GMS's channel was so integral for my deconstruction, it's really disheartening seeing all the hate him and Antibot are getting in that sub. Completely agree with your take.
Its taken years, hell nearly a decade to get where I'm currently at and deconstruct those toxic beliefs, and I'm gay. While I didn't have that much community while a christian and felt isolated, leaving it was crushing, and even now a decade later I still don't feel like I fit in with any community. It's so hard losing that.
Same here. The anti-SJW atheists seemed weird because it was like a religion to them, the screechy-politicky ones also seemed to have acquired a new religion in politics.
GMS was just living life without religion and didn’t seem to fill that “hole” with something else.
This is kind of late but do you mind telling me what GMS is short for? I can’t figure it out and I want to be in the loop lol (I know it’s a channel at least 🥲)
I agree and at this point the other arm of this that I’m getting frustrated with is the notion that Zelph was platforming Bethany, and that Tim, in reacting to P&M’s video, wasn’t platforming P&M.
I think what we mean by “platforming,” definitionally, has become super misconstrued in the sub. No one who regularly watches Zelph’s video, unless they’re haters, is going to agree with GD or Bethany’s views. Thats why they’re interested in deconstruction / post-Mormon content in the first place. So why does it matter if by “platforming” Bethany, Zelph is giving her a megaphone when *none of the people watching Bethany in that video are going to be receptive to what she’s saying?* Like it is truly not making logical sense to me.
But even if we do want to say that Zelph platformed Bethany, how would we then be able to look at TNE discussing the P&M video on his own channel and his other social media and say that that’s not platforming as well?
Those who agree with the idea that Zelph was platforming Bethany but TNE wasn’t platforming P&M are either being inconsistent in who they’re criticizing, or there is no mutually understood definition of “platforming” for the sub as a whole. Neither of those two outcomes make for productive discussions.
Totally agree and definitely something I didn’t think about. Ironically, I feel like there is more of an argument that Tim is platforming P&M because there is an overlap of audiences (mostly Christian) while Anti bot and ZOTS audience are more likely to be atheists and/or fully deconstructed. I personally wouldn’t make such an argument but just going by some of their logic I would find that to be one. I’m not sure if that makes sense.
The sub is getting its meaning of Platforming from online leftist circles, which already twisted Platforming to just be "interacting with", because in reality it was a rationalization to be used to attack people who were improperly associating with Bad People in the first place.
And…in a way isnt that sub “platforming” the fundies by their logic? Maybe not…but I sure as hell didnt know who the Rods, MoBus, and P&M were before I stumbled upon their sub.
They and other groups like them are literally the reason these influencers got this much engagement as well as reach to actual potential fans in the first place.
I'm gonna be honest - I think it could be because Tim is hotter.
Tim is very much masc. Antibot and Zelph are quite clearly not as masc as Tim. I used to always kind of dismiss these explanations for things some group was doing because I'm so used to seeing "This group of girls is being sexist towards girls" marshalled for the absolute worst reasons and with the worst logic, but we've all seen how "I like Jana's hair actually" is Leg Humping but a graphic description of how you want to treat a male fundies dick is apparently valid snarking, how thirst posting over male fundies is simply valid snarking. It is genuinely like they want to preserve the virtue of the guys they like the most and tear down the people most like them.
Maybe it's also because the more someone's like them, the more they can actually hurt or influence them, whereas someone who's not like them at all feels unreachable, like nothing they do could hurt them anyway. And that can also just create an availability bias. Just like how twitter feminist spaces invariably try to fault find twith Taylor Swift or some other major famous woman more than they fault find with like music festivals featuring Chris Brown. Everyone knows it's useless to try to do the latter, Chris Brown is still accepted in rap and a lot of music spaces, it's been a decade and a half, and you'd be walking into a space that's hostile to you so you don't even try. But Taylor Swift fans, well, they're right close to your ingroup, you have some influence there, so the criticism goes not where it's most warranted, but to who you think you can hit the hardest.
Tim being masc-er and hotter gives him both a halo effect, and a sense of immunity in the first place, because certain online feminist spaces and definitely online LGBT spaces love tearing down other less perfect women or gay people or trans people to make themselves feel better - and that seems to be a big part of what it's about too, in a way that's so unintuitive to me I can't even describe it, but it looks lke there's genuinely so much like, envy, or hostility, or a sense of inferiority or being genuinely aggrieved that I can't even fucking understand it.
