All Things Dillard - Part 4

[Snarkle Motion]

I've lurked and loved these forums for about a year. First post. But I have something I'd finally like to say. Scared to death to do so, but here goes.

I don't necessarily condone the "body shaming" nor especially speculation about Israel, but some of you older forumites maybe need to step back and stop with the pitchforks around newbies.

I'm calling you out specifially, OKToBeTakei, because frankly you seem to be in the habit of venturing solely to the "dreaded Duggar Subforums" to snark on newcomers and make rude comments about how you should venture to other sub forms, how terrible the Duggar forums are, etc.

Well like it or not.... this site is Free Jinger. People interested in the Duggars is going to be this site's hook.. And yeah, there's been a huge influx since the Josh shit hit the fan.

Your bit in a prior thread about a person who signed up in May "snarking wrong" was way out of line.

That sort of forum elitist "I signed up so long ago, so I therefore am more valid" should've died and rotted in Linux elitist forums circa 2008. You gonna take your postcount and sign up date with you to the grave, or something? :roll: Why are you posting in these subforums if you dislike it so? And not to snark on the Duggars, but primarily other users.

I know some people have made some "missteps" about commenting on Duggar body issies, not using search functions, lately... but please people, put the pitchforks away, and remember the people behind the computers. Everyone makes "mistakes." Sorry not everyone speaks "how you want to." But yeah. I don't think a collective clique of older users is a productive way to handle it, nor various "oh my god what the eff is wrong with you" diatribes. Would you really go up to someone irl and say that for this. People aren't gonna venture out to subforums if it's deemed a hostile environment.

Regarding Jill's size... frankly I don't care. But it isn't hard to see where people speculating are coming from. You need not look further from the mother of all this crap, Michelle Duggar to see it. Pumping out 19 kids, her size sadly was a strong indicator of whether she was pregnant or not. In a mega family like this people are just going to wonder if Jill is going to follow in her (unfortunate) footsteps.

I can see this body issue stuff is a huge trigger. I don't think all comments on someones body though, automatically equates to shaming. But frankly this sort of ganging up behavior is a trigger for some of us, too ;)

Basically, love these forums... but please, please, please, please, sometimes y'all need to remember the people behind the username. Come on, let's be nicer. I know it's the internet, and a snarksite, "so that makes it Ok, right?!" But lately the attitudes of some on here have been... a little too much.

But on the subject of the elderly lady and her $19,000 donation... that's just... depressing. If it is legit, I hope it doesn't go through, for her sake. It is true this type of thing isn't uncommon... I just hope they have the decency to think of the impact this could have on the lady, but somehow I don't know if they will sadly.

Goodbyeroom, can't support that post enough. I don't think people understand how the "culture" here is to some first time people who really are venturing out to discuss issues that have deeply impacted them. No, I'm not supporting the body shaming but I also don't understand why its so terrible to speculate if Jill is pregnant again...literally the Duggar women's entire existence revolves around this and they have chosen to be celebrities pretty much entirely focused on their ability to become pregnant and have babies.

Discussing whether Jill may be pregnant again *is* valid in my opinion and related to Gothard. Discussing how pregnancy affects the body and how its hard for it to be the same afterward is something I think the Gothardites don't discuss - many of them probably assume you just magically go back to normal after having eleventy kids and have never had the opportunity to really discuss the reality of how this affects the body. Now if Jill were a random person it would be different, but she has been paid to do People covers and birth specials and post her pee stick for followers to see and beg people to donate money so she can continue to birth a million babies while she and her husband live off her fame. I think if you make money in this way the price is that you put yourself out to the world for this kind of potential hurtful criticism on the internet and its completely up to them if they want to venture on to these forums and read it.

Now if there is potential for direct harm to a person under someone else's headship based on our speculation - such as retaliation for people posting about the possibility of a teenagers sexuality - then I absolutely believe we have a responsibility to hold the forum accountable. That has direct real-world consequences with an authority figure that they cannot control. That is a rule I understand. But saying its hurtful to Jill to say she looks like she might be pregnant again and that's body shaming and get out of our forum...what's wrong with you! That I don't understand. Saying a child might be sent of to ALERT or beaten because of our speculations is something that will shut down my speculation immediately once I understand that. But telling me that Jill's feelings might be hurt if she happens to venture onto the forum and see people think she might be pregnant again? That's different.

