Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The Duggalos: Jinger and the Holy Goalie

frenchtoast

By frenchtoast
in Counting On

cm-soupsipper
Message added by cm-soupsipper,

Closure Notice: This Thread is now closed due to the name (and much of the posting within it). Please be mindful going forward by naming topics in a way that invites a healthy community conversation. If you name something for a cheap laugh, this thread may be closed later because it encourages discrimination and harm. 

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Popular Post
Tikichick

Tikichick

  • Popular Post

I'll give him this, he publicly acknowledged what he did was insensitive.  That's incredibly rare these days, especially among most on social media.  The most common response to pushback is denial or digging in deeper about why they weren't wrong and in fact were right.  That's the kind of response I would absolutely expect from Jessa and/or Michelle.

  • Love 25
  • Replies 40.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Churchhoney

    2685

  • Sew Sumi

    1781

  • GeeGolly

    1721

  • Zella

    1576

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Spencer Hastings
Spencer Hastings

Tough crowd!  She's wearing modern shoes with closed toes, pants, and a shirt that literally calls back to her family's ridiculous rules and there are still 35 things wrong with what she's doing. 

Churchhoney
Churchhoney

That's okay. He's forgotten it a few times himself. 

GeeGolly
GeeGolly

My push presents after having my kids were my kids. 

Posted Images

awaken

awaken

7 hours ago, BigBingerBro said:

dyh12ca2wkj51.jpg

Wow. How big of him. I appreciate his willingness to apologize publicly, but my opinion of him has fallen even lower due to the thoughtless nature of the original post, if that were possible. And this was all NOT done from his own phone, which has no social media apps, right?  🤔

7 hours ago, Lunera said:

Yeah, he doesn't give two shits about the Duggar family. How could he so quickly forget that just last year he attended the funeral of Grandma Duggar who died of a freaking pool drowning. 

He even publicized that he spoke at it, not just attended, right?  How does that slip ones mind?  

  • Love 11
MaryAnneSpier

MaryAnneSpier

It slips his mind because it's not something that directly affects him.  Yeah, it was his wife's grandmother, but he hasn't been married to Jinger long and didn't live near the Duggar compound, so why would he use up precious space in his mind to remember that his wife's family member died by drowning? He has much more important things to focus on like what color pocket square to wear today, which restaurant will give him a free meal, or which old white man to kiss up to at seminary. 

  • Love 14
jcbrown

jcbrown

11 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

The glove is a heat protectant glove and should be used on her other hand to prevent accidental burns.  It serves no purpose on the hand holding the device.

What is that device? Some sort of complicated curling or straightening thingy?

I'm glad to hear Felicity is allowed to dance. That's progress, though the Neanderthal views (no offense to Neanderthals) of Felicity's dad are definitely not progress.

  • Love 5
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

(edited)

I would think that Jer's becoming the promotional face of a gang of strident biblical literalists and science deniers won't do much for his and Jingle's chances to work with companies interested in attracting mainstream customers. I'd assume he knows that by now. But who can tell what he's figured out....or not figured out.

 

Edited by Churchhoney
  • Love 11
Zella

Zella

How many sponsorships have they lost now? I remember the doughnuts, the Scientology-ish purse thing, the rug thing, and then some other makeup/beauty product something. This is, at minimum, the fifth sponsorship deal they have lost in about a year. I'm astonished they keep trying for them and businesses keep giving them to them at this point. 

  • LOL 1
  • Love 11
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

(edited)
6 minutes ago, Zella said:

How many sponsorships have they lost now? I remember the doughnuts, the Scientology-ish purse thing, the rug thing, and then some other makeup/beauty product something. This is, at minimum, the fifth sponsorship deal they have lost in about a year. I'm astonished they keep trying for them and businesses keep giving them to them at this point. 

She also had Skillshare for about a minute. Don't know what happened to that one, but their connection produced about a days' worth of posts and then....gone. And there was the finance app, where she posted the wrong link.. ... And before that, back in Laredo, did she also do the organic grocery (along with a sister or two)....Duggarlings definitely lost that one. I'm not sure if Jingle was involved in that deal or not, but I kinda think she was.....I'm pretty sure there have been more, too. 

