Jump to content
Forums forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

62.3k Excellent
  1. Churchhoney

    The Duggalos: Jinger and the Holy Goalie

    Well, I guess "remarkable" sort of works for Jim Bob. I still think Jer's demeaning his parents by pairing them up with JB and M in these Mother's and Father's Day greetings. .... I'd create separate posts for the pretty sane, decent-seeming family and the "remarkable" one.
  2. Because the more Duggars there are within a five-mile radius of your location, the more attention God pays to making things go well in that area?
  3. Jessa, two out of three required calling an ambulance. If you try another home birth after those numbers you are really not getting the message the universe is sending you. I guess now we'll find out how stubborn she really is. I'd be scared witless.
  4. Thanks for the good account of where you're coming from. I definitely get what you're saying. This right here sums it up for me. You believe there's no difference between these two things and I think the difference between them is the only thing that matters. For me, it even affects how much my arm hurts, actually. Had I been Amy and felt hurt at Jill's hamhanded comment, I would have tried to put it out of my mind while I coped with my initial grief. And after that was done, I'd have gone to her, and explained exactly why it upset me and why I thought similar things would upset others. Then I'd respond to Jill further based on how Jill responded to me. If she tried to understand what I was saying, apologized and said she'd try to remember and think twice about things like this the next time, then we'd be cool (at least until she kept on doing it). If she blew me off and showed that she truly doesn't give a shit about others' feelings, then I'd walk away from her. It's those responses that would matter to me. Not the original incident, which happened in the heat of a confusing and fraught time for everybody. The kind of time when a helluva lot of people make big errors in what they do and say. I've seen plenty of cases in which people -- including me -- have responded in massively hamhanded ways to big events. People way older than Jill and presumably way more sophisticated about the ways of the world, too, in many cases. That's a kind of mistake that I truly think anyone at any age and level of sophistication can make. I don't know if there's anyone who doesn't just respond wrongly sometimes when it's important not to. And I definitely don't think there's anybody who is incapable of responding in a way that inadvertently triggers somebody else's sensibilities and feelings, because we all respond and are sensitive in such different ways -- So for me the question is always, What does the person do after the event if somebody points the problem out to them? Washing my hands of the person right then and there? Not an option, as far as I'm concerned, if it involves somebody for whom I don't already have solid evidence of meanness and bad intentions. In my opinion, doing that would make me an equal contributor -- or even a bigger one -- to the overall problem. Turning what might be a communication issue only into an angry battle. Now I agree that it's quite possible that Amy did start out by telling Jill how bad that post made her feel and why, and asked for an apology. And it's perfectly possible that Jill didn't comprehend what she was asking or laughed in her face or refused to retract and change. We don't know this whole story. And I don't know what these people are like in real life. Jill may be a really massive jerk. It's quite possible. And if that's went down, then I'm fully on board with Amy being pissed off. (Although I'm never on board with putting cryptic nasty messages on the internet that just may be about your friends and relations, no matter what they did. Say what you mean and say it privately when it involves a real-life relationship, is my feeling.)
  5. Speaking only for myself,, I do hate leprechauns.
  6. Actually, I didn't intend to say that Jill should be cut slack because she was infantilized. If it came off that way, I was being unclear. What I meant to say was that Jill didn't need to be cut slack for anything. I think what she said was 100 percent defensible. Her particular Christian belief --- and what is certainly Mary's as well -- makes what Jill said not just accurate but a perfectly right thing to say under the circumstances. As far as I know, Christians who firmly believe in the resurrection of the body -- and I'm 100 percent sure that not just Jill but Mary believe/d in this -- consider that the most comforting thing you can possibly say about the death of a believing Christian. She is with the Lord in her renewed body and she is happier than she has ever been. After a couple recent deaths in my family, I was assured of this by several people. They intended to be comforting because for them this is the most comforting thought in the world. I don't believe a word of it, but I understood the spirit in which it was intended and I didn't feel critical of them a bit for saying it. And one of the deaths in question was every bit as horrific as Mary's, if not more so. I was in a devastated state from the horrors the deceased person had gone through, but it never occurred to me for one second to be annoyed at somebody for expressing a belief that they consider a great comfort. I understood that they meant well, so I think it's simply