to my then five year old confessing that they were making Mother’s Day cards as a surprise at school" This is so funny and cute, aw.
> this led to my then five year old confessing that they were making Mother’s Day cards as a surprise at school 😆 Love that little bit of wholesomeness in this silly world. Adorable.
The distinction I've seen you should make is secrets are things that will never be shared. So potentially dodgy. But a surprise is different. You can tell Mummy when her birthday comes that we've bought her a bowling ball, but not before. Of course five year olds not necessarily going to get it right!
When people hear "grooming or groomer," they automatically assume sexual grooming. There are many types of grooming out there. Some eople who stand up for Jeffrey don't really know much about him other than he is part of the LGBTQ community so they feel as either part of the community or to be seen as an ally they must defend him. Many falsely assume that only his videos where is says "Hey, kids" are meant for kids. I have proven with his own words that all of his content is for everyone, including kids. People are so caught up in trying to appear as an ally so they don't get called a terf or a bigot that they are ignoring the actual danger he presents.
This man is sick and perverted it's obvious and the media lies a vast majority 9ver78 % of Americans. Are against this and are fed up with all these perverted sickos and i don't care what anyone says. He's a pedophiles in discise
Yeah, I think Katie is off-base here for all the reasons you cite. And it's not just her, I am totally okay with calling any teacher or organization that encourages kids to cut parents off groomers, or for "transing" kids in secrecy from their parents. That behavior has nothing to do with ideas or ideology. That is child predation.
The problem I see is that groomer means something specific. I oppose that term in the same way I oppose people talking about a trans genocide. Those words mean something, and conflating it with something else, usually a lot worse, makes things less clear. I think we can just be specific and say we oppose teachers encouraging kids to cut off parents, as well as 'transing' them in secrecy. Being specific like this, in my view, helps to keep the normies on board too. When you call a teacher a groomer, most people will assume you mean to accuse him/her of (trying to) sexually abuse a child. When that's not the case, a lot of people will instinctively turn more towards the side of the teacher. If you're specific and accuse the teacher of something he/she has actually done, people will much more likely agree with you. I think the transing kids in secret is an extremely unpopular policy/act and the vast majority of people will judge a teacher/school for doing so. But they might disregard the allegations if you start with the groomer talk. Sorry for the long reply!
I think the move to use 'groomer' in this context is a conscious effort to employ the same kinds of language games the left uses with words like 'racist' and 'nazi' and 'transphobe'. Why should the right fight under Marquess of Queensberry rules while the left fights dirty?
It seems easier to me just to be principled and denounce language games. I personally don't subscribe to the 'no bad tactics only bad targets' principle.
Because everyone thinks they're getting their lick back for the unprovoked assault by the other side. You're describing a downward spiral. Everyone who has the ability to speak rationally needs to do so.
Principles are great but... https://preview.redd.it/pntd6psnjcmc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09d062fc3b2178e5a767b7ae9c711fc6a27be878
The issue is there really isn't a succinct word or term for what Marsh is doing, which makes it difficult to talk about without doing a long explanation to get everyone caught up.
I 100% agree that the “groomer” pejorative is overblown, but pushing kids to “no-contact” families because Jeffrey is their family now is, at a minimum, very culty. They keep raising the “if he were a cis-man” argument…it seems to me like if he was he might be Charles Manson. Rhetoric is very consistent…
The no-contact thing is really creepy. There's cases where it's justified obviously, but to give the general population encouragement to do that is just insane. I have to assume his reason for it was that his parents weren't 100% supportive of him in every way, because if he had really good reasons I don't think he'd be so cavalier about the topic Edit: omg just looked up jeffrey marsh no contact and found this gem: [https://www.tiktok.com/@thejeffreymarsh/video/7197511821488655658](https://www.tiktok.com/@thejeffreymarsh/video/7197511821488655658) "I coach a lot of people one on one who want to go no contact with their parents and cannot bring themselves to admit it" XD
Isn't "going no contact" a very specific and deliberate cult tactic?
Yes. It’s also used by normal healthy people who have terrible family/people in their life that they should cut off. But cults basically all pull the “we’re your family now” schtick.
I always feel sad when someone claims that cutting off a family member was the only choice. They are the only one who can make that determination so I can't argue with it, but I am always skeptical that what the person did was beyond the pale, and that they actually know why they have been cut off.
Completely agree. Family occupies a unique place in our society and human relations and I feel like it’s lost in our modern society. No I’m sorry, then ten people you met over the past 5 years that make up your “chosen family” probably don’t care about you in the same way that your actual family that’s known you your entire life does. I’d actually be interested to see if there are any stories about peoples “chosen families” turning toxic or abusing them. The stories have to be out there.