Edited by Churchhoney
  • Love 4
Zella

Zella

(edited)
2 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

She also had Skillshare for about a minute. Don't know what happened to that one, but their connection produced about a days' worth of posts and then....gone. And there was the finance app, where she posted the wrong link.. ... And before that, back in Laredo, did she also do the organic grocery (along with a sister or two)....Duggarlings definitely lost that one. I'm not sure if Jingle was involved in that deal or not, but I kinda think she was.....I'm pretty sure there have been more, too. 

Aha thank you! So, yeah, that's at least 7 sponsorship deals these 2 goobers have lost on their own since they moved to California last year, with another potential failed shared venture with other relatives before then. 

Edited by Zella
  • Useful 2
  • LOL 1
  • Love 4
Oldernowiser

Oldernowiser

20 hours ago, Joan of Argh said:

The baby looks like she has a black garter on her head... 

Maybe Jer has a stripper fetish and it's part of Jingers costume 👄

I had exactly the same thought. Who buys a baby a black lace headband?

1 hour ago, Zella said:

Aha thank you! So, yeah, that's at least 7 sponsorship deals these 2 goobers have lost on their own since they moved to California last year, with another potential failed shared venture with other relatives before then. 

Wasn’t there also some nonsense where you could pay $30 to have one of them wish someone a happy birthday or record a ringtone for Jesus or some such?

  • Love 5
Zella

Zella

8 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

I had exactly the same thought. Who buys a baby a black lace headband?

Wasn’t there also some nonsense where you could pay $30 to have one of them wish someone a happy birthday or record a ringtone for Jesus or some such?

Yes, you're right about them doing Cameo. I don't know how that service works, truth be told. Are they still on Cameo for gigs? I never remember hearing about that being terminated, but they also may have slithered away quietly. LOL

  • Love 1
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

7 hours ago, Oldernowiser said:

 

Wasn’t there also some nonsense where you could pay $30 to have one of them wish someone a happy birthday or record a ringtone for Jesus or some such?

This is Cameo. They're both still listed there. Jeremy must still be active, because his listing has a price -- $40.    But Jingle's listing doesn't state a price any more, and it says "Notify me when Jinger Duggar Vuolo is available."

She seems to have taken a hiatus from selling those -- And I think she actually did that quite a long time ago. Dreaming up 30 seconds of birthday wish to some random stranger and then delivering it while holding onto a squirming Felicity didn't look like it'd be Jinge's thing, and I guess it wasn't. Thirty seconds probably seems like an eternity if you hate doing it. When she was still doing it, they'd put a price of $60 on her messages. So even after all this time, Jer's still one-third less valuable. 😁

  • Useful 3
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

(edited)
2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

It seems that the folks complaining to the companies have more of an issue with the Duggars than the Bates, if the Bates ladies are able to maintain sponsorships. I wonder why that is? 

Do the Bates go after many plain old mainstream companies? Or do they stick more to conservative-Christian-friendly businesses? That could account for it, if they do, obviously....

Or maybe it's because they just aren't as famous, so nobody knows who they are. I mean, pretty much nobody I know knows who the Duggars are, so they wouldn't know who the Bates were in a million years.

Plus the Duggars have actual long-running notoriety because of something religion-related that happened with them, right. .....A fair number of people know them as the people whose religious beliefs encouraged them to pay less than optimal attention when their first-born-son-with-his-high-biblical-standing molested his young sisters and somebody else.....while his parents largely let him off the hook, said that everybody in their churches does it, and told the girls to shut up about it. A lot of people who know that story have been pissed about it for years and especially pissed about them being positive media figures in spite of it. So they have active enemies.

And a lot of their social-media followers are their enemies, their hate followers -- so their enemies find out immediately about any companies they're working with.....I doubt that the Bateses face nearly as much of a problem with that, and probably little problem with it at all. Their family isn't known for a sexual-abuse matter. That's a major trigger for most of the Duggars' enemies....and it doesn't matter that the Bateses may believe all the same stuff....because people don't know about their beliefs.

We know that the Bateses have been involved in lots of the same stuff as the Duggars -- and maybe even worse (remembering the house shrine to Nathan Bedford Forrest) -- but as people have often said here, the Bates have presented a way more benign-seeming and mainstream-looking persona than the Duggars. Always.

And none of the Bates girls are currently married to guys who are trying to be famous preachers, right?