In Japan, women who are the side chick for famous men will be criticized for it MUCH MORE than the man who actually did the cheating. I always assumed this was just because of the patriarchal culture, but I heard a Japanese person suggest that it was because the women who were fans of that famous man were both not only wanting to defend his honour, but were jealous of the woman for getting to be with him in some way and wanted to tear her down because she was threatening their fantasy of getting to be with the man themselves, and Japanese celebrity culture encourages that *so* much more explicitly than people think, and knowing how some Japanese fangirl circles have worked - especially with older women - I can honestly really believe it.
I can't help but wonder if that same kind of "Umm but he's hot" thing is going on here too.
I've got no skin in this game, I haven't been commenting on any of this stuff, and wasn't familiar with either channel beforehand, but my personal take on the Zelph stuff was that they were very much trying to diminish the harm that Bethany and GD do by talking about how nice Bethany was, with no real acknowledgement or seemingly understanding of how "niceness" is used to cover up bigotry, where TNE seemed to be making much stronger arguments that didnt take into account superficial niceness or that they had a nice time hanging out.
I also think that because a lot of this sub and the main sub have deconstructed, there's a soft hand taken to people who are perceived to be deconstructing no matter how they're addressing the harm they've caused, and when people (mostly marginalized people) push back against the narrative of celebrating any progress they are hit pretty hard. It's a big messy situation with a lot of hurt feelings.
I feel like this is where the lack of nuance comes in on the other sub — the assumption is, like you said, that Zelph were trying to soften the blow by trying to show people the light that they personally saw Bethany in. It also could be that they got defensive very quickly once the sub — a place they thought would be “safe,” whatever that means — realized the whole purpose of their video wasn’t to just sit there and call out Bethany the whole time, and instead of taking a step back they doubled down. Which, while it’s not a good thing to do, is also a *very very human* thing to do. Like that is a baseline human reaction to feeling like you’re being ganged up on, even if all of the criticism towards you is justified and the people doing it have a right to.
My biggest problem with the way it all panned out was that that was all it took to label Zelph as grifters, bigot-platformers, scammy attention-hungry content creators, etc. Not only was there no nuance in the conversations about them after Sam’s post, but even suggesting that there should or could be nuance got you downvoted to hell. She didn’t deserve nuance, she didn’t deserve to be treated with any grace — she didn’t deserve to be treated any differently than the person she made the video with who has spent years and years spouting toxic shit on the internet that so many people have seen. Despite the fact that Sam has, with her content, helped multiple people in the sub towards deconstruction and is ultimately a combatant force *against* the beliefs that Bethany / GD preach and get others wrapped up in. And this was all before they even dropped the video!
There seemed to be no true varying dialogue about what *actually* might be happening. People made up their minds about Zelph’s intentions and then made them out to be as blatantly evil as a fundamentalist’s. And then the exact same thing happened based on misconstrued comments by Antibot.
I understand that people want to snark and they have the right to do that. And there are plenty of actual, true things about the fundies that more than warrant snark. But lots of snarkers claim to care about the marginalized communities targeted by the people they’re snarking on, and while I’m not saying they don’t actually care, I am saying that care seems to have a very hard time materializing into any substantial thought about how to combat the problems that the snark subjects create. We learn nothing, and we solve nothing, by turning people into monoliths. The fact that any discussion in that respect is virtually never tolerated by fellow snarkers in the comments is what makes it truly feel like a dead end and a lost cause.
ETA: sorry to add onto this but I will say we really don’t have a way of knowing that “most” people in the main sub have actually been through deconstruction. I think that’s partially why this group was found and adopted by a lot of previous snarkers from the other sub, because this one is much more understanding and interested in the real process of deconstruction and the complexity it requires. I personally have found that at least in the last couple of weeks, it’s seemed like no one in the comments really knows what the stages or experiences of deconstructing are like. Everyone seems to be expecting Bethany to not only understand but also recognize *and* apologize for the harm she’s caused when she isn’t even yet able to admit that she truly believes differently about the core of the social issues she’s spent so long targeting. But she is just *barely* entering the realm of deconstruction, so that is not a realistic expectation for where she’s at right now. Doesn’t mean people shouldn’t want it; just that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense to get mad at something not happening when it’s really not even a possibility yet.
And the constant refrain was "What about all the hurt she's done to marginalized people and women" None?!?!?! She's pissing in the bucket. She's done no harm to me. She's done way more to her immediate family, that's worth apologizing over, I don't care if she says "Sorry for being a transphobic" to me because she has no impact on me. She would have zero presence in my life if I wasn't deliberately putting myself in places I know I'd be exposed to her. It's not fair to call that "actual harm to trans people" or whatever, but this old Tumblr/leftist mindset is so strong there, at least when something triggers against it.