wrong to criticize someone for "bad taste" when their intentions are good. And as for the way Jill articulated what Mary may have been thinking, I find that completely understandable as well. I would bet big money that Mary had conversations very similar to the ones Jill invented in her post. After her recent illnesses that left her much more frail than she'd ever imagined, someone who they all describe as an ardent, constant, "soul-winner" almost certainly would have talked longingly and casually about her hopes for the hereafter, I expect. Because I'm sure she felt she had a very personal relationship with Jesus and talked about God and heaven in a personal and casual way. And the fact that Jill put it in slangy, down-home language, to me simply reflects the fact that both Jill and Mary are and always have been what Michelle describes as "barefoot and backyard people." That's the way Jill talks and it's almost certainly the way Mary talked, too, I imagine. So, again, the language isn't the way some would talk. But I don't consider that "'bad taste." It's personal and slangy because these were people who believe they have a personal and slangy relationship with Jesus. And my bet is that Mary had that, just as Jill does. I wouldn't put a bunch of emojis in a social-media post about death. But I can't criticize it as anything more than something done by somebody who's clueless about nuances of expression. For me, "tacky" and "clueless" are seldom very valid or meaningful criticisms or insults, when you come down to it. In my opinion, "tacky" and "in bad taste" almost never relate to ethics or morality or ill intentions. They're virtually always just a sign of hamhandedness or ignorance. And they often go along with perfectly good intentions, in my experience, and, to me, that's really the only thing that matters when it comes to how you behave toward others.
  7. I think this kind of "media savvy" comes naturally to many members of the human race!
  8. The Duggar (including the "rebel Duggar") media manifesto 'If we are aware that a thing will make us look bad, we declare that we -- and God Almighty Himself -- require that it be kept absolutely totally private and under wraps forever. And, in fact, we may even sue you for tens of millions of dollars if you let it out, even if you do that while performing a social, ethical or legal duty. "Similar penalties -- or at least social and social-media shunning -- will also be incurred if you release information on the wrong timetable and thereby mess with the build-the-leghumpers'-curiosity game we're playing on social media to get more attention attention attention. (We're looking at you, Seewald family!) "HOWEVER....If we think a thing doesn't paint us in a bad light but in a good one and, especially if we think it could gain us any amount of admiration, feelings-of-camaraderie, sympathy or even just plain old attention attention attention, we will all race to our social-media accounts and the TeeVee cameras as fast as we can to tease it, announce it, embroider it, trumpet it, exaggerate it, hyperbolize it, strategically lie about it, preach it, condemn others with it, and/or potentially monetize it."
  9. True. But media attention and social-media attention prove addicting to a lot of people who haven't been on them since they were 10. And who don't see their incomes as reliant on them. There are all kinds of people out there telling all about their lives and shaping the telling for their "followers" in crazy ways. It's probably too much to ask that people just turn it off when they've been living on (literally and figuratively) media attention since they were young teenagers. Especially now that there seem to be money worries and the tv portion of the media income may be seriously waning. Such all-consuming habits are hard to break. So, yeah, they should do this. But having fans who hang on your every snapshot is probably not just a habit but more like an actual addiction for many. Some of them would probably need therapy and a 12-step group to quit. And we know that's not going to happen. Plus, afterwards they'd need to think in terms of, you know, jobs. That alone probably makes the idea of abandoning their media presence terrifying and unthinkable.
  10. They don't realize they're being eaten alive by public expectations.
  11. Unfortunately it probably seems to if you've framed your whole life as something to share -- in a cleaned-up form, of course -- with strangers. Framing your personal stuff to present to millions of strangers takes up large chunks of the day for, at least, JB and M, most if not all of the older Duggar daughters, even some of the marryers in who've come to it lately, notably Lauren and Jer. And I'll bet many of those even imagine it's their mission as soul-winning Christians. That's certainly the line JB and M have always fallen back on. And even now, when they seem to be in an especially money-scrounging mode, I expect that's the label most of them put on it to make it palatable to themselves. That's even what Jer told the Roloffs on the podcast about why he overcame his initial reluctance (ha) to have his wedding on television. And that's not even somebody who's spent a whole lifetime looking at it this way.
  12. Also sounds better than "Dedicated GodBotherer"
  13. Churchhoney

    The Duggalos: Jinger and the Holy Goalie

    Or, so it works for Jer, the theologian -- "Non mentiri, technice"
  14. Interesting question!