While Jer's been the subject of tabloid stories about calling American Catholics a demonic horde and preaching a lot of very anti-trans and anti-gay stuff -- strongly condemning another pastor who expressed sympathy and compassion for gay people wanting to marry their beloved partners and so on.

And now he's linked himself publicly with Ray Comfort and Ken Ham, if only briefly (perhaps) and recently. I don't think anybody who wants a mainstream following now, and especially anyone who wants a mainstream following among young people, would want their advertising showcasing these really loud science deniers, including The Ark guy.

I mean, most companies trying to sell consumer products to basically everybody wouldn't seek to advertise with Greta Thunberg or Colin Kaepernick, either. If you make yourself known for very strong views on some controversial issue, only companies whose own persona is deliberately provocative are going to want you on board. And most companies Jinger'd want to advertise sell pretty stuff for women or your house or happiness-related household goods like coffee makers and sound equipment or cozy food and drink. Most companies in those fields don't advertise as provocateurs. And Ken Ham and Ray Comfort go way out of their way to drive controversy -- because that's what they believe in. And now Jer's apparently their boy, podcasting with them and advertising on their behalf.

Jer and Jingle also seem to have lost some companies because their postings weren't good. There was the wrong-link-for-the-finance-company problem. And remember that really really odd video she did for the makeup company? It wasn't just awful and weird, it was beyond amateur in execution and it clashed like mad with the company's branding. The Bateses seem way more comfortable-- and adept at -- creating personas that are just bland and pretty.

 

Edited by Churchhoney
  • Useful 3
  • Love 7
GeeGolly

GeeGolly

1 minute ago, Churchhoney said:

Do the Bates go after many plain old mainstream companies? Or do they stick more to conservative-Christian-friendly businesses? That could account for it, if they do, obviously....

Or maybe it's because they just aren't as famous, so nobody knows who they are. I mean, pretty much nobody I know knows who the Duggars are, so they wouldn't know who the Bates were in a million years.

Plus the Duggars have actual long-running notoriety because of something religion-related that happened with them, right. .....A fair number of people know them as the people whose religious beliefs encouraged them to pay less than optimal attention when their first-born-son-with-his-high-biblical-standing molested his young sisters and somebody else.....while his parents largely let him off the hook, said that everybody in their churches does it, and told the girls to shut up about it. A lot of people who know that story have been pissed about it for years and especially pissed about them being positive media figures in spite of it. So they have active enemies.

And none of the Bates girls are currently married to guys who are trying to be famous preachers, right?

While Jer's been the subject of tabloid stories about calling American Catholics a demonic horde and preaching a lot of very anti-trans and anti-gay stuff -- strongly condemning another pastor who expressed sympathy and compassion for gay people wanting to marry their beloved partners and so on.

And now he's linked himself publicly with Ray Comfort and Ken Ham, if only briefly (perhaps) and recently. I don't think anybody who wants a mainstream following now, and especially anyone who wants a mainstream following among young people, would want their advertising showcasing these really loud science deniers, including The Ark guy.

I mean, most companies trying to sell consumer products to basically everybody wouldn't seek to advertise with Greta Thunberg or Colin Kaepernick, either. If you make yourself known for very strong views on some controversial issue, only companies whose own persona is deliberately provocative are going to want you on board. And most companies Jinger'd want to advertise sell pretty stuff for women or your house or happiness-related household goods like coffee makers and sound equipment or cozy food and drink. Most companies in those fields don't advertise as provocateurs. And Ken Ham and Ray Comfort go way out of their way to drive controversy -- because that's what they believe in. And now Jer's apparently their boy, podcasting with them and advertising on their behalf.

And Jer and Jingle also seem to have lost some companies because their postings weren't good. Remember that really really odd video she did for the makeup company? And it wasn't just awful and weird, it clashed like mad with the company's branding. The Bateses seem way more comfortable-- and adept at -- creating personas that are just bland and pretty. And their parents and husbands aren't so well known for controversial stuff.

 

If you know the Duggars, you know the Bates, they've been featured on the show many times. Carlin was a big part of Joy's posts when she lost Annabelle. The Duggar and Bates guys make up the quasi rescue team. They've been connected for a couple of decades.

They shill the exact same products with posts very similar to the Duggar ladies.

And the victims of Josh are selling products, not Josh, JB & M.