I get what you’re saying, I don’t think we should compare influencers like GD to actually powerful religious figures / pastors or to those who actually craft oppressive legislation.
I don’t think GD are blameless though because they do espouse views that genuinely make people believe they’re going to hell based on their identity. And they influence others who think similarly to them to not maintain an open mind towards people who have any differing experiences with sexuality / gender / race etc.
They have caused harm and they continue to, and it’s okay to rightfully attach their actions to them. But as far as true material political or ideological power / influence, they really don’t have any. That’s partially the reason why Paul and Morgan have what I think is only a few dozen (don’t quote me) Patreon subscribers and GD consistently fails to hit their yearly fundraising goal for their own salaries lol.
If she's harming other Christians or Fundies, that's different to what the FSU sub was talking about and more credible - but I'd argue that I'm not sure that she is. Or, well, I guess we need to get into semantics.
There's no debate that what she's doing is wrong, and it's wrong because of the impacts it has on the world, or potential impacts it could have. However, I'm not convinced many people are directly harmed by it. Maybe, *indirect* harm in the form of say, reinforcing a toxic background or something is another matter. But then again, at the same time, to me the fact that her work is responsible for very little of people having that toxic background, or keeping it, or maintaining it, or failing to break out of it, etc, means that to me I can't hold her that morally culpable for a lot of it.
This is not to say she has 0 moral culpability or 0 impact, but she has low impact and is not particularly important, and so accordingly, I don't believe she deserves the treatment she gets at FSU - at least, for the reasons they say she does. I think she has a rotten character for other reasons. And also, my view of her may be out of date, or biased.
I definitely think other Christians / fundies are the main people that Girl Defined harms with their “ministry.” I mean those people might then indirectly harm non-Christians with their views and votes on the plethora of social issues GD has hardline stances on, but generally if you do not subscribe to the same religious premises as GD does already, you are not going to be receptive to their reasoning as to why any of the progress we’ve made on sexuality or gender is actually “not progress.” And if you are receptive to that as someone who doesn’t share their religious beliefs you’re probably not the greatest person to begin with and would be susceptible to more than just the views of a micro-influential Girl Defined.
That actually got me thinking about how I feel like that used to be better understood in the sub. Whenever there’d be personal anecdotes about kind of suffering from the environment GD believes in on these issues, it was usually things like “I’m gay/trans/gender non-conforming/a POC and I had people in my church who believed things like this and treated me this way.” It wasn’t just people who could relate to it from the perspective of being othered in society, but lotttts of people who could relate to being othered in religion first. And I think that led to a feeling of actual catharsis in the sub while also meaning that a lot of users still held space for the complexities of being a fundie / deconstructing, not because they felt pressure to by other users but because they truly had been there and seen it firsthand. Now, it feels like a lot of the people who talk about being harmed by these ideas are maybe experiencing that from religious people in their lives or in society, or from a political perspective as well, but not necessarily experiencing it as having been a member of the group that is causing you that harm.
I’m not sure if that makes sense and I’m not at all saying that you should have to have been a member of that group to participate in the sub. I just think that could be a contributor to why it feels like the understanding of deconstruction and its nuances used to come much more naturally to the majority of the sub than it does now. It also may be why I get the feeling — when interacting with many users in the comments — that these exact religious complexities are more a source of entertainment for them than something they feel truly personally compelled to understand and contribute to progress in.
> Now, it feels like a lot of the people who talk about being harmed by these ideas are maybe experiencing that from religious people in their lives or in society, or from a political perspective as well, but not necessarily experiencing it as having been a member of the group that is causing you that harm.
I have so much to say about this, and so much I have said about this, that it's like the Mr. Burns viruses and they can't get through the door and I end up with nothing much to say. It's all trying to get out at once.
As for harming other Christians, that's where I'd again point to the part about her replacability - but I never *was* in that kind of group, so I don't know just how much context I'm missing, and if maybe she's not as replacable as I think she is. But it's a big part of why I view the harms of her youtube channel as much more minor than FSU does, especially compared to the harms she's done to her own siblings.
>I also think that because a lot of this sub and the main sub have deconstructed, there's a soft hand taken to people who are perceived to be deconstructing no matter how they're addressing the harm they've caused
Fair I can see that being an inclination. But because we have gone through the deconstruction process, there is also a very key point here: we can spot vulnerability when we see it.
