Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

Null 302

By Null 302
in Counting On

Guest

As a reminder, the site's Politics Policy remains in effect.  Yes, Jim Bob is apparently running for office again. That does not make it an acceptable topic of conversation in here - unless for some mysterious reason, TLC brings the show back and it is discussed on there. Even then, it would be limited to how it was discussed on the show.

If you have any questions, please PM the mods, @SCARLETT45 and myself.

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

GeeGolly

GeeGolly

IMO, I don't think it's extreme. Losing a couple shows due to low ratings is no big deal, but having viewers turn away from everything they offer due to their content will send a message. 

I guess my point is, there are a lot of networks with programming that is less than tasteful, or with views I don't agree with. Personally I don't feel the need to try and influence their program choices. We have a local network that airs a religious show twice a week. I don't think the doctrine of this mainstream religion sends a healthy message, but other people do. I don't watch that show, but apparently other folks do. 

 

The Duggar's message differs from mine, but appeals to some.

 

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, it is just my opinion.

  • Love 7
  • Replies 13k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

cmr2014
cmr2014

I was thinking about this and the idea that the girls weren't "harmed" and weren't "damaged goods" which led me to realize that ALL of the Duggar children are "damaged goods" and I think that's becomi

Churchhoney
Churchhoney

They put themselves on tv and have proclaimed over and over and over and over again that their way of life is the way to ensure that your children are totally safe from every evil of the world, and in

WhitneyWhit
WhitneyWhit

I don't know where to post this but I fucking met Michelle Duggar. Let me set the scene. So my cousin is getting married and we were at a shop looking at dresses here in Kentucky when the Duggars marc

Posted Images

Tabbygirl521

Tabbygirl521

I don't see myself formally boycotting TLC but I must say they flummox me more and more all the time with their "Keep Wimmens Down" programming. 90-Day Fiancé? Married by Mom and Dad? Sister Wives? Seems like half the time even in those wedding-dress shows, the bride has someone else controlling her choice. I'm getting nostalgic for giant scrotes.

  • Love 8
galax-arena

galax-arena

(edited)

Re: a boycott, well, it depends on how problematic you find the show's message. There's a difference between simply finding something less than tasteful - I personally can't stand the Bachelor/Bachelorette for ~reasons - and thinking it's offensive to the point of not deserving a platform. Is the latter advocating censorship? Yeah, but we censor shit all the time. I'm not going to be apologetic about thinking that (for example) a network should not give a platform to people who think slavery is a good thing. Extreme example, I know, but I've just been reading more Doug Wilson.

 

Boycotts can (theoretically) work. They're a form of consumer activism. I say "theoretically" because I'm fairly cynical about the efficacy of boycotts when it comes to not watching certain shows or movies. I was part of the group responsible for advocating a boycott of The Last Airbender after so many of the principal roles were whitewashed. The movie flopped, but I'm not up my own asshole enough to think that it was due to our boycotting efforts. We were responsible for a slew of negative publicity (and even coined the word "racebending"), but I'm pretty sure the movie flopped because even aside from the whitewashing, it sucked.

 

I might disagree with the principles behind a specific boycott - like people who won't watch ABC Family because it's too gay-friendly - but I don't begrudge the idea of the boycott itself. Even if I'm cynical about how useful they are, I don't think they're unfair or a form of "economic terrorism" (which I've heard from other circles). 

Edited by galax-arena
  • Love 7
WhitneyWhit

WhitneyWhit

Normally I wouldn't be on board with a boycott, because I'm usually "don't like it, don't watch" but in this case, I find it disgusting that this network is willing to give more money to a family who blames the victims of sexual abuse (or, I'm sorry, they're not victims because they were totally asleep), covers up the abuse, then forces the victims to be alone with their molester. 

  • Love 6
NikSac

NikSac

I think hauling Jill and Jessa out on that msnbc interview to Cover their molesters ass was a rather sick kind of punishment.

 

I agree, I thought that was so gross. I couldn't tell if the girls did it willingly, but my gut has always said probably not, or at least it was very strongly suggested that they needed to do the interview.. There had to be tremendous pressure, starting all the way back to the first time they were violated.