What tabloid stories has Jeremy been in? I don't recall seeing any. And the Bates are still linked to Gothard, I believe Gil sits on the Board.

  • Useful 1
  • Love 2
  • Popular Post
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

  • Popular Post
(edited)
3 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

If you know the Duggars, you know the Bates, they've been featured on the show many times. Carlin was a big part of Joy's posts when she lost Annabelle. The Duggar and Bates guys make up the quasi rescue team. They've been connected for a couple of decades.

They shill the exact same products with posts very similar to the Duggar ladies.

And the victims of Josh are selling products, not Josh, JB & M.

What tabloid stories has Jeremy been in? I don't recall seeing any. And the Bates are still linked to Gothard, I believe Gil sits on the Board.

There were quite a few tab stories on Jer's sermons back when he was in Laredo and preaching (probably not in anybody's print versions, of course, just online -- I don't know about that because I don't look at the paper versions). Some of the publications followed his sermonizing fairly heavily for a while, quoting his most outrageous comments. So, yes, there has been stuff out there. 

Here's inTouch on Jeremy's sermons -- 

https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/jeremy-vuolo-sermon-155982/

Some quotes -- "Jeremy makes a wild, racially charged statement that comes out of nowhere."

From a sermon-- "I just want to say this, kind of as an aside for us here in Laredo," he said. "There are spiritual strongholds in our world today, aren’t there? Just as Paul and Silas encountered the demonic in Philippi, so we encounter that here in Laredo. In this city, we have the pagan religion of Catholicism gripping the souls of the majority."

On a Jer abortion sermon -- He starts off by reading a research study he says was not written by some "conservative right-wing nut" but by a scientist who found that women who had abortions were likely to suffer from depression and possibly commit suicide later. He then follows up with the craziest reason to explain this — that God is punishing the women for their sin. “It is true what God says, 'The wages of sin is death,'" he says.

From their description of his anti LGBTQ sermons -- "He's staunchly anti-LGBTQ and doesn't even attempt to shy away from it like the other Duggars."

More on his anti-LGBTQ sermons -- "he talks about how other Christians love to talk about how "love wins" instead of preaching about hell. "Don’t you see 'love wins' in the spirit of homosexual marriage be touted on the banners from the football fields into the courtrooms?" he asks. "Truth is being degraded."

Story from the inquisitr -- 

https://www.inquisitr.com/4821418/jeremy-vuolo-jinger-duggar-vuolos-husband-preaches-a-sermon-and-hes-not-as-liberal-as-many-think/

"He preached a sermon entitled “A Profile of Christ’s Enemies,” that can be seen here. In the sermon, Jeremy doesn’t necessarily go down a list to say who Christ’s enemies are, but he does say that anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus is an enemy of his."

Another inquisitr story, this one also posted at Yahoo News -- 

https://news.yahoo.com/jinger-duggar-husband-jeremy-vuolo-180447066.html

"Just last month, the athlete-turned-preacher and reality TV star utilized his pulpit as a means to attack the Catholic Church and a former pastor who aired his support for gay marriages. Last week, Jeremy made waves once more, after he stated that leaders, even controversial ones like...Kim Jong Un, are given divine authority by God."

Another one from inTouch on the stances he embraced as a top signer of the MacArthur social-justice letter -- 

https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/jeremy-vuolo-sexist-anti-lgbt-statement-165787/

'He believes women should “be submissive.”'

'He believes gay and trans people are “sinful.”'

Then they quoted responses to some of his Twitter, noting that even a lot of people who said they were also Christians were distressed by his various ideas -- 

'Even people in the church were concerned, with one writing, “I know you love Jesus, but I think you’re really wrong about this issue and that you misunderstand those on the other side. Furthermore, I don’t think this statement leaves any room for gracious discussion in order to learn and understand the viewpoints of others.” Someone else wrote, “The section on Complementarism is a deal breaker for me as my Senior Pastors are a Husband/Wife team.”'

Here's one from The Hollywood Gossip -- 

https://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2017/10/jeremy-vuolo-slammed-for-anti-lgbt-anti-duggar-rant/

"In fact, Vuolo is coming across as more extreme in his anti-LGBT beliefs than his in-laws, which is really saying something."