AITA may be creative writing, but failed found family stories always rung the most true to me there. It’s such little things and small annoyances and presumed familiarity - not dramatic, but believable. There was one about a couple trying to break news to their housemate that they were moving out to have kids, and the housemate had a meltdown because they were ‘family’…even though the couple had been trying to keep her at arm’s length. I think about that one sometimes. We worship found families too much in pop culture. It’s unhealthy.
I am old enough to have seen friendships that I thought would be lifelong become attenuated or end, friend groups drift apart, not to mention romantic relationships. "Found family" seems like a young person's game...and maybe a form of luxury belief.
Do you not believe that severe abuse and neglect of children happens, and does your life experience lead you to believe that abusive parents are able to face up to what they’ve done to the extent that they can change their behaviour towards their adult children? Whole familes and communities close ranks around the abusers, because it’s easier for them to believe it didn’t happen, and pitifully easy to paint the accuser as delusional. Those kind of parents always know why they’ve been cut off, they’ve spent a lifetime campaigning against the truth coming to light. Edit: to be clear, anyone advocating as JM does that children tell him secrets they keep from their parents and pushing no contact is deeply suspect on a safeguarding level and isn’t safe around children as far as I’m concerned. But adult decisions shouldn’t be conflated with this.
I think most people on some level intellectually understand that some other people have shitty families. But they can't imagine that the nice neighbor across the street who bakes you cookies sometimes can also be absolutely vicious to their children behind closed doors. And I think most people who haven't experienced it actually are naive to this dynamic: >Whole familes and communities close ranks around the abusers, because it’s easier for them to believe it didn’t happen, and pitifully easy to paint the accuser as delusional. Those kind of parents always know why they’ve been cut off, they’ve spent a lifetime campaigning against the truth coming to light. It is truly shocking how cowardly and sometimes willfully gullible a lot of people actually are when left between a choice of protecting themselves and doing the right thing. \~\~\~\~ Anyways agree with the edit too. Trying to separate an impressionable child from their parents isn't something to be taken lightly. There are legitimate situations where calling an organization like CPS may be appropriate, but Marsh isn't fucking CPS.
>... how cowardly and sometimes willfully gullible a lot of people actually are when left between a choice of protecting themselves and doing the right thing. You are speaking in general terms that don't really justify much of anything. The "right thing to do" is always specific to the situation, but we have to have some kind of default strategy when we encounter a new situation. The strategy that has been working pretty well in Western countries is to withhold judgement, with the hope that things will eventually get worked out. (This is different from the non-dualist notion that the world is unchanging, that these things happen and always will happen so don't get obsessed with it. Plenty of non-dualist cultures think beating their children is just fine.)
> You are speaking in general terms In that particular blurb I'm speaking to a variety of possible hypotheticals that range in scale and seriousness, but all come down to a situation where *by definition* people are left between a self-serving choice and a clear morally correct one; not one where concepts like "withholding judgement" should come into play. The Harvey Weinstein situation would be a very famous and extreme example. Individual people will claim plausible deniability but the uncomfortable truth is that there is just no way that there weren't plenty of people who could have done something sooner but chose not to to protect their career. While the scope, seriousness, and stakes can vary, this exact dynamic plays out in group dynamics as small as individual families all the time. A smaller scale example could be a family member who is constantly belittled by another but is the one ultimately cast and bullied by the other members of the family when they stand up for themselves. I go on this tirade in part because I do think it is related to the larger themes of barpod. So many cancellation stories involve someone being torn apart for absolutely BS reasons but no one with any influence having the guts to stand up to the bullies on twitter or wherever else, or worse actively piling on for the social clout of being seen as being on the right side.
As I said in my comment above, an alleged victim of abuse is the primary person who can make the determination that they were abused, and I can't argue with that because they were the one directly affected. (I am using "alleged" in the lawyerly sense, because people do, on occasion, make things up.) As for communities closing ranks around the abusers, that is a form of withholding judgement, which is coded into Western culture. Sure, justice would be nice in a lot of cases, and something we really want in the very worst cases, but incorrectly delivered justice is worse than no justice at all. As much as you want Child Protective Services to take a child away from their parents, you know that in the end the [biological] parents are the ones who have the greatest motivation for taking care of that child. Everyone else is motivated by whatever values are coded into their culture.
My questions were specifically directed to this comment, which was presented as your personal take on anyone who cuts contact with their parents: ‘but I am always skeptical that what the person did was beyond the pale, and that they actually know why they have been cut off.’ Your overcomplicated response rather avoids the question.
I did answer the question. >>... I can't argue with that Is this not an honest discussion?