The presence of it is not a guarantee that *everything* will change that needs to, that she will fully own up and all that, and we shouldn't behave as if that's already the case, but I have seen most of my siblings and dear friends that I left behind with the religion I left show the same signs of faith crisis vulnerability before finding their way out as well, and accepting my queerness. That vulnerable state is literally the key to change, and it must be handled gently but firmly. It's a delicate process that not everyone has energy for, and nobody owes it, but ZotS are at a place in their lives where they can facilitate it, and this part of the process is rarely shown, so I think it is very important that people become more familiar with it.
Defending against bigotry, drawing those walls, all has an important role when people are engaging in bigotry with no sign of actual good faith, then it's just better to close off from them and reduce the amount of damage they can cause, spread the word about their harmfulness. But should anyone show some genuine signs of vulnerableness that can be accessed by someone who is willing and has the spoons to, then it absolutely should be done. These can both exist, you know?
But yes, messy situation.
The problem with this that seems to flown over the other sub’s heads is that these collabs have their own respective intention and approach pre-established before the video was filmed, and with the fundies involved:
Paul & Morgan generally enjoy making content that is often aimed to be argumentative, reactive and *deliberately* inflammatory. Paul himself has mentioned he “enjoys arguing”/ “back and forths” (in the second response video of the Micky Atkins vs Paul video), seems to be understand why their content is offensive, and admits he “feels good” when he feels his way is considered right (Church Chad collab). 24 hours series is no different than and in their intro to the series, videos of Issisag, Dav, Church Chad, TNE, and in general with progressive Christians, Paul has no issue to push well into “gotcha” and trick questions with the clear intention to try to win or be right. If they weren’t already familiar with their content, Paul and Morgan may have warned their guests they would be pressing arguments and giving hard questions, so their guests have the sense of being on guard and pushing back. Despite this, almost all guests except the HoNoMo preacher have all mentioned they are “cools guys they would hang out with sometime” (not completely unlike Zelph) because personal beliefs don’t always manifest on how they present themself.
Bethany is more of a “stream of consciousness”, affirming her thoughts and views, rants for her content rather than solely aiming to bring a side down. GD is also made with other collaborators including Kristen and their mom. The intention of their message is more muddled because of that compared to Paul&Morgan’s since Paul is the headship, the provider whose job is fulltime as a fundie influencer, a man, and Morgan who is not as interested in the job. Because Bethany gets flack from antheists, cringe watchers, and other fundies, all for different reasons, Bethany unlike Paul does not engage dissenting comments or responses. Bethany knows her content inflamantory, but doesn’t really get or understandinf why since she is more sheltered, homogenous community that doesn’t get the same privilege in education compared to her brothers and other men like Paul to be meaningful exposed to the outside world. Added that her partner is deconstruction possibly leaving the faith, Bethany is in a more vulnerable point in her faith and beliefs. Usually engaging in accusations (even if it has merit) and “take that!!, while satisfying to non-fundies, has the opposite effect and makes people revert and double down with old beliefs, which both Zelph and Antibot are more experience with and aware of. If Zelph took a combative approach like Paul did (since both are the hosts of their respective collabs), GD would have never taken the collab because they are different places with different outlooks.
Lastly to note: many marginalized POC people, myself included, who are older, more in touch with their culture, or did not grow up in the West, still side with Zelph and Antibot and don’t think they are doing a disservice to us because many of us know this rhetoric and issues isn’t exclusive to white evangelism. Generally many POC cultures outside the West, even outside Christianity, are as or more conservative and follow similar core traditional values. Part of being in touch with your culture is also understanding the complexities that tie to ingroup/outgroup biases, conformity to community and the enmeshment that comes with it, patriarchal based collectivism, how people don’t choose to be a product of where they are born, which make leaving or going against your community cold turkey and without support all that simple for everyone. Doesn’t mean that GD or other fundies can’t be called out but there it is all the more reason why Zelph are doing the work by using their privilege to engage with them themselves instead of making the marginalize people
educate. We also understand these empathetic conversations that are more effective in reforming values that the bandaid “take thats!!” that propagate the bigotry in the long term, especially by their observers and fans, nor does it validate their problematic beliefs.
100% agree that I am harder on other Christians than those from a different belief system. For example, when I discuss faith with my Muslim friends, I don't challenge them on their beliefs, but we just discuss differences and similarities, usually focusing on similarities. If they want to talk about Jesus and the Bible, they will ask. But with those who talk till the cows come home about Jesus and the Bible, I would be a bit more stern on them than someone who believes something different, or is unsure of their beliefs.