'He said that he and Jinger consider homosexuality to be a "false love." Most noticeably, he went on to use a very strange analogy, comparing the existence of LGBT folks to a loaded gun and suggesting that sticking to his anti-LGBT beliefs makes him the only one willing to recognize it as a danger.'

'he suggests that rejecting gay people for who they are is a better way to love them than accepting them.

Here's one from romper -- 

From one of his sermons on how women should dress -- It's exactly the "Nike!" and eyetrap stuff that the Duggars have always said, putitng the burden on women not to tempt men sexually.  “It is not your liberty, women, to wear sensual, seductive clothing that is designed to draw the attention of your brothers,” Jeremy said. “But it is your liberty as to whether you dress modestly with a modest pair of pants, or with a skirt, or with a T-shirt, or with a blouse." 

And there have been plenty more over the past few years. So if somebody takes them on as influencers, then gets a complaint and Googles him, all this stuff turns up. And many brands just aren't going to risk being allied with somebody whose controversial stuff is so easily accessible, seems to me. 

And I know from personal experience that it's perfectly possible to know quite a bit about the Duggars without ever seeing the name of the Bateses.  For one thing, because a fair number of people who "know" the Duggars don't know their show, and have never seen it! They "know" them because of years of media stories and because they were on the morning shows when they had additional kids back in the old days. They know they're a family with a whole lot of kids and fundie beliefs, but they've never watched them. And the Bateses haven't shown up on the tabloid covers that the Duggars got. 

I'm an example of that in a different way. I knew about the Duggars initially because of Jim Bob's political doings, and after that I followed them in the news but never watched the shows or looked at any forums until the Josh stuff was happening. And that was the first time I'd ever heard of the Bateses. When I researched JB and reported on his political stuff back in the very early 2000s, II heard of various other people JB hung out with in Arkansas,  and I knew about Gothard and about some people who were either leaders of that group or high-profile leavers of it, but I never heard a word about the Bateses. Never heard of them at all until I read here, about 14 years later.

And while Jer and JB and M are known for connections to some controversial stuff, Lawson Bates is now getting himself linked to the very mainstream Bachelor franchise.

Meanwhile, people have said for years around here that the Bateses family photos and gatherings and their weddings look so much more mainstream than the Duggars ever do......And this whole discussion is about influencing and advertising. That's all about appearances! And the Bateses' appearances have seemed very different from the Duggars', despite their identical beliefs. 

There are different in nuances of what's known and presented about them and what they've presented about themselves.. And influencer posting and advertising are all about nuances and impressions. If brands get a whiff of a nuance or impression that they think may not fly with millions of people, many of them will turn you down because they don't need to risk it -- there are plenty of other people out there dying to advertise for them, too. 

And....finally -- maybe I'm wrong! Maybe all this has nothing to do with why the Bateses keep influencing and the Vuolos keep having false starts. I'm speculating, based on things I've observed. So since that's what I'm doing, of course I can be totally wrong about it!  But if none of these are the reasons... there's still got to be a reason, doesn't there? If they're really identical situations, then why does it happen? What's your theory? What evidence do you see? Because it seems to me there have to be reasons.....It can't be numbers -- they have those.

So could it possibly just be random chance that they haven't kept any influencer spots? Something that has nothing to do with any facts about the Duggars and Vuolos? I don't see how that can be -- because they're losing connections with businesses. And businesses tend to do things because they see a reason to (rightly or wrongly) be worried about their customers and their bottom line. But if nothing that I've suggested could possibly be the reason, what are the reasons? Are the businesses acting completely capriciously and potentially against their own financial interests? I feel like there have to be some contributing factors that relate to the Duggars and Vuolos. So if these aren't the ones, what are the other possibilities?

Edited by Churchhoney
  • Useful 15
  • Love 16
GeeGolly

GeeGolly

10 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

There were quite a few tab stories on Jer's sermons back when he was in Laredo and preaching. Some of the publications followed his sermonizing fairly heavily for a while, quoting his most outrageous comments. So, yes, there has been stuff out there. 

Here's inTouch on Jeremy's sermons -- 

https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/jeremy-vuolo-sermon-155982/

Some quotes -- "Jeremy makes a wild, racially charged statement that comes out of nowhere."