And I really don't understand this concept of understanding the "culture" of the board before posting as if this is somehow a defense to be completely rude to new people who are honestly looking for a place to discuss issues they've never had a chance to discuss in real life. I'm not saying we need to coddle everyone's opinion, just tone down the immediate jumping allover people and be civilized. Saying that this is the "culture" of the board is kind of feels the same as the people rationalizing the confederate flag. Yes, people who say inappropriate things should be called out but not in a way that is attacking the individual. Just because someone said something that maybe someone disagrees with or feels inappropriate is not an excuse to say "what the f*** is wrong with you...you don't belong here!"

[OkToBeTakei]

I've lurked and loved these forums for about a year. First post. But I have something I'd finally like to say. Scared to death to do so, but here goes.

It certainly does not appear your post is in any way fearful :lol:

I don't necessarily condone the "body shaming" nor especially speculation about Israel, but some of you older forumites maybe need to step back and stop with the pitchforks around newbies.

I don't personally think it matters if it is an older poster or a new poster who voices disgust at body shaming or calling a three month old child autistic amongst many other offensive observations voiced on these threads in the past two months. You 'don't necessarily condone' these observations. Which would point to the fact that probably your just a bit peeved others like myself are vociferous about their dislike. For your information, it's not actually in the main newbies. Which if you weren't on your wee pitchfork mission at me you would realise :D

I'm calling you out specifially, OKToBeTakei, because frankly you seem to be in the habit of venturing solely to the "dreaded Duggar Subforums" to snark on newcomers and make rude comments about how you should venture to other sub forms, how terrible the Duggar forums are, etc.

OOOH. A public shaming. Again incorrect. Well not the rude comments, that's fairly accurate. I have posted on the Duggar forums from the time I joined this site. I'm unaware most of the time who is a newcomer or not when using tapa. It does not state post count or join date, or if it does I have never noticed. Again I'm an equal opportunity snarker, old poster or new it's the comments I respond to. I try not to make things about a poster, rather the post. Some of the hottest debates I have had on this site with other long term posters can get quite heated yet on another topic we may agree. I have found the Duggar forums quite sad recently in the level and tone of comment. What used to be....(Yeah yeah yeah, I'm invoking the good old days which for some reason totally annoys new posters. Because hey, suck it up old timer times change.) What used to be intelligent humorous snark has become bitching ...for the sake of bitching. Plain and simple. There are still some great posts and posters some of whom are new. Yet they are lost amongst the 'fat' 'autistic' 'delayed' needless comments on appearance. Bear in mind not one short year ago Jill was a victim who posters on FJ wanted the best for. The leap to downright vicious comments on the way she dresses to the speculation about every detail of her marriage, husband and newborn baby is extreme.

There is plenty to snark about with the mission, their trademark Christian beliefs and all that throws up without bitching about how she stands.

Well like it or not.... this site is Free Jinger. People interested in the Duggars is going to be this site's hook.. And yeah, there's been a huge influx since the Josh shit hit the fan.

Well fuck me. I had not noticed :lol:

Your bit in a prior thread about a person who signed up in May "snarking wrong" was way out of line.

You are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to voice mine. I consider myself handslapped 8-)

That sort of forum elitist "I signed up so long ago, so I therefore am more valid" should've died and rotted in Linux elitist forums circa 2008. You gonna take your postcount and sign up date with you to the grave, or something? :roll: Why are you posting in these subforums if you dislike it so? And not to snark on the Duggars, but primarily other users.

Why does my post count make me elitist or more valid? This is obviously something you feel. It's just a way of manipulating the situation to make YOUR comment more valid it appears to me.

Rinse , repeat. Prior to recent weeks I have posted in the Duggar forums, I have certainly always read them as they have always been, amusing, informative and not full of the recent dross.

I know some people have made some "missteps" about commenting on Duggar body issies, not using search functions, lately... but please people, put the pitchforks away, and remember the people behind the computers. Everyone makes "mistakes." Sorry not everyone speaks "how you want to." But yeah. I don't think a collective clique of older users is a productive way to handle it, nor various "oh my god what the eff is wrong with you" diatribes. Would you really go up to someone irl and say that for this. People aren't gonna venture out to subforums if it's deemed a hostile environment.

Yes I would go up to somebody in real life with complete disbelief and ire if they commented a baby 'looked autistic' based on a photograph. What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you trying to intimate this is acceptable no matter where it is said?