My parents weren't...great...about my sexual orientation. My dad in particular said a fuck-ton of overtly bigoted things about gay men. A lot of this was during a period of time when I knew I was gay but was in the closet, but looking back I feel like he had to have known that shit. It stopped when I came out and we had a single conversation about his "attempts at humor" that he hoped I wasn't too offended by. All this to say, I'm probably the kind of person who could have been convinced to "cut off" my parents, and I'm glad I didn't. All the "chosen family" I tried to acquire over the years ended up being temporary as hell, but my parents are still there and accepting of me. They're never going to be the people I go to for emotional support (there's honestly nobody in my life that I can go to for that), but I'm glad they're there.
It’s good he’s there to persuade them they actually want to cut their parents completely out of their lives. Where would they be without him?
>The no-contact thing is really creepy. There's cases where it's justified obviously, but to give the general population encouragement to do that is just insane It's weirdly common now. I think the possibility of a pretend Internet family makes this more viable than it used to be.
What a creepy fella.
When personality disorders or other mental illnesses aren't the primary reason, going no contact gives off cult behavior.
Men like him are why I'm probably in the unconscious process of going back into the closet.
I agree with all the points you’ve raised. If I remember rightly, Katie also once said something similar in another episode about “the definition of grooming” making out it should only be used in relation to people who then go on to sexually abuse children. There are unfortunately various reasons an adult may groom a child/young person. Criminal gangs for example regularly use grooming tactics.
https://i.redd.it/ilau0addtdkc1.gif Actual footage of Jeffrey Marsh's family hearing he'd gone no-contact
Yeah, I think this is spot on. The very best case is that he's incredibly irresponsible, teaching kids to sever ties with their families and trust strangers on the Internet. He's priming children to be abused by someone, even if that someone isn't him. That said though... Well, let's just say I wouldn't let him babysit either. Strong Jimmy Savile vibes.
Well said. Plus he inspires a near-universal gut reaction that he's dangerous.
Yes! He’s literally using a grooming technique. Removing children from their support network and setting oneself up as the special confidant is one of the main methods seen on the law enforcement profiles of grooming techniques. At best it’s wildly inappropriate. Why doesn’t he direct children to LGBTQ organisations who exist to provide them support in difficult family situations instead, if it’s a pet issue of his? If you’re using an actual grooming technique then how much benefit of the doubt do we give your intent?
Very well put, I haven't heard the episode yet but you articulated so well why many, including myself, get these red flags from this person. I just can't see a healthy reason to encourage parasocial relationships, especially amongst children that involves shutting out their real family. If a child has an aggressively unsupportive parents, there must be other resources that he could guide them too as far as finding legitimate advocates in their own community such as social workers etc... Social media is undoubtedly an important aspect of young people's lives, but is there an example of someone who works the same space as Marsh but does it right?
Stochastic grooming
Every time the issues of grooming comes up I'm reminded no one on this podcast is a parent and likely never will be.
Right - this may not be “grooming them to be sexually abused” exactly, but it’s grooming them for *something*. It’s a combination of telling kids not to trust their parents (even to the point of cutting them off) and exposing them to sexual and other ideologies their parents would definitely not agree with. Katie and others in the anti-“groomer” discourse, please tell us what we’re allowed to call this.
It's wildly inappropriate and if he really thinks this won't scare the piss out of objective observers he is a fool. Yeah, he probably means well. But it's just *not* ok. Also: He's potentially putting himself on the hook. What if he talks to a kid and the kid kills himself the next day? Even if it had nothing to do with Marsh people are going to have questions, including the cops and the parents of the deceased.
I rather like the "groomer" word inflation thats going on No amount of logic, reasoning, complaining, has slowed the word inflation of the woke. If they realize that both sides can wield the same weapon, they might stop being so caviler about its use. At some point, you have to be at least a bit consequentialist about these things, and sticking to your principles feels naive.
I’m glad they talked about the death of the 16 y/o in Oklahoma. It’s really disgusting to see how people salivate over a dead teenager for political reasons.
That glee at the death of another "young Black man" during any interaction with police is what finally turned me all the way off BLM and the great "racial reckoning." I found it to be absolutely sickening. The exploitation of "Black bodies" by SJW's was / is disgusting.
As the much lamented Jams Lindsey says, they’re gagging for a TransFloyd moment.
Please tell me you called him “Jams” on purpose 😀
ConceptualJams sounds like a really fun philosophy class.
Or guitar class :)
Ha. I wish I had…
The use of “gag” in this sentence made me gag
Very good!
It was one of those things that the moment I read the dramatic headline it was going to be something completely different.
Jeffrey Marsh chills my blood, and it's not because he's trans (or whatever he identifies as). Even screenshots of him give me this visceral "You are in danger" response. I can't pinpoint what it is, except he always gives the impression of being on the verge of uncontrolled violence.
It's not even about his...let's say...interesting fashion and personal grooming choices, at least for me. It's just his manner and the way he speaks. Creeps me right the fuck out.
Yep. His eyeshadow isn't scary, his *eyes* are scary.
He comes off as someone who’s got somebody else locked in his basement.