From a sermon-- "I just want to say this, kind of as an aside for us here in Laredo," he said. "There are spiritual strongholds in our world today, aren’t there? Just as Paul and Silas encountered the demonic in Philippi, so we encounter that here in Laredo. In this city, we have the pagan religion of Catholicism gripping the souls of the majority."

On a Jer abortion sermon -- He starts off by reading a research study he says was not written by some "conservative right-wing nut" but by a scientist who found that women who had abortions were likely to suffer from depression and possibly commit suicide later. He then follows up with the craziest reason to explain this — that God is punishing the women for their sin. “It is true what God says, 'The wages of sin is death,'" he says.

From their description of his anti LGBTQ sermons -- "He's staunchly anti-LGBTQ and doesn't even attempt to shy away from it like the other Duggars."

More on his anti-LGBTQ sermons -- "he talks about how other Christians love to talk about how "love wins" instead of preaching about hell. "Don’t you see 'love wins' in the spirit of homosexual marriage be touted on the banners from the football fields into the courtrooms?" he asks. "Truth is being degraded."

Story from the inquisitr -- 

https://www.inquisitr.com/4821418/jeremy-vuolo-jinger-duggar-vuolos-husband-preaches-a-sermon-and-hes-not-as-liberal-as-many-think/

"He preached a sermon entitled “A Profile of Christ’s Enemies,” that can be seen here. In the sermon, Jeremy doesn’t necessarily go down a list to say who Christ’s enemies are, but he does say that anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus is an enemy of his."

Another inquisitr story, this one also posted at Yahoo News -- 

https://news.yahoo.com/jinger-duggar-husband-jeremy-vuolo-180447066.html

"Just last month, the athlete-turned-preacher and reality TV star utilized his pulpit as a means to attack the Catholic Church and a former pastor who aired his support for gay marriages. Last week, Jeremy made waves once more, after he stated that leaders, even controversial ones like...Kim Jong Un, are given divine authority by God."

Another one from inTouch on the stances he embraced as a top signer of the MacArthur social-justice letter -- 

https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/jeremy-vuolo-sexist-anti-lgbt-statement-165787/

'He believes women should “be submissive.”'

'He believes gay and trans people are “sinful.”'

Then they quoted responses to some of his Twitter, noting that even a lot of people who said they were also Christians were distressed by his various ideas -- 

'Even people in the church were concerned, with one writing, “I know you love Jesus, but I think you’re really wrong about this issue and that you misunderstand those on the other side. Furthermore, I don’t think this statement leaves any room for gracious discussion in order to learn and understand the viewpoints of others.” Someone else wrote, “The section on Complementarism is a deal breaker for me as my Senior Pastors are a Husband/Wife team.”'

Here's one from The Hollywood Gossip -- 

https://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2017/10/jeremy-vuolo-slammed-for-anti-lgbt-anti-duggar-rant/

"In fact, Vuolo is coming across as more extreme in his anti-LGBT beliefs than his in-laws, which is really saying something."

'He said that he and Jinger consider homosexuality to be a "false love." Most noticeably, he went on to use a very strange analogy, comparing the existence of LGBT folks to a loaded gun and suggesting that sticking to his anti-LGBT beliefs makes him the only one willing to recognize it as a danger.'

'he suggests that rejecting gay people for who they are is a better way to love them than accepting them.

Here's one from romper -- 

From one of his sermons on how women should dress -- It's exactly the "Nike!" and eyetrap stuff that the Duggars have always said, putitng the burden on women not to tempt men sexually.  “It is not your liberty, women, to wear sensual, seductive clothing that is designed to draw the attention of your brothers,” Jeremy said. “But it is your liberty as to whether you dress modestly with a modest pair of pants, or with a skirt, or with a T-shirt, or with a blouse." 

And there have been plenty more over the past few years. So if somebody takes them on as influencers, then gets a complaint and Googles him, all this stuff turns up. And many brands just aren't going to risk being allied with somebody whose controversial stuff is so easily accessible, seems to me. 

And I know from personal experience that it's perfectly possible to know quite a bit about the Duggars without ever seeing the name of the Bateses.  For one thing, because a fair number of people who "know" the Duggars don't know their show, and have never seen it! They "know" them because of years of media stories and because they were on the morning shows when they had additional kids back in the old days. They know they're a family with a whole lot of kids and fundie beliefs, but they've never watched them. And the Bateses haven't shown up on the tabloid covers that the Duggars got. 