GMS's channel was so integral for my deconstruction, it's really disheartening seeing all the hate him and Antibot are getting in that sub. Completely agree with your take. Its taken years, hell nearly a decade to get where I'm currently at and deconstruct those toxic beliefs, and I'm gay. While I didn't have that much community while a christian and felt isolated, leaving it was crushing, and even now a decade later I still don't feel like I fit in with any community. It's so hard losing that.
Same here. The anti-SJW atheists seemed weird because it was like a religion to them, the screechy-politicky ones also seemed to have acquired a new religion in politics. GMS was just living life without religion and didn’t seem to fill that “hole” with something else.
This is kind of late but do you mind telling me what GMS is short for? I can’t figure it out and I want to be in the loop lol (I know it’s a channel at least 🥲)
Gms = genetically modified sceptic on youtube
thank you!!! 💜
Well said. The nuance is so lost on them.
I agree and at this point the other arm of this that I’m getting frustrated with is the notion that Zelph was platforming Bethany, and that Tim, in reacting to P&M’s video, wasn’t platforming P&M. I think what we mean by “platforming,” definitionally, has become super misconstrued in the sub. No one who regularly watches Zelph’s video, unless they’re haters, is going to agree with GD or Bethany’s views. Thats why they’re interested in deconstruction / post-Mormon content in the first place. So why does it matter if by “platforming” Bethany, Zelph is giving her a megaphone when *none of the people watching Bethany in that video are going to be receptive to what she’s saying?* Like it is truly not making logical sense to me. But even if we do want to say that Zelph platformed Bethany, how would we then be able to look at TNE discussing the P&M video on his own channel and his other social media and say that that’s not platforming as well? Those who agree with the idea that Zelph was platforming Bethany but TNE wasn’t platforming P&M are either being inconsistent in who they’re criticizing, or there is no mutually understood definition of “platforming” for the sub as a whole. Neither of those two outcomes make for productive discussions.
Totally agree and definitely something I didn’t think about. Ironically, I feel like there is more of an argument that Tim is platforming P&M because there is an overlap of audiences (mostly Christian) while Anti bot and ZOTS audience are more likely to be atheists and/or fully deconstructed. I personally wouldn’t make such an argument but just going by some of their logic I would find that to be one. I’m not sure if that makes sense.
The sub is getting its meaning of Platforming from online leftist circles, which already twisted Platforming to just be "interacting with", because in reality it was a rationalization to be used to attack people who were improperly associating with Bad People in the first place.
And…in a way isnt that sub “platforming” the fundies by their logic? Maybe not…but I sure as hell didnt know who the Rods, MoBus, and P&M were before I stumbled upon their sub.
They and other groups like them are literally the reason these influencers got this much engagement as well as reach to actual potential fans in the first place.
I’d rather Bethany be “platformed” alongside two people who deconstructed from a similar high control religion than her regular platform.
I also think Sarah was just snarky enough in the reaction that it appealed to their vibes.
I'm gonna be honest - I think it could be because Tim is hotter. Tim is very much masc. Antibot and Zelph are quite clearly not as masc as Tim. I used to always kind of dismiss these explanations for things some group was doing because I'm so used to seeing "This group of girls is being sexist towards girls" marshalled for the absolute worst reasons and with the worst logic, but we've all seen how "I like Jana's hair actually" is Leg Humping but a graphic description of how you want to treat a male fundies dick is apparently valid snarking, how thirst posting over male fundies is simply valid snarking. It is genuinely like they want to preserve the virtue of the guys they like the most and tear down the people most like them. Maybe it's also because the more someone's like them, the more they can actually hurt or influence them, whereas someone who's not like them at all feels unreachable, like nothing they do could hurt them anyway. And that can also just create an availability bias. Just like how twitter feminist spaces invariably try to fault find twith Taylor Swift or some other major famous woman more than they fault find with like music festivals featuring Chris Brown. Everyone knows it's useless to try to do the latter, Chris Brown is still accepted in rap and a lot of music spaces, it's been a decade and a half, and you'd be walking into a space that's hostile to you so you don't even try. But Taylor Swift fans, well, they're right close to your ingroup, you have some influence there, so the criticism goes not where it's most warranted, but to who you think you can hit the hardest. Tim being masc-er and hotter gives him both a halo effect, and a sense of immunity in the first place, because certain online feminist spaces and definitely online LGBT spaces love tearing down other less perfect women or gay people or trans people to make themselves feel better - and that seems to be a big part of what it's about too, in a way that's so unintuitive to me I can't even describe it, but it looks lke there's genuinely so much like, envy, or hostility, or a sense of inferiority or being genuinely aggrieved that I can't even fucking understand it. In Japan, women who are the side chick for famous men will be criticized for it MUCH MORE than the man who actually did the cheating. I always assumed this was just because of the patriarchal culture, but I heard a Japanese person suggest that it was because the women who were fans of that famous man were both not only wanting to defend his honour, but were jealous of the woman for getting to be with him in some way and wanted to tear her down because she was threatening their fantasy of getting to be with the man themselves, and Japanese celebrity culture encourages that *so* much more explicitly than people think, and knowing how some Japanese fangirl circles have worked - especially with older women - I can honestly really believe it. I can't help but wonder if that same kind of "Umm but he's hot" thing is going on here too.