I never knew there was real people behind computers. Thanks for letting me know. If they are hurt, they should switch them off or walk away. OR maybe realise it is also REAL people they are ripping to shreds in their fat shaming and vicious commentary on appearance. OH WAIT...you're one of they are on TEEVEE fair game type? Well sorry for raining on your parade with my pitchfork. I will probably continue and you are free to be unhappy about it and comment to that effect :D

Regarding Jill's size... frankly I don't care. But it isn't hard to see where people speculating are coming from. You need not look further from the mother of all this crap, Michelle Duggar to see it. Pumping out 19 kids, her size sadly was a strong indicator of whether she was pregnant or not. In a mega family like this people are just going to wonder if Jill is going to follow in her (unfortunate) footsteps.

Yeah. Ok. Whatever. At least you didn't say I blame the patriarchy.

I can see this body issue stuff is a huge trigger. I don't think all comments on someones body though, automatically equates to shaming. But frankly this sort of ganging up behavior is a trigger for some of us, too ;)

OH cry me a fucking river. If you feel 'bullied' why the hell are you reading and more so why on earth comment. Trigger my arse.

Basically, love these forums... but please, please, please, please, sometimes y'all need to remember the people behind the username. Come on, let's be nicer. I know it's the internet, and a snarksite, "so that makes it Ok, right?!" But lately the attitudes of some on here have been... a little too much.

Translated as let me bitch about what I want and don't disagree. It doesn't work like that pet. You need to have a thick skin, do you honestly believe I have sailed through my posting history with a dandy little elitist long posting history. Search Valsa and get back to me.

You are right though, the attitudes of some has been too much. Just who...is where we differ.

But on the subject of the elderly lady and her $19,000 donation... that's just... depressing. If it is legit, I hope it doesn't go through, for her sake. It is true this type of thing isn't uncommon... I just hope they have the decency to think of the impact this could have on the lady, but somehow I don't know if they will sadly.

Mine is in itallic.......obviously.

I want 'Taking my post count to the grave' as my new title :lol:

What a very bizarre first post. Hmmmmm. Very pointed and very personal. I wonder, I wonder.

Welcome BTW :D

[luv2laugh]

Would I call out someone in real life who was speculating -- based on NOTHING -- that a 3 month old was autistic ? Why YES , I most certainly would. If a person in real life was saying how a woman who gave birth less than 3 months ago , by c- section no less - was not only pregnant -- but showing :roll: ? Yes, I absolutely would tell them they didn't know what the hell they were talking about. Or if a " friend" in real life was snarking on some guys looks 2 weeks after extensive oral surgery -- yea, again, I would point out that it was pretty fucking awful to do that, and stupid, as you would have no idea how his face would look when he's done healing.

I have a hard time reconciling that these new posters are timid and shy and scared of being bullied to post -- when the things they are being called out on are that they are acting like a bunch of shallow school yard bullies. There's a really simple way to avoid being called a jerk - don't be one.

As far as legitimate arguments and fights over differing opinions on actual issues -- that happens. It happens here a lot. Some of the posters here that I respect the most , I've had knock down battles with. I didn't melt. They didn't melt. The world went on. Sometimes people feel strongly - and state their differing opinions strongly.

What bugs, many - not all - longer term posters about the tone of the Duggar threads is that there is a difference in tone between snark on fundamentalists and just hurling insults. It's not the same thing. Another thing that is annoying is that this site is based on lots of things - but the key component is snarking / discussing the problems of fundamentalist religious extremists. Particularly as how that relates to limiting / harming women. You can't legitimately do that while you are insulting those same women for their appearance.

Do you understand that no one here has called Jill fat? The only thing people have said is it's possible she's pregnant again. People have a right to that opinion. I think she is pregnant and I stand by that opinion. You get angry over that speculation because it's a sensitive issue to you yet when people here outright call Derrick names based on his appearance, "diagnosis" Israel, and slam Jessa's appearance, and you don't get all up in arms about that. Mamamia, people have a right to their opinions whether you "call them out" or not. You are constantly searching for a chance to argue about this, and I'm not going to participate in it. People shouldn't be slamming people's appearances period but a speculation is far different than putting down someone for their looks.

[Four is Enough]

Izzy has always looked like a moon-faced, placid baby to me.. he's just starting to get interesting, now that he smiles and waves his hands around. Autistic? Seriously?