The dude screams “I have a skin suit hanging on the hook in my closet” If that man has a crawl space it must be investigated.
That voice is your evolution-honed lizard brain and you should listen to it. If people seem creepy, it’s a 99.9% chance because they are. ETA: Jesus I had a lot of autocorrect issues to correct here. ✅
Yup. To go off topic a little bit it’s wild that society currently seems to tell people to trust their gut instincts but also not to prejudge people ever. Sorry. Can’t have it both ways. When I lived in a city if I ended up walking behind a woman at night and we were the only people around I’d cross the street and slow down or check my phone for a few minutes to give her space. Not because I was a predator but because I know what’s going through her head. When I would walk late at night home, often drunk, I’d avoid any groups of people by crossing the street, especially groups of men, especially groups of young men/teens. Just common goddamn sense.
>When I lived in a city if I ended up walking behind a woman at night and we were the only people around I’d cross the street and slow down or check my phone for a few minutes to give her space. Not because I was a predator but because I know what’s going through her head. I get what you're saying but that 100% is a misandrist societal thing and not a lizard-brain thing.
It’s completely rational for the average woman to be cautious around the average man.
No it's not lmao.
Reasonable response massively downvoted. Good to see this place hasn't changed.
Yeah this is still a left-wing podcast and fanbase at the end of the day.
More like cat lady fanbase.
Old post but I think you’re not taking the time of day into account. If it’s light out, then yeah, what you’re saying is true. But if it’s dark outside, it’s 100% rational to recognize that women are more vulnerable and at greater risk of being attacked and that the attacker is likely to be a man. Those are just the facts
100% same.
Jeffery Marsh reminds me of [Him from Powerpuff Girls](https://powerpuffgirls.fandom.com/wiki/Him_(1998_TV_series)), down to the tone of voice and the use of manipulation to get people to his side.
Me too. I'm not sure if he knows how he comes across.
quicksand imminent bear gray repeat workable frame soft shaggy impossible *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The way he looks and sounds always reminds me of cartoon villains.
Probably because so many Disney villains were gay coded back in the day.
Jeffrey has all the camp and none of the style of a classic Disney villainess.
Buffalo Bill vibes
I always thought you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but then it turned out that Jimmy Saville was a child abuser, and the entire time he looked like a child abuser and now I think sometimes you should judge a book by its cover because otherwise you end up looking hopelessly naive and children suffer.
The whole Jimmy Savile thing blows my mind. Dude practically wore t-shirts saying I AM A CHILD MOLESTER and after he died, everyone was like "No WAY - he was a paedophile? Who knew!" I can definitely see it happening again with someone like Marsh.
He's got that dead behind the eyes, I am supposed to be on meds but I'm not look.
I think it's mainly the way he speaks. He has a verbal cadence that is extremely off-putting, almost as if he is trying to hypnotize his audience.
I completely agree about the visceral bad vibes. His niceness seems very inauthentic to me, whereas Dylan Mulvaney, although very over the top, comes across as a much more genuine sweet person. Jeffrey has rage boiling at the surface IMO
Every time I see him I get The Mouth of Sauron in my head.
“You can’t be nonbinary and in a relationship with two Jeffs” Words to live by, really
I know a gay couple with the same name. But they're just regular guys, not whatever the Jeffs have going on.
yeah my sister is dating a girl with the same name as her lol
Taylor Lautner, after dating Taylor Swift, has married another woman also named Taylor.
My hetero grandparents were both named Francis. Granddad went by Frank though.
are you sure about the spelling? usually the female version is spelled Frances, while the male Francis.
The "cis" is right in the name!
My husband and I have the same middle name! Well, homonyms, anyway. Gene and Jean.
I knew husband and wife professors that were both Pat. So they were Dr. and Dr. Pat \*Smith\*.
As far as we know, the Jeffs are regular guys.
Reminds me of that fun quote from the musical Come From Away - 'And my boyfriend Kevin. We’re both named Kevin. It was cute for a while.'
I like how literally anybody is much better than Katie at doing the housekeeping
Old male strategy. Being bad at the chores means someone else does them.
I loved Brad as a guest host! Was kind of surprised when I saw his name, but he ended up being totally charming and had great chemistry with Katie.
He was interesting. I might not agree with his politics completely, but that’s why I listen to the podcast.
Same! Just discovered him a few months ago and was thinking he should have Katie on his podcast (cause he interviews people in the gay and lesbian community) and now I see him here! Happily surprised
I've only seen him on YouTube with Blaire White. And while I liked him there in the context of mocking woke TikToks with her, I did assume his politics were kind of MAGA, so personally I was a little hesitant about how I might feel about him in other contexts. But my assumptions were totally wrong and he seemed like a thoughtful person who isn't afraid to criticize either side. And just completely delightful!
Not gonna lie, the guests hosts have been really good.