 

https://m.facebook.com/duggarfamilyofficial/photos/pb.510067475793573.-2207520000.1449152148./741492812651037/?type=3&source=54&refid=17

Read the comment about Michelle being the patriarch of the family and she needs to let Anna go.

 

hahaha thank you. I needed a laugh. I thought for sure the person was being sarcastic but then I read the actual comment.  Nope, not sarcastic, just really no clue what patriarch means, unless I'm not giving the commenter enough credit.

  • Love 4
JoanArc

JoanArc

 

I agree, I thought that was so gross. I couldn't tell if the girls did it willingly, but my gut has always said probably not, or at least it was very strongly suggested that they needed to do the interview.. There had to be tremendous pressure, starting all the way back to the first time they were violated.

I tend to go with willingly. They'd do anything to save the show, and a potential spinoff. The huge paychecks from the interview played a big role too. I think they're all, every last one of them, so ethically far gone they'll say and do anything, regardless of how they feel. That said, they;re all under tremendous pressure every day, in every way.

  • Love 4
Gemma Violet

Gemma Violet

(edited)

I saw an article on yahoo that said certain members of the Duggar family are not participating in the specials because of Josh's scandal. Does anyone know who refused? Kind of surprises me, so I wonder if it's true.

 

I saw that, too.  I wonder who doesn't want to participate.  Jana and Jinger?

 

eta:  Here are the pertinent parts:

 

A source in the Duggar family tells ET that the special is "turning into a circus" and "family members are disagreeing with a lot of what they are doing."

According to the source, one point of contention within the conservative megafamily -- who starred on their own TLC show, 19 Kids and Counting, from 2008 until earlier this year -- is the decision to put Anna Duggar on camera "at a time like this."

 

*However, the source told ET that they feel "certain members of the family are more focused on ratings and a paycheck than actually focusing on the issues at hand," adding that some members of the Duggar family have "chosen not to participate in the special out of respect to the serious ordeal the family has been going through in the last months."

Edited by Gemma Violet
  • Love 3
kokapetl

kokapetl

(edited)

The victims were punished by JimChelle when they allowed Josh to stay after they knew what was going on.

The definition of punish:

inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offence, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code.

Jimchelle certainly acted inconsiderately and negligently (for about 20 years and counting), but there's no evidence any of the daughters were punished by their parents for what happened to them. I think the efforts to boycott the daughter's tv show could meet the definition.

Edited by Kokapetl
  • Love 1
Hana Chan

Hana Chan

I'll be blunt... these girls need the show. They married young to men who have no prospects of being able to support their families financially and both plan on large families. Then you have the matter of them having grown up on television, with all the major milestones of their lives done in the public eye. They've gone from a network generously paying for international travel to having no steady source of income.

 

So this show being seen as another money/fame grab isn't out of line. And I can understand why after seeing how the family, including the girls who were victims of Josh's actions, engaged in such a concerted effort to hide what he'd done from the public and basically lie about their sanctity (which was the prime selling point of the show) that many people no longer want anything to do with anything Duggar-related.

  • Love 2
Xena

Xena

The definition of punish:

inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offence, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code.

 

 

It appears something is wrong with your copy\paste function as you neglected to include the further definitions of punish.  Let me include the second definition that was dropped off (bolding mine):

 

pun·ish

ˈpəniSH/Submit

verb

inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code.

treat (someone) in an unfairly harsh way.

 

Not sure why we are using the dictionary.  It's pretty obvious what happened, and who allowed it to continue.

 

A boycott of the girls specials is actually the opposite of a punishment - in my opinion, the best possible outcome of the boycott (and indeed this whole mess) would be to lead the girls, and everybody else in this f*cked up environment, to the conclusion that they need to find a way to make a living that does not involve suckling off the teat of TLC

  • Love 9
kokapetl

kokapetl

(edited)

It appears something is wrong with your copy\paste function as you neglected to include the further definitions of punish. Let me include the second definition that was dropped off (bolding mine):

pun·ish

ˈpəniSH/Submit

verb

inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code.

treat (someone) in an unfairly harsh way.

Not sure why we are using the dictionary. It's pretty obvious what happened, and who allowed it to continue.