[Snarkle Motion]

Would I call out someone in real life who was speculating -- based on NOTHING -- that a 3 month old was autistic ? Why YES , I most certainly would. If a person in real life was saying how a woman who gave birth less than 3 months ago , by c- section no less - was not only pregnant -- but showing :roll: ? Yes, I absolutely would tell them they didn't know what the hell they were talking about. Or if a " friend" in real life was snarking on some guys looks 2 weeks after extensive oral surgery -- yea, again, I would point out that it was pretty fucking awful to do that, and stupid, as you would have no idea how his face would look when he's done healing.

I have a hard time reconciling that these new posters are timid and shy and scared of being bullied to post -- when the things they are being called out on are that they are acting like a bunch of shallow school yard bullies. There's a really simple way to avoid being called a jerk - don't be one.

As far as legitimate arguments and fights over differing opinions on actual issues -- that happens. It happens here a lot. Some of the posters here that I respect the most , I've had knock down battles with. I didn't melt. They didn't melt. The world went on. Sometimes people feel strongly - and state their differing opinions strongly.

What bugs, many - not all - longer term posters about the tone of the Duggar threads is that there is a difference in tone between snark on fundamentalists and just hurling insults. It's not the same thing. Another thing that is annoying is that this site is based on lots of things - but the key component is snarking / discussing the problems of fundamentalist religious extremists. Particularly as how that relates to limiting / harming women. You can't legitimately do that while you are insulting those same women for their appearance.

A) I did not think the person commenting about the possibility of autism was basing it on nothing. They clearly mentioned a lack of eye contact and appropriate developmental engagement - these are the early signs of autism and what clinicians would look for at that age. Now, I don't think that I've seen enough of Izzy to say that I agree with this analysis. But saying people are basing it on NOTHING is false.

B) You do realize that people's lives have been saved from diagnosing people on the internet? Tarek from HGTV's flip-or-flop was told be a viewer that she suspected he might have thyriod cancer based on his appearance:

people.com/people/article/0,,20733201,00.html

And then I remember this example:

dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1320423/Facebook-saves-girls-life-family-friend-spots-eye-cancer-mothers-photo.html

Now clearly these examples are exceptions and the majority of people do not have the expertise to accurately point out a diagnosis. But that doesn't mean that these discussions are always hurtful and inappropriate. Someone discussing this may be able to call attention to an issue that someone with expertise CAN weigh in on.

C) Since when did saying someone is displaying signs of a potential health concern equate to being a jerk? I felt the person who asked about autism did so in a respectful and thoughtful way. Discussing signs of autism and whether this was concerning is not the same as hurling hateful insults. And sometimes its NOT about the person being discussed...a commenter may generally be asking if this is what XYZ looks like because of their own fears/concerns and this is an opportunity to help educate people.

[formergothardite]

People seem to be speculating that she is pregnant because she didn't immediately after having a C-section go back to having a flat stomach. Having a stomach three months after having a C-section isn't an indication of pregnancy.

If she had immediately jumped back into having a flat stomach I bet people would be speculating that she has an eating disorder. :roll:

[Firiel]

People seem to be speculating that she is pregnant because she didn't immediately after having a C-section go back to having a flat stomach. Having a stomach three months after having a C-section isn't an indication of pregnancy.

If she had immediately jumped back into having a flat stomach I bet people would be speculating that she has an eating disorder. :roll:

I've noticed it here and I've noticed it in the fitness bloggers section of GOMI-- a woman's body is either not good enough or she has an eating disorder. Ingrained misogyny is the pits.

[Firiel]

A) I did not think the person commenting about the possibility of autism was basing it on nothing. They clearly mentioned a lack of eye contact and appropriate developmental engagement - these are the early signs of autism and what clinicians would look for at that age. Now, I don't think that I've seen enough of Izzy to say that I agree with this analysis. But saying people are basing it on NOTHING is false.

B) You do realize that people's lives have been saved from diagnosing people on the internet? Tarek from HGTV's flip-or-flop was told be a viewer that she suspected he might have thyriod cancer based on his appearance:

people.com/people/article/0,,20733201,00.html

And then I remember this example:

dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1320423/Facebook-saves-girls-life-family-friend-spots-eye-cancer-mothers-photo.html

Now clearly these examples are exceptions and the majority of people do not have the expertise to accurately point out a diagnosis. But that doesn't mean that these discussions are always hurtful and inappropriate. Someone discussing this may be able to call attention to an issue that someone with expertise CAN weigh in on.