I'm an example of that in a different way. I knew about the Duggars initially because of Jim Bob's political doings, and after that I followed them in the news but never watched the shows or looked at any forums until the Josh stuff was happening. And that was the first time I'd ever heard of the Bateses. When I researched JB and reported on his political stuff back in the very early 2000s, II heard of various other people JB hung out with in Arkansas,  and I knew about Gothard, but I never heard a word about the Bateses. Never heard of them until I read here. 

And while Jer and JB and M are known for connections to some controversial stuff, Lawson Bates is now getting himself linked to the very mainstream Bachelor franchise. 

Meanwhile, people have said for years around here that the Bateses family photos and gatherings and their weddings look so much more mainstream than the Duggars ever do......And this whole discussion is about influencing and advertising. That's all about appearances! And the Bateses appearances have seemed very different from the Duggars, despite their identical beliefs.  

They are different in nuances of what's known and presented about them and what they've presented about themselves.. And influencer posting and advertising are all about nuances and impressions. If brands get a whiff of a nuance or impression that they think may not fly with millions of people, many of them will turn you down because they don't need to risk it -- there are plenty of other people out there dying to advertise for them, too. 

Wow, tons of stories around Jeremy!

I think we established before that most of these companies do little to no research on their influencers, short of seeing how many followers they have. Which is why the Duggars get the gigs initially. Its usually after numerous complaints they then lose the gigs. So while appearances matter, if anyone complained to the companies about the Bates, they would find the same beliefs and stories. Stories about who they named their kids after, whose portraits hang on their walls, what Kelly has said about alcohol and LGBTQ, that Gil is part of Gothard.

And like you noted, maybe you didn't know about the Bates initially, you did finally become aware of them due to the Duggar/Bates connection. 

Anyway, I was just pondering why many SM posters don't also complain about the Bates and their influencer gigs.

  • Love 4
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

2 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Anyway, I was just pondering why many SM posters don't also complain about the Bates and their influencer gigs.

Okay, I got it! Has your pondering come up with any potential explanations?

I wonder if the Bateses have a bunch of hate followers on their social media, the way many of the Duggars probably do. Does it seem likely to you that they do? The Bateses haven't had any actual sexual-abuse scandals, have they? And I would think that's the basis of much of the very fervent anti-Duggar sentiment....Plus, of course, the Duggars have many more followers, so just sheer numbers probably do mean more complaints, regardless.

  • Love 1
lascuba

lascuba

4 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

It seems that the folks complaining to the companies have more of an issue with the Duggars than the Bates, if the Bates ladies are able to maintain sponsorships. I wonder why that is? 

Because Kelly and Gil learned from the Duggars' earlier fame and carefully moulded their family's public image to be more friendly and natural in front of the camera, so even though they have the exact same beliefs as the Duggars and have a lot of blatantly shitty associations, they're careful not to say the hateful stuff out loud, which gives them sufficient plausible deniability. Plus, the Duggars were famous first, which gets them much more press coverage, so even though people know of the Bates, they know the Duggars more. Even without the sex abuse scandal, the Duggars would be targeted more. The fact that the family all endorsed really problematic beliefs bout sexual abuse while going into hysterics over extramarital sex...well.

Basically, the Duggars are much more honest about how evil they are, while the Bates are "charming" hypocrites.

I'm really not defending one family over the other, just trying to make sense of the public reactions over them. Personally, the older I get the more intolerant of the intolerant I become, so people getting in the way of fundies with a public platform making money warms my heart, and if that ever extends to the Bates, more to the good.

  • Love 20
rue721

rue721

Wow, I knew Jeremy had hateful beliefs but I had no idea 🤢 W.T.F.

Honestly, I don’t think anybody knows the Bates. I know of them through this forum and I still couldn’t name any of them off the top of my head. They’re just not that interesting. Despicable, with this Mediccorps bullshit and KKK/Confederate shrines and all, but not interesting. 

  • Love 16
BigBingerBro

BigBingerBro

I often wonder if Jermy truley beleives all the hateful crap he says.  He knows what to say and says what his "elders" want him to say.  Trouble is he also wants the fun trendy life that comes with the secular and liberal world.  You can't have it both ways Jerm.  I think one day he will have to make a choice.