A boycott of the girls specials is actually the opposite of a punishment - in my opinion, the best possible outcome of the boycott (and indeed this whole mess) would be to lead the girls, and everybody else in this f*cked up environment, to the conclusion that they need to find a way to make a living that does not involve suckling off the teat of TLC

That definition is incredibly broad, and that kind of punishment, or general maltreatment and neglect, seems to have been the same before and after the molestations. The only person punished (sanctioned) by Jimchelle, for the molestations, was Josh.

A job is a job, and being a reality tv show star is the best job these uneducated girls are ever going to have.

Edited by Kokapetl
  • Popular Post
Vaysh

Vaysh

  • Popular Post
That definition is incredibly broad, and that kind of punishment, or general maltreatment and neglect, seems to have been the same before and after the molestations. The only person punished (sanctioned) by Jimchelle, for the molestations, was Josh.

There is explicit punishment (of which Josh recieved too little imo) and implicit punishment, like having to live in the same house as your molester, like being locked inside your bedroom at night for your own safety, like being told repeatedly and constantly that your immodest body is a stumbling block that will cause men to sin as well as being told that men just simply can't help themselves if YOU don't behave/dress in a certain way (in other words, victim blaming and slut shaming). Deciding to keep raising victims of abuse in a cultural environment that apparently is not only rife with sexual abuse but which also puts the blame on said victims is a form of punishment in and of itself. It's a clear statement that the victims don't matter, that their experiences are not important.

 

Boob and Michelle may not have had the intention of punishing their daughters but they sure did, in many little ways.

  • Love 30
kokapetl

kokapetl

(edited)

All I'm saying is that the only person explicitly punished by JimBob and Michelle for Josh's molesting was Josh, and that the boycott against Jill and Jessa's TV show appears, in part, to be motivated by a desire to explicitly punish Jill and Jessa for the way they've dealt with their molestations.

Edited by Kokapetl
  • Love 1
  • Popular Post
Vaysh

Vaysh

  • Popular Post
All I'm saying is that the only person explicitly punished by JimBob and Michelle for Josh's molesting was Josh, and that the boycott against Jill and Jessa's TV show appears, in part, to be motivated by a desire to explicitly punish Jill and Jessa for the way they've dealt with their molestations.

I can only speak for myself, though from what I've seen many seem to share my sentiment: wanting the specials to fail is not about wanting to punish Jill and Jessa for how they dealt with their molestations. Because that would be absurd. I want the specials to fail because the specials (as was the whole show) are the public and prettified face of a misogynist, homophobic, abusive, legalistic cult, lead by a an abusive pervert who has ruined thousands of lives and which has the explicitly stated goal to take away women's rights, gay rights, children's rights, and to bring about a theocratic state.

 

I also want the specials to fail because there is no way that Jim Boob is not involved in them in some way and I do want him to be punished and the best way to do that is to remove his public platform and make him go back to being as irrelevant and insignificant as he was before TLC came along.

  • Love 60
JenCarroll

JenCarroll

(edited)

Censorship can only be imposed by governments. When individuals choose to stay away from or oppose something, or publicly advocate for opposition, or even band together in groups to advocate against something, that is not censorship. That's the very definition of free speech.

Edited by JenCarroll
  • Love 18
Tabbygirl521

Tabbygirl521

(edited)

Josh is a reprehensible human but I still have a shred of pity for him, knowing that his sisters and wife and God knows who else will be talking about (or at least alluding to) his transgressions AGAIN, on the air, captured for all time. Really, the adultery stuff is no one's business but Anna's, and the molestations - ugh, what to say? We all know it was handled improperly within the family, and it never should have become a topic on a TV special, even if (IF) it was meant to show Jill and Jessa forgiving and moving on. Of course, the minimizing was just plain wrong wrong wrong.

But let's say that the sisters genuinely forgive, and Josh genuinely repents and has not repeated the offenses. If so, I hope it is not mentioned or even hinted at, unless it's his parents confessing how they failed all their children.

That leaves the adultery. if Anna plans to leave him, then she should have enough consideration to do it privately and not create a further public record for her children to discover online one day. If she plans to stay, then all the boo-hooing we see in the promos is just a load of passive-aggressive shaming. "I'll stay, but don't forget how you made me suffer." But I guess that's your only option if you have to "keep sweet." MY husband would still be digging my foot out of his butt, and spitting out teeth, too. But in private. LOL.