C) Since when did saying someone is displaying signs of a potential health concern equate to being a jerk? I felt the person who asked about autism did so in a respectful and thoughtful way. Discussing signs of autism and whether this was concerning is not the same as hurling hateful insults. And sometimes its NOT about the person being discussed...a commenter may generally be asking if this is what XYZ looks like because of their own fears/concerns and this is an opportunity to help educate people.

Well, you sure as fuck aren't saving lives by posting your brilliant diagnoses on a snark forum.

So, if you (general you) are concerned and really think Izzy has autism or Derick has Marfan Syndrome or Jill is OMG putting her health at risk by not losing baby weight, then send them a concerned e-mail instead of posting it on a forum whose purpose is to make fun of them, because the Degreed Medical Professionals^TM here are doing them absolutely zero favors.

[nelliebelle1197]

A) I did not think the person commenting about the possibility of autism was basing it on nothing. They clearly mentioned a lack of eye contact and appropriate developmental engagement - these are the early signs of autism and what clinicians would look for at that age. Now, I don't think that I've seen enough of Izzy to say that I agree with this analysis. But saying people are basing it on NOTHING is false.

B) You do realize that people's lives have been saved from diagnosing people on the internet? Tarek from HGTV's flip-or-flop was told be a viewer that she suspected he might have thyriod cancer based on his appearance:

people.com/people/article/0,,20733201,00.html

And then I remember this example:

dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1320423/Facebook-saves-girls-life-family-friend-spots-eye-cancer-mothers-photo.html

Now clearly these examples are exceptions and the majority of people do not have the expertise to accurately point out a diagnosis. But that doesn't mean that these discussions are always hurtful and inappropriate. Someone discussing this may be able to call attention to an issue that someone with expertise CAN weigh in on.

C) Since when did saying someone is displaying signs of a potential health concern equate to being a jerk? I felt the person who asked about autism did so in a respectful and thoughtful way. Discussing signs of autism and whether this was concerning is not the same as hurling hateful insults. And sometimes its NOT about the person being discussed...a commenter may generally be asking if this is what XYZ looks like because of their own fears/concerns and this is an opportunity to help educate people.

The autism speculation is based on absolutely nothing but a few photos. It is a baby you have never seen before other than a couple snapshots. What a ridiculous justification for ridiculousness.

You complain a lot about this board. Why are you here if you don't like the culture? You seem to think you are a defender of all the poor trolling newbies. Perhaps if they did not troll, they would not need your amazing protection.

ETA: Did you really just compare this to the confederate flag controversy? Please try to rub your two brain cells together before you pull such ridiculous analogies out again and see if you can find a spark.

This is not People magazine's comment section. What people like you need to understand is that forums like this have a culture. Think of it like a foreign country to which you have just immigrated. You cannot come into another country and impose your own culture onto your neighbors. Your job is to come in, get a feel for the place, the local customs, then integrate yourself into what is reasonable within the bounds of the new culture. That does not mean all your neighbors will like you or that everyone will think and say the same things; it just means you learn the tricks in your new home and you survive and thrive happily.

This forum is a decade old. It will go on without you or any of us. But you simply cannot walk into someone's home and rearrange the furniture and not expect a fight.

[OkToBeTakei]

A) I did not think the person commenting about the possibility of autism was basing it on nothing. They clearly mentioned a lack of eye contact and appropriate developmental engagement - these are the early signs of autism and what clinicians would look for at that age. Now, I don't think that I've seen enough of Izzy to say that I agree with this analysis. But saying people are basing it on NOTHING is false.

B) You do realize that people's lives have been saved from diagnosing people on the internet? Tarek from HGTV's flip-or-flop was told be a viewer that she suspected he might have thyriod cancer based on his appearance:

people.com/people/article/0,,20733201,00.html

And then I remember this example:

dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1320423/Facebook-saves-girls-life-family-friend-spots-eye-cancer-mothers-photo.html

Now clearly these examples are exceptions and the majority of people do not have the expertise to accurately point out a diagnosis. But that doesn't mean that these discussions are always hurtful and inappropriate. Someone discussing this may be able to call attention to an issue that someone with expertise CAN weigh in on.

C) Since when did saying someone is displaying signs of a potential health concern equate to being a jerk? I felt the person who asked about autism did so in a respectful and thoughtful way. Discussing signs of autism and whether this was concerning is not the same as hurling hateful insults. And sometimes its NOT about the person being discussed...a commenter may generally be asking if this is what XYZ looks like because of their own fears/concerns and this is an opportunity to help educate people.