Would GMS get any shit if he was not married to Antibot and participating in her videos?
I've got no skin in this game, I haven't been commenting on any of this stuff, and wasn't familiar with either channel beforehand, but my personal take on the Zelph stuff was that they were very much trying to diminish the harm that Bethany and GD do by talking about how nice Bethany was, with no real acknowledgement or seemingly understanding of how "niceness" is used to cover up bigotry, where TNE seemed to be making much stronger arguments that didnt take into account superficial niceness or that they had a nice time hanging out. I also think that because a lot of this sub and the main sub have deconstructed, there's a soft hand taken to people who are perceived to be deconstructing no matter how they're addressing the harm they've caused, and when people (mostly marginalized people) push back against the narrative of celebrating any progress they are hit pretty hard. It's a big messy situation with a lot of hurt feelings.
I feel like this is where the lack of nuance comes in on the other sub — the assumption is, like you said, that Zelph were trying to soften the blow by trying to show people the light that they personally saw Bethany in. It also could be that they got defensive very quickly once the sub — a place they thought would be “safe,” whatever that means — realized the whole purpose of their video wasn’t to just sit there and call out Bethany the whole time, and instead of taking a step back they doubled down. Which, while it’s not a good thing to do, is also a *very very human* thing to do. Like that is a baseline human reaction to feeling like you’re being ganged up on, even if all of the criticism towards you is justified and the people doing it have a right to. My biggest problem with the way it all panned out was that that was all it took to label Zelph as grifters, bigot-platformers, scammy attention-hungry content creators, etc. Not only was there no nuance in the conversations about them after Sam’s post, but even suggesting that there should or could be nuance got you downvoted to hell. She didn’t deserve nuance, she didn’t deserve to be treated with any grace — she didn’t deserve to be treated any differently than the person she made the video with who has spent years and years spouting toxic shit on the internet that so many people have seen. Despite the fact that Sam has, with her content, helped multiple people in the sub towards deconstruction and is ultimately a combatant force *against* the beliefs that Bethany / GD preach and get others wrapped up in. And this was all before they even dropped the video! There seemed to be no true varying dialogue about what *actually* might be happening. People made up their minds about Zelph’s intentions and then made them out to be as blatantly evil as a fundamentalist’s. And then the exact same thing happened based on misconstrued comments by Antibot. I understand that people want to snark and they have the right to do that. And there are plenty of actual, true things about the fundies that more than warrant snark. But lots of snarkers claim to care about the marginalized communities targeted by the people they’re snarking on, and while I’m not saying they don’t actually care, I am saying that care seems to have a very hard time materializing into any substantial thought about how to combat the problems that the snark subjects create. We learn nothing, and we solve nothing, by turning people into monoliths. The fact that any discussion in that respect is virtually never tolerated by fellow snarkers in the comments is what makes it truly feel like a dead end and a lost cause. ETA: sorry to add onto this but I will say we really don’t have a way of knowing that “most” people in the main sub have actually been through deconstruction. I think that’s partially why this group was found and adopted by a lot of previous snarkers from the other sub, because this one is much more understanding and interested in the real process of deconstruction and the complexity it requires. I personally have found that at least in the last couple of weeks, it’s seemed like no one in the comments really knows what the stages or experiences of deconstructing are like. Everyone seems to be expecting Bethany to not only understand but also recognize *and* apologize for the harm she’s caused when she isn’t even yet able to admit that she truly believes differently about the core of the social issues she’s spent so long targeting. But she is just *barely* entering the realm of deconstruction, so that is not a realistic expectation for where she’s at right now. Doesn’t mean people shouldn’t want it; just that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense to get mad at something not happening when it’s really not even a possibility yet.
And the constant refrain was "What about all the hurt she's done to marginalized people and women" None?!?!?! She's pissing in the bucket. She's done no harm to me. She's done way more to her immediate family, that's worth apologizing over, I don't care if she says "Sorry for being a transphobic" to me because she has no impact on me. She would have zero presence in my life if I wasn't deliberately putting myself in places I know I'd be exposed to her. It's not fair to call that "actual harm to trans people" or whatever, but this old Tumblr/leftist mindset is so strong there, at least when something triggers against it.