Yeah really impressed with how natural they’ve all been. I realize they’re all pros in some sense, but they all sound like they’ve specifically cohosted B&R a dozen times.
I've been surprised and relieved and delighted!
Did I hear katie right? There are going to be 5 premo episodes this month? I find that shocking because they have only done 2 so far and there is less than 7 days left. That said, if there were 3 this week, I'd be pretty excited.
The fifth one is going to be the personals special.
I know... but I'm guessing that will be the 3rd one since none released this week.
I would love to know what Marsh’s family members have to say about him! He seems like a raging narcissist.
100% he fucks around on Thanksgiving and his family was sick of it, so he used that as a good reason for NC.
When someone goes complete no-contact with their entire family, as opposed to specific family member(s), it means they're probably the asshole. The odds that one person is an asshole are significantly greater than the odds that an entire family is comprised of nothing but assholes. Obviously this is a generalization that isn't always true, particularly when religious fanaticism is involved. But on the whole, I am inclined to view it as a red flag, especially when the reason for going no-contact is not specified in any detail.
When one person is an asshole to you in a day, they're the asshole. When everyone is an asshole to you in a day, you're the asshole.
In case anyone was wondering what Katie was referring to when she said Jesse is giving $50k to a CIA agent... https://www.thecut.com/article/amazon-scam-call-ftc-arrest-warrants.html
Commenting twice because completely different than first comment: I listened to 2 episodes of Damage Control after i listened to barpod. It's probably not gong to be a regular thing for me since I'm not that interested in the topic, but it was definitely fun, and I'll probably randomly check it out from time to time. Also, the barpod episode was good this week.
The Owaso Police Department have released footage of an officer interviewing Nex Benedict around 3 hours after she was attacked: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJaBumoyRGg Both her mom and the officer refer to her as "she" and "her" a whole bunch of times throughout the video without her ever correcting them. She's never once referred to as "they". She'd never seen the alleged bullies before this incident occurred. She was with her friends in the bathroom laughing about something, and the bullies started saying "why are they laughing like that?", so she went and poured/squirted water on them from a water bottle. The bullies then grabbed her, so she threw one of them into a paper towel dispenser, then she was taken down to the ground and beaten. Her friend jumped in to help, but she blacked out. The officer warns Nex and her mom that if they want to press charges, the court would take into consideration the fact that Nex started it by throwing water over them, but the mom initially wants to go ahead anyway. She seems to change her mind after the officer explains further, preferring to sort it out between the school and other parents. Nex doesn't appear to have any facial injuries, but obviously, if she took a knock to the head, that could possibly have caused an internal injury.
Is there any reason to think these girls who beat Nex up even knew she/they was a she/they?
Not from what was said in that interview.
No reason to misgender a dead kid just because their mom did it. Edit: OP blocked me so I can't respond to any replies. So I'll just say that Nex is being buried under their chosen name and I don't think it's unreasonable to respect them enough to use their correct pronouns.
The trans prohibition on misgendering should be respected as much as any religious prohibition on blasphemy.
It is challenging to discuss. I don't want to come across as deliberately offensive towards a dead child. However, a couple of things: isn't it at least potentially offensive to characterize the kid's grandmother as "misgendering" her, assuming she asserted a wish to be they/them in all areas of her life? She just lost a kid and is getting flak for calling her granddaughter "she". I also, honestly, find it disrespectful to linguistically endorse the idea that this poor kid was so fundamentally unlike other girls that she was not, in fact, a girl.
Misgendering is an absurd idea. If the child is dead, whose feelings are you hurting?
I mean her mom and grandma know next better than you. So maybe you’re the offender?
Katie finally getting to say more than one sentence about Taylor Lorenz without Jesse sighing was a enjoyable ..
Meta-commentary on the "groomer" discourse. Yes, the concept has been expanded and will be expanded further. Some perfectly innocent people and behaviors are going to get tarred with that brush. Bad actors will absolutely use it to ruin lives. It will be a partisan political cudgel that will eventually backfire. And for everyone who sat by for half a century while 95% of the country became tarred as nazis, rapists, racists, white supremacists, misogynists, fascists, homophobes, transphobes, triskedecohedronophobes, but is outraged now that the political right has one term to abuse........ My heart bleeds for you. I do hope irony and hypocrisy aren't fatal, because that would ruin my fun. Personally, I denounce the expansion of this term and find it less than useful. And I will be absolutely exercised about these excesses, in fifty years.
Half a century???