Seriously?

So it's just all concern. It's all about education?

I think maybe the odd comment may be that.

But let's be realistic here. Really realistic. When we snarked on Kelly Generation Cedar for feeding her hoards of kids a chicken breast for dinner with some wilted celery were we concerned about her children starving? Were we fuck. We were snarking about a counter-culture Christian telling every woman who works or does not have as many kids as God will give that they were doing it wrong. That by sending our kids to school we were all terrible and horrific parents. We snarked because that was all she could afford and she tried to excuse it by saying 'frugal' living is Christian and other assorted crap. She got caught with her knickers down, this better than you ......could not spin this. FJ pounced and it was brutal snark. It was not though nasty and did not involve personal insults or speculation. It didn't need to. Plenty of material to snark on.

When Zsu spouts her hateful homophobic and other assorted crap are the comments on her figure? On her kids? How they look? Sure a musical FJ-er did comment a son was probably not the genius at piano Zsu thought he was. True enough. There is plenty of hateful meaningful....as in their beliefs are so damn dangerous, there is no need to speculate on how she dresses for pages upon pages. SHE does have dangerous beliefs re. Pregnancy and birth yet despite endless comments and queries I have not seen the vitriol that is levied against the Duggar girls.

I could go on.

Suffice to say. NO. You do not diagnose a three month old baby with autism based on a photo and seconds of footage. You can spin that any way you want but it is just the latest in a long line of criticisms of this infant. From the moment he was born. They are not out of concern or seeking education. Give me a break.

The particular eye cancer you mention is commonly caught via exposure to camera. It's not comparable to a three month old baby who is 'delayed' 'suffering a trauma from his idiotic Mother's birth choices' 'autistic'........ All in the past three months. So excuse me for being sceptical with your explanation of concern.

If people require educated in these subjects I would hope the comments of a snark forum would not be their go to. If they found the forum they can find google. From there they can find direction to appropriate help.

It frightens me really the way folks spin their reasons for being somewhat nasty.

There is so much to snark on, always has been. Way back when....I came to the Dillard thread to express my horror at the name Israel......the history behind why this particular brand of Christianity viewed the Jews as they do being a recent knowledge for me. When I got there it was a page fest of People magazine conspiracies and posters outdoing each other to 'prove' facts about god knows what. It went on and on.

There is till good snark. Sure it's possible she could be pregnant. It's just that after the thread diagnosed a myriad of post-partum issues, abdominal issues, poor choices in pregnancy, diabetes, poor diet, laziiness...well you get the drift. A legit as somebody mentioned outcome...Duggar...pregnancy..just became another noise. Can you see?

Seriously...can you see? So much crap......it's hard to take part and harder to see the decent content.

So on we go pitchforking.

ETA Please excuse the rambling nature, crap grammar, crapper word choice. Long nightshift and we have a HEATWAVE! Well it will last one day. Can't sleep :(

[snarkykitty]

Oh no. There's a ultra religious elderly woman from Tennessee who posted a question on the Duggar Official Fan Page saying she's have technical issues with J & D's fundraising site and needs help. She's trying to donate a large portion of her savings for their mission trip but the website is maxing out and not allowing her to donate over nineteen thousand! :pink-shock: They haven't even declared where this money is going!

If she is too discouraged with the donation process, I think I have a paypal account somewhere...I'll take the $19,999 right off her hands!!

Seriously, though, someone did warn her to talk to her family or clergy before making such a sizable donation.

I also wonder what tax implications they have if people are donating such huge amounts of money. I thought that any individual gift of $10,000 or more are subject to reporting to the government and possibly tax responsibilities. If they are using the donations as income, there are income tax issues.

Any experts out there who might know if there are such implications for donating to a "ministry"?

[PrairieGirl]

"I'm calling you out specifially, OKToBeTakei, because frankly you seem to be in the habit of venturing solely to the "dreaded Duggar Subforums" to snark on newcomers and make rude comments about how you should venture to other sub forms, how terrible the Duggar forums are, etc."

Then put her on ignore. I too find the poster to be nasty, but you don't have to read her posts.......or try and figure out that scary chicken avatar.

ETA: I fucked up the quote tags.

[Maggie Mae]

Oh for fuck sake.

Israel is a baby. A three month old baby. In a photo. Have any of you seen babies in real life before? They aren't always making eye contact and posing for photos.