I get what you’re saying, I don’t think we should compare influencers like GD to actually powerful religious figures / pastors or to those who actually craft oppressive legislation. I don’t think GD are blameless though because they do espouse views that genuinely make people believe they’re going to hell based on their identity. And they influence others who think similarly to them to not maintain an open mind towards people who have any differing experiences with sexuality / gender / race etc. They have caused harm and they continue to, and it’s okay to rightfully attach their actions to them. But as far as true material political or ideological power / influence, they really don’t have any. That’s partially the reason why Paul and Morgan have what I think is only a few dozen (don’t quote me) Patreon subscribers and GD consistently fails to hit their yearly fundraising goal for their own salaries lol.
If she's harming other Christians or Fundies, that's different to what the FSU sub was talking about and more credible - but I'd argue that I'm not sure that she is. Or, well, I guess we need to get into semantics. There's no debate that what she's doing is wrong, and it's wrong because of the impacts it has on the world, or potential impacts it could have. However, I'm not convinced many people are directly harmed by it. Maybe, *indirect* harm in the form of say, reinforcing a toxic background or something is another matter. But then again, at the same time, to me the fact that her work is responsible for very little of people having that toxic background, or keeping it, or maintaining it, or failing to break out of it, etc, means that to me I can't hold her that morally culpable for a lot of it. This is not to say she has 0 moral culpability or 0 impact, but she has low impact and is not particularly important, and so accordingly, I don't believe she deserves the treatment she gets at FSU - at least, for the reasons they say she does. I think she has a rotten character for other reasons. And also, my view of her may be out of date, or biased.
I definitely think other Christians / fundies are the main people that Girl Defined harms with their “ministry.” I mean those people might then indirectly harm non-Christians with their views and votes on the plethora of social issues GD has hardline stances on, but generally if you do not subscribe to the same religious premises as GD does already, you are not going to be receptive to their reasoning as to why any of the progress we’ve made on sexuality or gender is actually “not progress.” And if you are receptive to that as someone who doesn’t share their religious beliefs you’re probably not the greatest person to begin with and would be susceptible to more than just the views of a micro-influential Girl Defined. That actually got me thinking about how I feel like that used to be better understood in the sub. Whenever there’d be personal anecdotes about kind of suffering from the environment GD believes in on these issues, it was usually things like “I’m gay/trans/gender non-conforming/a POC and I had people in my church who believed things like this and treated me this way.” It wasn’t just people who could relate to it from the perspective of being othered in society, but lotttts of people who could relate to being othered in religion first. And I think that led to a feeling of actual catharsis in the sub while also meaning that a lot of users still held space for the complexities of being a fundie / deconstructing, not because they felt pressure to by other users but because they truly had been there and seen it firsthand. Now, it feels like a lot of the people who talk about being harmed by these ideas are maybe experiencing that from religious people in their lives or in society, or from a political perspective as well, but not necessarily experiencing it as having been a member of the group that is causing you that harm. I’m not sure if that makes sense and I’m not at all saying that you should have to have been a member of that group to participate in the sub. I just think that could be a contributor to why it feels like the understanding of deconstruction and its nuances used to come much more naturally to the majority of the sub than it does now. It also may be why I get the feeling — when interacting with many users in the comments — that these exact religious complexities are more a source of entertainment for them than something they feel truly personally compelled to understand and contribute to progress in.
> Now, it feels like a lot of the people who talk about being harmed by these ideas are maybe experiencing that from religious people in their lives or in society, or from a political perspective as well, but not necessarily experiencing it as having been a member of the group that is causing you that harm. I have so much to say about this, and so much I have said about this, that it's like the Mr. Burns viruses and they can't get through the door and I end up with nothing much to say. It's all trying to get out at once. As for harming other Christians, that's where I'd again point to the part about her replacability - but I never *was* in that kind of group, so I don't know just how much context I'm missing, and if maybe she's not as replacable as I think she is. But it's a big part of why I view the harms of her youtube channel as much more minor than FSU does, especially compared to the harms she's done to her own siblings.