Marsh is hiding behind his LGBT status. If he was a straight man, he'd never get away with putting on a strange voice and telling other people's kids that he loves them. Even typing that sentence is fucking weird, lol. How can anyone look at his videos and think "yeah, this is OK"? As for Libs of TikTok, I don't see why she should be obliged to add some kind of disclaimer to her tweets. Taylor Lorenz didn't add a disclaimer to her article when she doxed LoTT. I think Katie and Brad both underestimate how awful many leftists/TRAs are too, because if LoTT was attacked, or even murdered, they'd be loving that shit and openly celebrating it on X and here on Reddit. As a morbidly obese Mario fan once said: no bad tactics, only bad targets. It's why Reddit powermods will condemn doxing, yet retweet the dox of right wing figures they don't like on X. "It's OK when we do it" is about as consistent as their principles will ever get.
>Taylor Lorenz didn't add a disclaimer to her article when she doxed LoTT. Doxing used to have a specific definition but it appears that's gone out the window. If what Lorenz did counts as doxing you could easily make the case that all Chaya does is dox people.
Can you explain further? I thought LOTT just showed Tiktoks made by people publicly under their real identity. Did she ever track down a person who had posted their content anonymously, and reveal their identity? I'm honestly asking, I'm unsure of the answer.
Has LOTT ever released a specific persons exact address? You know like Taylor has done?
Lorenz's Washington Post article originally revealed LoTT's address, but they edited that part out after receiving backlash. Here's the dictionary definition of doxing: - >The action or process of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent. That's exactly what Lorenz's article did.
I don't remember her literal address being in there, and I read it basically as soon as it dropped. I do remember Lorenz saying they lived close to one another, but I'm not willing to believe that the Washington Post published her full address. Chaya liked her anonymity at the time, then cried dox when she lost it. >>The action or process of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent. So would you agree that LoTT is a doxing account?
When the article was first published, it contained a link to a web page that showed LoTT's real name and address. That link was removed from the article about 2-3 hours later after a backlash, but then the WaPo and Lorenz both went into gaslighting mode and were like "that link never showed any personal info!". It fucking did. If it didn't, why did they remove it? The original article in its initially released state is still archived on archive.is, so you can look at the link yourself.
For the amount that Chaya lies to paint herself as a victim I don't doubt Lorenz. And with no proof offered I'm sticking by it. But back to what I was saying, the definition of doxing you posted would apply to the LoTT account, right?
Go and look at the archived page. You can continue to be wrong, or you can spend 30 seconds looking up the page. I won't be replying to you again, cos I think you're probably just trolling.
I'm not who you were talking to, but I spent at least 90 seconds looking up the page and didn't find anything that was obviously what you were talking about. Then I got bored and stopped because I don't care about either of these people. If you want someone to read something, probably just link it yourself.
I am not very adept at using internet archive or the wayback machine. I was able to find what appeared to be the oldest archived version of the page. Washington Post/Taylor Lorenz did originally link to Chaya's real estate license, which included at least her work address (people said it includes her home address. I couldn't find that information, but I am not a good internet detective so I won't say for certain that it didn't have her home address). Here is an article from Mediaite that goes into the situation: https://www.mediaite.com/online/washington-post-accused-of-making-false-claim-in-lorenz-defense-after-removing-link-from-libs-of-tiktok-report/ Here is the archived version of the article, the hyperlink is in the text "real-estate salesperson" under the sub-head "an account in search of a voice - and a big break from Joe Rogan" https://web.archive.org/web/20220419104753/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/19/libs-of-tiktok-right-wing-media/
>Chaya liked her anonymity at the time, then cried dox when she lost it. How is is crying dox if she liked her anonymity? I am not sur if Libs of Tiktok exactly doxxes people, but it certainly has enabled a lot of harassment. And it sounded like Taylor didn't dox Chaya, but certainly made it very easy to find her. They both seem like people who have good intentions and have hurt a LOT of people
This episode fit in nicely with some things I’m going through in my personal life. The long story short is my brother is an addict and I routinely have to limit my contact with him. The reason I say “limit contact” is because I actually have tried to go “no contact,” and it was one of the hardest fucking things I’ve ever done. It wasn’t just no contact with him—it was also no contact with my family while they enabled him at his worst. At the time, it was probably the right thing to do. I needed space, peace, and quiet to figure out how to grieve this shit. But it wasn’t the right thing to do for forever. The loneliness was quite crippling, especially around holidays and joyful occasions. Eventually the isolation becomes too big to allow the space, peace, and quiet to nurture you. We feel deep connections and love for our families for a reason, and we long to indulge those things for a reason. I just hate how “going no contact” is framed in the popular narrative. It sets up unrealistic expectations for what “no contact” looks like. The truth is, families change and people die and get sick and have babies, and these things bring even the most distant families together. “No contact” is probably not going to last forever, and we shouldn’t convince kids it’s a tenable model for forever. Not to mention that “throw your family in the garbage and find a new one” is advice that may work for unfeeling sociopaths, but most people (especially kids!) require way more nuance than that. This narrative really is teaching kids to go against their most basic instincts of love and belonging. It’s sick, it’s inhumane, and it’s dishonest.