This is a snark forum. Is it a shock that sometimes people snark on each other? At least we don't currently have a group of posters who only come to cut each other down in the guise of "feminism" like in the past.

And as evidenced above, if Jill worked out and lost the pooch, she be told she's not a "real woman" so duck off with the body shaming bull shit already.

[OkToBeTakei]

Oh for fuck sake.

Israel is a baby. A three month old baby. In a photo. Have any of you seen babies in real life before? They aren't always making eye contact and posing for photos.

This is a snark forum. Is it a shock that sometimes people snark on each other? At least we don't currently have a group of posters who only come to cut each other down in the guise of "feminism" like in the past.

And as evidenced above, if Jill worked out and lost the pooch, she be told she's not a "real woman" so duck off with the body shaming bull shit already.

Don't be nasty Maggie :shock: :lol:

[Firiel]

Oh for fuck sake.

Israel is a baby. A three month old baby. In a photo. Have any of you seen babies in real life before? They aren't always making eye contact and posing for photos.

This is a snark forum. Is it a shock that sometimes people snark on each other? At least we don't currently have a group of posters who only come to cut each other down in the guise of "feminism" like in the past.

And as evidenced above, if Jill worked out and lost the pooch, she be told she's not a "real woman" so duck off with the body shaming bull shit already.

*raises hand*

Whoops, I still do that sometimes when people say Jill is lazy because she wears comfortable clothes or Jessa needs to keep her legs shut. :embarrassed:

[VelociRapture]

Is there some secret huge monetary prize for saying the most idiotic, obnoxious thing about the Duggar's? Are there extra points for hurling this crap about infants? Cause I find is discpicable....but I'm flat broke, so maybe I'll give it a try :roll:

I got into a car accident the other night and now my car is in the shop for an estimate. Will I get enough money to cover the repairs completely if I "speculate" that there is something seriously wrong with that baby based only on the few pictures and videos we have of him? :roll: :lol:

[Maggie Mae]

*raises hand*

Whoops, I still do that sometimes when people say Jill is lazy because she wears comfortable clothes or Jessa needs to keep her legs shut. :embarrassed:

I really just meant certain not feminists who really were only here to push their agenda and argue over stupid stuff. Not actual feminists.

Jill (and all of the Duggars) are lazy. Not because of comfortable clothes, but because they are intellectually lazy.

[Boogalou]

What picture is Izzy not making eye contact in? The one in the Nashville onesie where you cannot see where anyone else is standing or what he is looking at at all? Or the one with Derrick and his grandfather where Israel is looking at the ceiling? (When I was a baby my mom said I liked to lay on the floor and look at the ceiling fan. What a magical time) And no on in the photo is actually looking at Izzy giving him no one to make eye contact with? Or something else?

Anyway, Jill will be pregnant again soon barring some sort of medical problem. Whether it's now or two years from now. Either way, reading about how random people think Jill is pregnant because she is not rail thin is really boring.

I am highly uncomfortable with the idea that just because the Duggars have put themselves in the public spotlight that their bodies are fair game to comment on and insult. I think the idea that any woman's (or man's) body, no matter what their actions are, should be up for public critique, inspection, and criticism is deeply problematic. I doubt Jill reads here so I am honestly not that concerned with how she feels, it is the attitude behind the words and the effect it has on other people whose bodies don't fit arbitrary modern beauty standards that I find more relevant.

Please note, this post is meant to be a continuation of the discussion of ideas rather than an attack on specific people.

[halcionne]

What picture is Izzy not making eye contact in? The one in the Nashville onesie where you cannot see where anyone else is standing or what he is looking at at all? Or the one with Derrick and his grandfather where Israel is looking at the ceiling? (When I was a baby my mom said I liked to lay on the floor and look at the ceiling fan. What a magical time) And no on in the photo is actually looking at Izzy giving him no one to make eye contact with? Or something else?

Anyway, Jill will be pregnant again soon barring some sort of medical problem. Whether it's now or two years from now. Either way, reading about how random people think Jill is pregnant because she is not rail thin is really boring.

I am highly uncomfortable with the idea that just because the Duggars have put themselves in the public spotlight that their bodies are fair game to comment on and insult. I think the idea that any woman's (or man's) body, no matter what their actions are, should be up for public critique, inspection, and criticism is deeply problematic. I doubt Jill reads here so I am honestly not that concerned with how she feels, it is the attitude behind the words and the effect it has on other people whose bodies don't fit arbitrary modern beauty standards that I find more relevant.