I'll bet JOSH is not too excited about the specials, along with whatever other family members are not on board.

And yet, I will watch the specials, hoping I will be proven wrong about the tone and intent.

Edited by Tabbygirl521
  • Love 2
bigskygirl

bigskygirl

Bringing dictionary definitions into any forum conversation is a sign the conversation has gone on too long. Enough on the punishment stuff please. Move on. You have been warn more than once about this. Posts will be hidden or deleted and warnings will be given out along with the possibility of closing the thread. Keep it on topic. Respond and move on. Don't try to get others to agree with you. Thank you.

NikSac

NikSac

I saw that, too.  I wonder who doesn't want to participate.  Jana and Jinger?

 

I was thinking about that too and really it could be anyone, at least from what I saw in the article quoted.  It's hard to even guess unless we know for sure who all was supposed to be included to begin with. Could be Grandma, Amy, some of the boys, some of the spouses... ? 

  • Love 1
Guest

Guest

I saw an article on yahoo that said certain members of the Duggar family are not participating in the specials because of Josh's scandal. Does anyone know who refused? Kind of surprises me, so I wonder if it's true.

 

I would put my money on Grandma Mary... and John David. Remember, he was absent from the last episode where everyone knew the shit was gonna hit the fan due to "work" commitments. Um, yeah, right. We give him a lot of crap for being Slingblade, but I think he's more self-aware than we realize. 

Albanyguy

Albanyguy

I saw that, too.  I wonder who doesn't want to participate.

 

I think it's Amy and her husband and the situation isn't that they don't WANT to participate, it's that they haven't been ASKED to participate. My guess is that Amy has been pointedly excluded from the specials and now she's trying to save face (and get back at the Duggars) by attempting to claim the moral high ground.

  • Love 6
3girlsforus

3girlsforus

I'll be blunt... these girls need the show. They married young to men who have no prospects of being able to support their families financially and both plan on large families. Then you have the matter of them having grown up on television, with all the major milestones of their lives done in the public eye. They've gone from a network generously paying for international travel to having no steady source of income.

 

So this show being seen as another money/fame grab isn't out of line. And I can understand why after seeing how the family, including the girls who were victims of Josh's actions, engaged in such a concerted effort to hide what he'd done from the public and basically lie about their sanctity (which was the prime selling point of the show) that many people no longer want anything to do with anything Duggar-related.

 

I agree. And just look at Anna. If she is entertaining in any way the idea of leaving Josh she needs money to do so. This special gives her money. I'm not at all surprised she decided to do it. 

drafan

drafan

Sounds like it's about time for Anna to make the trip to Rockford, via LAX and O'Hare. Might be enough to get one of the sidebar headshot spots.

 

....and return home pregnant.

 

I keep chuckling at the Amy as snitch accusations. I don't think she's that smart. It's probably nobody. The tabloids just love to make stuff up.

  • Love 3
Sew Sumi

Sew Sumi

Amy is also the likely source for the STD story (that I still have a hard time believing). But the story came to light just the same, and as I questioned before, there are only a very small handful of people who would know whether that actually happened, and fewer still who would blab to the tabloids about it. 

 

Of course she wasn't invited to film Counting On...this enterprise to fall flat on its face. Even if she had, does anyone here think that Dillon would have let her do it without putting his foot down? He's a famewhore, but he  also really hates Smuggar. 