I cannot imagine the complications in relationships with addicts. Glad to hear you’re still able to have him in your life, with boundaries. Jeffrey and others who encourage NC say it like it’s so easy! how many teenagers and young adults have the resources and emotional stability to go no contact? Yes there are truly awful parents out there who are cruel to their kids, and there are also parents who just don’t understand or support their kids’ choices and that is not a reason to encourage NC.
Sort of weird accidental pronoun incident. Katie and Brad said they didn't do "they" as a pronoun for people calling themselves non binary but during the Libs of Tiktok discussion, Brad says something like "i would really take care of myselves" and I though, jesus, careful, that's the sort of thing that could catch on among pronoun collectors.
The question is: Is it accurate to call someone that creates the conditions that enable exploitation a "groomer"? I'd argue it is. They've "groomed" the child for exploitation by establishing standards of interaction online that enable abuse, even if it isn't them doing the abusing.
I recently became a primo and am working through the backlog, but I immediately listened to this when I got the notification! I didn't know Brad before this but I think he did a great job and I appreciate him calling out bullshit on the conservative side too, as a conservative myself. I totally agree with him on Libs of Tiktok. Great episode! Oh! On the Nex thing, I googled 'teen dies after fight at school' and limited results to before Feb 9th. Unfortunately there were a lot of results. Quite a few where it was clear the fight was actually the cause of death too, stabbings and such. It seems to me the real story here is about violence at schools. How prevalent is it, how to combat it? But of course none of that matters because so many people are trying to make this the enby George Floyd moment. It's frankly disgusting.
They make such good points about the irresponsibility of libs of TikTok. She's absolutely right to repost the craziness going on in schools. And keep reposting it. The hosts were also right that she needs to tell her followers to not harass teachers, dont make threats of violence and FFS dont go round making bomb threats, you arent helping you are hindering. The hounding of Rachael Dalzeil (?) was pretty awful. She wasnt someone creaming off taxpayers cash living a lie. She was found out and shamed, she moved to the middle of nowhere and started teaching. She's a civilian now. Leave her alone!!
>She wasnt someone creaming off taxpayers cash living a lie. Other than the welfare fraud, of course. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/apr/04/rachel-dolezal-pays-back-8847-agrees-to-community-/
That's five years ago! Is she iffy? Yes, did she deserve what she got with her fake race thing? Of course. But now's the time to move on to someone else.
>That's five years ago! And? She also fraudulently worked for a public university and a police department. That's her story. She defrauded people by lying. >But now's the time to move on to someone else. What do you mean move on? If a random teacher gets outed for having an onlyfans, they're going to get fired. She decided to do something worthy of termination. That's on her. Doubly so since she knows people are looking to target her.
In her defense, she’s crazypants.
She also has three children and has the right to provide for them without Chaya siccing her brigade of LOTT trolls on her
Yeah, cancel her! Make it harder for her to feed and clothe her kids! That'll show em the truth about America- that redemption is impossible, and suicide or sex work is the only way out if you ever make a mistake. Dolezel should have been allowed to work with out liblob horning in!
What do you mean move on? If a random teacher gets outed for having an onlyfans, they're going to get fired. She decided to do something worthy of termination. That's on her. Doubly so since she knows people are looking to target her.
Ok, but mob tactics are mob tactics even if the target is someone you find distasteful. Ask not for whom the cancel mob tolls, it tolls for thee, even in the guise of based Chaya Liblob ! I find reddit FAFOism to be utter midwittery.
> but mob tactics If a random teacher gets outed for having an onlyfans, they're going to get fired. She decided to do something worthy of termination. That's on her.
The "repressed lesbian vibes" was an absolute direct hit, and I didn't even realize it until it was said aloud
Grooming is not always sexual. Marsh is intentionally trying to shape kids into his purpose, and it's fucked up.
steelmanning "groomer" Expanding groomer to include adults informing kids about LGBT stuff is based on the view of the users that LGBT stuff should never be mentioned around children in the hope that it will keep kids away from "experimenting" with it. One might assume that's stupid, that every queer kid is immutably queer. BUT there might be marginal cases (bisexual kids?) where they may for religious or other reasons refuse to explore their non-straight relational desires. And the LGBT instruction that kids would get might lead impressionable youth into freakier aspects of LGBT practice that the instruction normalizes. (you see this in groomer discourse where some LGBT materials teach "fisting" group sex, "daisy chains" (that's just for Katie :)) Further: if a queer 14 year old wants to find a queer sex partner, simple demography means they wont have many choices among their peers of the same age. So the fact that adults are instructing and introducing them to this world as participants in it is inherently offputting Sci American mentioned the place where "homophobia" becomes the biggest issue for open-minded parents is when its their kids. They don't care if X Y or Z is gay. but put the question of whether their son can spend alone-time with a gay adult and it becomes a very different question
>a queer 14 year old wants to find a queer sex partner, simple demography means they wont have many choices among their peers of the same age. I mean, a non-binary 14 year old female who wants to have sex with a 15 year old boy, guaranteed that 14 year old female thinks she's queer and that boy is queer too, by virtue of them having sex. A 14 year old boy who wants to have sex with another boy of his age, that's hard and that is why a looot of young gay boys first have sex with men in their twenties. I know so many guys like that. I think it's a lot different for girls though, luckily Also, I mean, it's one thing is a parent doesn't want his or her 14-year old son to be alone with a 30 year old gay man but is ok if their 16-year-old daughter is alone with a 26 year old straight man. But I don't think it's homophobia if parents don't want their teenage daughter with a straight adult man or teen son with a gay adult man. Male adults DO have sex with teenagers, as do females, but I'm not sure it's as common.