  • Love 12
rue721

rue721

(edited)

I think he must believe it, he’s been disturbingly consistent — and nobody held a gun to his head. Even his parents didn’t isolate and brainwash him like his in-laws did their kids, he had the tools to choose differently and this is still his choice.

And unfortunately, I think he and Jing will probably be able to go their whole lives being hateful AND materialistic and superficial, there’s not really a contradiction there.

Edited by rue721
  • Love 7
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

(edited)
1 hour ago, BigBingerBro said:

I often wonder if Jermy truley beleives all the hateful crap he says.  He knows what to say and says what his "elders" want him to say.  Trouble is he also wants the fun trendy life that comes with the secular and liberal world.  You can't have it both ways Jerm.  I think one day he will have to make a choice.

Yeah, I wonder this, too. The 'having it two ways" is the most apt thing we can say, probably, I'd bet.

I'm really of two minds about what he believes.

On the one hand, I do think he takes as his model some of the loudest, strictest preacher voices there have ever been, his "elders," as you put it -- I mean, MacArthur is like that, and he really embraced  him far more than he seemed to embrace his earlier mentor, Tim Conway, who has the same theology but hasn't made nearly such a name for himself for making these 'I'm totally unafraid to judge"-type statements that MacArthur always makes....So I do think that part of what Jer's doing is just sucking up to these very prominent Puritan-type preachers, past and present. He really really wants them to think he's super-cool, so it seems like at least a certain amount of it is probably sucking up and showing off by being all "sinners-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-god"-ish. And while the sermons are -- or at least were -- completely accessible online -- they were given behind closed doors to a pre-selected crowd who he probably presumed were very open to these things. So maybe it didn't really cross his mind at the time that the general public would ever hear him saying this stuff?

At the same time, though, it's hard to imagine that you'd make so many such statements unless you were in sympathy with them. And having skimmed his sermons, I'd say that these reports aren't doing a whole lot of cherry-picking, really. He preached on this kind of stuff a lot, and sometimes it would come into sermons that seemed to start out being about something else.......But the Bible has a lot of different stuff in it -- so you'd think you could find many other topics to talk to people about....and that the only reason you'd come back to these was if you were most drawn to these. That would suggest that he does "believe" it, I guess, whatever "believe" really means, that is.

Upshot is that he may be as confused as we are about what paths he really wants to go down in life, I suppose.

Edited by Churchhoney
  • Love 6
Zella

Zella

I'm another one who never heard of the Bates family until I came to this forum. It is interesting to me that the Bates family get to maintain their sponsorships, but I think they benefit from being lesser known and, as noted above, for being quieter about how hateful they are.

I always have believed that Jeremy is in line with MacArthur's more hateful beliefs to attend that seminary, but I was taken aback by how very hateful those quotes his sermons were. I know in the past people have said it is unfair for jinger and Jeremy to lose business deals because of her family, but it looks like there is ample fodder for that from his own mouth. 

Oh and I've said this before but to me the most damning indictment of whether or not Jeremy believes what he said in those sermons is that no matter how many times they lose deals because of those beliefs, he has never once responded to the accusations with anything but silence. 

  • Love 16
DangerousMinds

DangerousMinds

42 minutes ago, Zella said:

I'm another one who never heard of the Bates family until I came to this forum. It is interesting to me that the Bates family get to maintain their sponsorships, but I think they benefit from being lesser known and, as noted above, for being quieter about how hateful they are.

I always have believed that Jeremy is in line with MacArthur's more hateful beliefs to attend that seminary, but I was taken aback by how very hateful those quotes his sermons were. I know in the past people have said it is unfair for jinger and Jeremy to lose business deals because of her family, but it looks like there is ample fodder for that from his own mouth. 

Oh and I've said this before but to me the most damning indictment of whether or not Jeremy believes what he said in those sermons is that no matter how many times they lose deals because of those beliefs, he has never once responded to the accusations with anything but silence. 

And neither has Jinger! If she came out and said she no longer had the hateful beliefs she was raised with, people might change their minds about her.

  • Love 13
cm-soupsipper
Message added by cm-soupsipper,

Closure Notice: This Thread is now closed due to the name (and much of the posting within it). Please be mindful going forward by naming topics in a way that invites a healthy community conversation. If you name something for a cheap laugh, this thread may be closed later because it encourages discrimination and harm. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...