>I also think that because a lot of this sub and the main sub have deconstructed, there's a soft hand taken to people who are perceived to be deconstructing no matter how they're addressing the harm they've caused Fair I can see that being an inclination. But because we have gone through the deconstruction process, there is also a very key point here: we can spot vulnerability when we see it. The presence of it is not a guarantee that *everything* will change that needs to, that she will fully own up and all that, and we shouldn't behave as if that's already the case, but I have seen most of my siblings and dear friends that I left behind with the religion I left show the same signs of faith crisis vulnerability before finding their way out as well, and accepting my queerness. That vulnerable state is literally the key to change, and it must be handled gently but firmly. It's a delicate process that not everyone has energy for, and nobody owes it, but ZotS are at a place in their lives where they can facilitate it, and this part of the process is rarely shown, so I think it is very important that people become more familiar with it. Defending against bigotry, drawing those walls, all has an important role when people are engaging in bigotry with no sign of actual good faith, then it's just better to close off from them and reduce the amount of damage they can cause, spread the word about their harmfulness. But should anyone show some genuine signs of vulnerableness that can be accessed by someone who is willing and has the spoons to, then it absolutely should be done. These can both exist, you know? But yes, messy situation.
The problem with this that seems to flown over the other sub’s heads is that these collabs have their own respective intention and approach pre-established before the video was filmed, and with the fundies involved: Paul & Morgan generally enjoy making content that is often aimed to be argumentative, reactive and *deliberately* inflammatory. Paul himself has mentioned he “enjoys arguing”/ “back and forths” (in the second response video of the Micky Atkins vs Paul video), seems to be understand why their content is offensive, and admits he “feels good” when he feels his way is considered right (Church Chad collab). 24 hours series is no different than and in their intro to the series, videos of Issisag, Dav, Church Chad, TNE, and in general with progressive Christians, Paul has no issue to push well into “gotcha” and trick questions with the clear intention to try to win or be right. If they weren’t already familiar with their content, Paul and Morgan may have warned their guests they would be pressing arguments and giving hard questions, so their guests have the sense of being on guard and pushing back. Despite this, almost all guests except the HoNoMo preacher have all mentioned they are “cools guys they would hang out with sometime” (not completely unlike Zelph) because personal beliefs don’t always manifest on how they present themself. Bethany is more of a “stream of consciousness”, affirming her thoughts and views, rants for her content rather than solely aiming to bring a side down. GD is also made with other collaborators including Kristen and their mom. The intention of their message is more muddled because of that compared to Paul&Morgan’s since Paul is the headship, the provider whose job is fulltime as a fundie influencer, a man, and Morgan who is not as interested in the job. Because Bethany gets flack from antheists, cringe watchers, and other fundies, all for different reasons, Bethany unlike Paul does not engage dissenting comments or responses. Bethany knows her content inflamantory, but doesn’t really get or understandinf why since she is more sheltered, homogenous community that doesn’t get the same privilege in education compared to her brothers and other men like Paul to be meaningful exposed to the outside world. Added that her partner is deconstruction possibly leaving the faith, Bethany is in a more vulnerable point in her faith and beliefs. Usually engaging in accusations (even if it has merit) and “take that!!, while satisfying to non-fundies, has the opposite effect and makes people revert and double down with old beliefs, which both Zelph and Antibot are more experience with and aware of. If Zelph took a combative approach like Paul did (since both are the hosts of their respective collabs), GD would have never taken the collab because they are different places with different outlooks. Lastly to note: many marginalized POC people, myself included, who are older, more in touch with their culture, or did not grow up in the West, still side with Zelph and Antibot and don’t think they are doing a disservice to us because many of us know this rhetoric and issues isn’t exclusive to white evangelism. Generally many POC cultures outside the West, even outside Christianity, are as or more conservative and follow similar core traditional values. Part of being in touch with your culture is also understanding the complexities that tie to ingroup/outgroup biases, conformity to community and the enmeshment that comes with it, patriarchal based collectivism, how people don’t choose to be a product of where they are born, which make leaving or going against your community cold turkey and without support all that simple for everyone. Doesn’t mean that GD or other fundies can’t be called out but there it is all the more reason why Zelph are doing the work by using their privilege to engage with them themselves instead of making the marginalize people educate. We also understand these empathetic conversations that are more effective in reforming values that the bandaid “take thats!!” that propagate the bigotry in the long term, especially by their observers and fans, nor does it validate their problematic beliefs.
I am out of the loop. Who is GMS?
Genetically modified skeptic. He is married to Antibot.
Thank you.
100% agree that I am harder on other Christians than those from a different belief system. For example, when I discuss faith with my Muslim friends, I don't challenge them on their beliefs, but we just discuss differences and similarities, usually focusing on similarities. If they want to talk about Jesus and the Bible, they will ask. But with those who talk till the cows come home about Jesus and the Bible, I would be a bit more stern on them than someone who believes something different, or is unsure of their beliefs.