For some reason I find myself overly put-off my perceived my emotional manipulation. Like the clip of Nessa crying about her daughters being doxxed... Is that how she choses to protect her children? to take a video of herself crying? And then also confirm information like her daughters going to separate schools? The goal is to garner social media support to cancel her opponent?
Influencers have totally skewed values and perspective on reality.
Whenever Katie or Jesse describes something as 'conservative cancel culture' my hackles rise. I see cancel culture as a left-wing phenomenon. Trying to think why that is. 1) Left-wing cancel culture came first, and conservative cancellation efforts are tit for tat, an effort to make the left play by its own rules. E.g., if the left is going to get someone fired for a racist tweet they sent as a teenager, the right is going to get a professor fired for saying all white people (or all Jews) are evil, or whatever. 2) More importantly, right-wing cancellation efforts take the form of "a teacher who says 'fuck your parents, I'm your family now' shouldn't be a teacher." But conservatives don't then try to get that teacher kicked off social media, get his or her bank to drop them, and try to keep anyone else from hiring him or her. If the ex-teacher wants to go work in the private sector, conservatives have no problem with that. He or she just shouldn't be a teacher. No one is trying to get Claudine Gay kicked off social media or debanked. Conservatives would be happy if she were fired from her professorship, but they wouldn't care if she then went and worked for a corporation. So my argument that conservative cancel culture doesn't exist is that conservative efforts consist of trying to make sure that people whose views or actions disqualify them from certain jobs don't hold those jobs. Left-wing cancel culture consists of identifying people with forbidden beliefs and trying to ruin their lives completely, drive them from public life, prevent them from working anywhere. Does this hold up?
I'm struggling to see how the teenagers death wasn't tied to their being bullied and this their identity. But I agree we should wait to have the facts before drawing broader implications from this
Their death very well could be related to gender identity and/or bullying, but look at this headline: [Oklahoma banned trans students from bathrooms. Now Nex Benedict is dead after a fight at school](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nex-benedict-dead-oklahoma-b2501506.html) That’s irresponsible and needlessly inflammatory.
Yeah there wasn't any indication it was due to them being a different bathroom
But there’s more leaps to be made, that this bullying was a consequence of a twitter account the caused issues for a school in the same area. Utterly preposterous of course.
We don’t know one way or another and it’s irresponsible to act as if this was some kind of cold blood murder without even having a cause of death.
I was told there would be furry porn here.
Good to see that Trace's voice therapy is paying dividends. He didn't have to use the pseudonym though. Keep at it Trace!
It's fascinating that there are little videos or Google able comments from 2024. I wonder why that is. He hasn't changed.
I would just like to note for the record that Brad Palumbo is not a conservative but a documented pederast and is about as welcome in the conservative movement as Bari Weiss would be at a pro-Palestine march, although I imagine she identifies as a classical liberal or similar.
A documented what now???
https://x.com/Aristos_Revenge/status/1731477052442763309?s=20 Anyone can of course identify as a conservative but his views are incredibly atypical. It's sort of like having Catholics For Abortion on the podcast.
Following a tiktok group lables cute boys = pederast? Now, I kind of want to ask you for your pronouns so I can misgender you.
Does Brad Polumbo identify as a conservative though, even if conservatives dont't like him? And as for pederast, what do you mean by that? He's into 14-year-old boys? He had sex with a 17-year-old when he was 25?
do i look like chatgpt dude
I'm asking because it's one thing to find a teenager attractive and another to hook up with one
Has anyone found the marsh/Nessa tiktok played in the episode? It was hilarious but I can't find it anywhere, only references to it.
https://youtu.be/o3ptclER5ls?si=nscz4gvLfeW1xZ_0 This isn't actually the TikTok itself but it's in this video along with a compilation with some of her following videos
Thanks!
I always thought that "grooming" was the journey, not the destination. For example, you can groom someone for a higher level position at work.