  • Love 1
louannems

louannems

Mariette Pagé

It has recently been announced that TLC/Discovery Communications is planning to bring the Duggar daughters, Jill Dillard & Jessa Seewald back to their schedule with a series of specials. This is TLC's way of bringing the entire family back, they must think that people and advertisers are clueless. This is completely irresponsible, disgusting and completely wrong. I would like to ask your company not to sponsor anything with TLC, Duggars, Dillard & Seewalds. Do not sponsor or advertise for this program or family. Do not support this. Please, do the responsible and ethical thing and say no more Duggars, Dillards or Seewalds anywhere on the airwaves. The public has not and will not support any sponsors who support this. Please join the advertisers that have already said no to any Dillard, Seewald and Duggar programming. The numbers are growing every day. So far, there are the 894 advertisers who say they have control over where they advertise and have said NO to this, so I know this can be done. I respectfully ask you to be one of them that says NO. We all must protect children and sexual abuse victims and give them a voice. They are a danger to the normal mainstream public. Giving them a platform to promote this behaviour is dangerous. The intolerance of these women and their family is abhorrent, they constantly attack Catholics, moderate Christians and now even Pope Francis. Anyone who doesn't adhere to their Quiverfull Cult Teachings. They promote child abuse, endorsing "Blanket Training" in rearing their children into submission. They demonize the LGBT and Transgender community as child molesters, when they harbored one, their own son, in their home. These young woman defended his actions on national TV. What kind of message does that send to victims of sexual abuse? These girls are in no way a role model for young woman, sexual abuse survivors, or anyone in general. Young woman should be raised to being strong, independent and educated. To become useful contributors to society, not subservient bigoted hateful members with no minds of their own. Now it seems that TLC has just renamed and rebranded 19 Kids & Counting to Jill & Jessa: Counting On. Please do not be fooled to think that the rest of this hypocritical family will not be included. Thank you for your time on this very important matter.

Like · 16 · Reply · More · 11 hours ago

This is from a commentor on the Duggar's Facebook.

  • Love 17
RazzleberryPie

RazzleberryPie

....and return home pregnant.

 

I keep chuckling at the Amy as snitch accusations. I don't think she's that smart. It's probably nobody. The tabloids just love to make stuff up.

As many people that are in and out of that house, or just see the Duggars out and about, or have online media - snitch could be ANYONE.

  • Love 1
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

 

 

I keep chuckling at the Amy as snitch accusations. I don't think she's that smart.

 

I don't know. How smart do you have to be to hear something, overhear something, mis-hear something, or imagine something and call up the reporter you have on speed-dial to tell them? And how smart do you have to be to put reporters on your speed-dial when you're hoping like heck that you can tempt one of them to actually write about you again someday?

 

Amy's famished for more fame, and reporters are always famished for tips. I'd  say dumb, largely scrupleless Amy and dumb, largely scrupleless tab 'reporters" are probably a marriage made in speed-dial heaven.

  • Love 3
louannems

louannems

I'm sure we'll be treated to more "How many pounds of frozen tator tots the Duggars eat in a year", and " How many pounds of metal is needed for all the Duggars to have braces", etc.

And we'll get to see thumbprints of Michelle and JimBob reliving THEIR wedding, births (Oh! All those births!!!), their trips and diets and how they raised all these godly children, etc!

  • Love 3
JoanArc

JoanArc

Couting On has lost nearly 800 sponsors. I can't help but think the first episode will get ratings from the scandal, while the last two episodes won't. I mean, the last special airs two days after Christmas. Not prime ratings time for any tv show. I kind of think that will be like the abuse special - something TLC will run to save face, then springboard into more 19kac episodes. But we all know Couting On will suck....so I'm sot sure what TLCs endgame is here.

Oh well, one week to go till the exciting premiere.

  • Love 2
Loves2Dance

Loves2Dance

If the reports of moving all of the money/property out of Josh's name were true, it all makes more sense now. 

It does make sense, but is still pretty stupid. The courts can view it as a form of fraud and nothing will save them at that point. For once in his life, maybe Josh should have to actually own up to what he has done? I mean, I get that is a foreign concept but hey---personal accountability can be taught to an almost 30 year old, right?

  • Love 4
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

It does make sense, but is still pretty stupid. The courts can view it as a form of fraud and nothing will save them at that point. For once in his life, maybe Josh should have to actually own up to what he has done? I mean, I get that is a foreign concept but hey---personal accountability can be taught to an almost 30 year old, right?

 

I don't know. Considering the behavior of his parents, I wonder whether there might be a strong genetic component. And then there's that lifelong belief system. If it's good, careful now! Don't take credit. Give all the credit to Jesus! And if it's bad.... Satan did it! Or your enemies who are in league with Satan!

 

This isn't the ordinary almost-30-year-old we're talking about.

  • Love 2
Guest

As a reminder, the site's Politics Policy remains in effect.  Yes, Jim Bob is apparently running for office again. That does not make it an acceptable topic of conversation in here - unless for some mysterious reason, TLC brings the show back and it is discussed on there. Even then, it would be limited to how it was discussed on the show.

If you have any questions, please PM the mods, @SCARLETT45 and myself.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...