Please note, this post is meant to be a continuation of the discussion of ideas rather than an attack on specific people.

In the father's day vid when the camera glances at him in his car seat. :roll:

+1 for the rest of your post.

[church_of_dog]

I got into a car accident the other night and now my car is in the shop for an estimate. Will I get enough money to cover the repairs completely if I "speculate" that there is something seriously wrong with that baby based only on the few pictures and videos we have of him? :roll: :lol:

You should take a snapshot of your car. From a distance. With the hood closed.

Send the photo to your mechanic and tell him that's what he should base his diagnosis on.

I'm sure he'll get close enough to the actual problem... :lol:

No? What do you mean, no? :lol: :lol:

[somanybooks]

There's a discussion on the Anna thread about Cornerstone, the payment processing company for the Dillards. It seems that JB and Josh are both connected to Cornerstone via credit card processing ventures they have created. It seems that Cornerstone works on referrals so if one of them referred Jill and Derick to Cornerstone they (Josh or JB) will get a percentage of all money donated. So while JB abhors the use of credit cards it's perfectly fine for him to profit from other people using them, even to the point of taking money away from ministries to which people contribute.

[happy atheist]

1. I hope Mary Beacon is Sharon Bailgoat reincarnated. I really miss the shit Sharon says. Amen^TM

2. The relentless body shaming, asinine comments about personal appearance, and the pretend concern and diagnosing of a three month old are trolling. Pure and simple. As are lengthy "first posts" telling us that we are all meanies. These trolls know FJ disapproves of this type of discussion. Admins have made announcements to that effect. Sensible newer posters and sensible long-term posters have requested that those people stop. They are just being provocative now.

3. Here is what I'm going to do in the future. Forget writing thoughtful replies. If I see an obvious troll we have a useful emoticon.

:feed-trolls:

How long has it been since I mentioned the Foe feature? Feel free to ignore the fuck out of any poster who annoys you.

Except for helpmeets. You can't Foe admins or mods. :nenner:

[2manyKidzzz]

There's a discussion on the Anna thread about Cornerstone, the payment processing company for the Dillards. It seems that JB and Josh are both connected to Cornerstone via credit card processing ventures they have created. It seems that Cornerstone works on referrals so if one of them referred Jill and Derick to Cornerstone they (Josh or JB) will get a percentage of all money donated. So while JB abhors the use of credit cards it's perfectly fine for him to profit from other people using them, even to the point of taking money away from ministries to which people contribute.

This is just creepy to me. I can't even think of anything to say about it. Using a ministry to make money for yourself. Wow.

[happy atheist]

No, I'm not supporting the body shaming but I also don't understand why its so terrible to speculate if Jill is pregnant again...

It's a problem because it reinforces the cultural idea that women's bodies are never good enough. Someone reading about how weird/distressing/funny/wrong it is that Jill's body hasn't snapped back to prepregnancy shape is more likely to wonder if her body is also "wrong" for not snapping back too. It's a poisonous concept that we really shouldn't want to promote.

And I really don't understand this concept of understanding the "culture" of the board before posting as if this is somehow a defense to be completely rude to new people who are honestly looking for a place to discuss issues they've never had a chance to discuss in real life. I'm not saying we need to coddle everyone's opinion, just tone down the immediate jumping allover people and be civilized. Saying that this is the "culture" of the board is kind of feels the same as the people rationalizing the confederate flag. Yes, people who say inappropriate things should be called out but not in a way that is attacking the individual. Just because someone said something that maybe someone disagrees with or feels inappropriate is not an excuse to say "what the f*** is wrong with you...you don't belong here!"

First of all, comparing our board culture to racists defending the confederate flag is just about as asinine and offensive as the Duggars comparing abortion to the holocaust. I mean, come the fuck on. Wanting to maintain a certain level of thought in a discussion about religious fundamentalism is in no way comparable to institutional racism and the owning of human beings. For fucks sake. :angry-banghead:

Second of all, I agree with what other posters said about not going into someone else's house and rearranging the furniture, etc. This board has been around for years. We don't all think in lockstep, but we do value intelligent conversation about controversial topics. That's why we're here. There are many new users who understand that and they are not having trouble joining in.

[happy atheist]

I want 'Taking my post count to the grave' as my new title :lol:

Enjoy!