Dillards 39: From SOS to Peddling ALERT

[12 Hungry Safety Pins]

6 hours ago, LovelyLuna said:

Gone forever is the goofy love sick puppy from Nepal.  

I don't know if he really ever was that nice! I recently read an article on the Guardian on how they recruit new Christians in Nepal! Their new recruits are mostly people from the lowest caste of Buddhism. So Derick has always preyed on the the most vulnerable, no matter where he went!

The Battle for Souls in Nepal

[nickelodeon]

6 hours ago, JoyJoy said:

Look at his hashtags, I think he knows Israel is too young to know what lying is. I would love to see the clip where he calls Israel manipulative. Is there somewhere I can watch it?

It wasn't on the show, it was in an article in People mag.

Quote

“We know that human nature is still there because he’s very manipulative,” says Derick. “He’ll say, ‘I love you, papi,’ like if he’s really trying to get something to butter you up right before he asks for something.”

 

[lomo6]

On ‎8‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 5:36 PM, Henk12 said:

But I'm 23 and I have three kids. My husband and I have been married for 5 years. It's really hard to make friends. I find it incredibly awkward and difficult to talk to people my age because we just have nothing in common. I'm a sahm to three kids and they have their own interesting lives. The moms I know that are my age are just starting to have kids so their one and only child is a newborn while mine are all older. (Oldest just turned 5 a few days ago.) 

Interesting perspective. Maybe it's different in the South, but where I grew up, the only people who had kids before 25 were conservative Christian (and then it was usually one kind around 23-25 after college), or it was a singular "oops" kind of kid (in both cases, the dad did not stick around). My good friend who had her first kid shortly before her 29th birthday was talking about how isolated she felt! 

[HarryPotterFan]

9 hours ago, Dandruff said:

I'm very glad that Sam is a boy and hope that any future children of theirs are too.  Didn't Jill say she intends to implement the same protections for her children that her parents did, due to Josh's behavior?  I suspect that the boys will be much less likely to be treated as potential molestors if they don't have sisters living with them.

I believe Derick's recent tweets are at least partially intended to repair damage to his image from his Jazz tweets, among "Counting" viewers.  

Yes she did, which sickens me. What kind of sick fuck just assumes her infant son has the potential to be a child molester? JB and Mechelle really messed up their kids.

[ThunderRolls]

3 minutes ago, HarryPotterFan said:

Yes she did, which sickens me. What kind of sick fuck just assumes her infant son has the potential to be a child molester? JB and Mechelle really messed up their kids.

The same nitwit who thinks this: "I mean, statistics say two-thirds of families deal with something like that [sexual assault between family members] and that's only the families who are reporting it." That's from Jill and Jessa's interview with Megyn Kelly. Jill honestly thinks that statistically, it's MORE common than not that a brother will molest his siblings. I don't know where she got that 2/3 bit from - probably from some Gothard sanctioned literature. Little Izzy was labeled a potential pervert as soon as they found out his sex.

Perhaps within quiverfull families, sexual assault is more common - I think this movement attracts certain personality types* (look at its leaders!), and its emphasis on sex and control is bound to backfire on future generations.  

*I just want to clarify that even though certain personality types may be attracted to the quiverfull movement, I'm not saying that everyone who supports it is mentally ill or perverse. 

[Galbin]

21 hours ago, HarryPotterFan said:

 

A year after my masters I got a volunteer job at a prestigious organization through networking, my boss wanted to hire me but higher ups were refusing to hire anyone for any position. A year later I got the job I have now. 

Yeah, who you know can matter a lot, which sucks. And best of luck to you, @Galbin!! 

Thanks very much! In my case, I have relevant experience, but in this sector they want you to have two years experience in a niche within a niche. Transferable skills are not a thing here! Seriously. If I have worked with suicidal people, I am perfectly capable of working with other vulnerable groups too. Also, my invisible disability works against me big time. I was recently told (by someone with this condition who eventually had to leave a really good job on account of this) that people with my disorder generally have to settle no matter how smart they are, or how hard they worked at college. Most companies simply won't consider giving me the flexibility I need when they can just hire someone who can work whenever. Dee-pressing. If I were in Der-wreck’s shoes I would jump at the chance to have a great career as a CPA, for example.

[JoyJoy]

6 hours ago, nickelodeon said:

It wasn't on the show, it was in an article in People mag.

 

Thanks! I don't find his statement that outrageous. Derick said it was human nature. Manipulation might be a strong word choice, but small children can behave that way. "Israel likes to say a love you papa before he asks for something" seems normal to me . Derick didn't say that was the only time Israel says I love you.

[JesusCampSongs]

Honestly, I find Dewreck's analysis of his toddler's behavior in terms of proving the existence of the sinful nature of man pretty concerning. It makes it sound like he thinks that Israel is a lot more conscious of his behavior and self-aware than a child that age is capable of being. There is a strong association between parents having developmentally unrealistic expectations of a child's thought processes/behavior and the parents inappropriately disciplining, if not abusing outright, the child in question. I see that dynamic play out all the time at work, and it very often starts off with parents of very young children insisting that the kids are messing with them on purpose. Oh, parental narcissism...I'd thank Dewreck and his ilk for the job security, but it's far too depressing. 

[calimojo]

13 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Sorry but no. A young baby throwing an object on the floor is just playing and exploring throwing the object, no manipulation involved. If you never pick up the object he won't expect it, but if you do you become part of the game, 

I actually think we are saying the same things.  The use of the word manipulation is what is throwing us because in common discussion, manipulation carries with it a negative connotation.  But in reality, manipulation is part of learned human interaction.  So,  when baby throws the toy, and daddy picks it up,  this makes baby happy.  He is learning cause and effect and learning that when you drop things from a height, they fall down, and so he is beginning to learn some basic understanding of the laws of physics.  Does this make him/her a physicist?  Of course not, but it does mean that they are experimenting with the properties of physics.    And when baby laughs and squeals when daddy or mommy picks up the dropped object,  they are learning that when I do this,  then They do that.  When I drop, they bend over and pick it up.  This is a simple pure form of manipulation.  Not negative just simply that by doing one behavior, it will likely influence the other behavior.  Manipulation is the human equivalent of Cause and Effect.   

Obviously in human behavior it is very nuanced and has many, many variables.  And when the Action produces a different than expected reaction,  it can lead to learning other behaviors. So daddy and Baby play the drop the object and pick it back up game for 10 minutes or so.  Baby is enjoying it, Daddy is probably having fun with it and they are having a fun and loving exchange.  At some point in  time, though Daddy's patience with the game runs out, or he is called to do something else and so he ends the game, either by taking away the prized object, or simply not picking it up, or in the case of a slightly older child, tells them the game is done.  At this point,  the baby may react with a small tantrum to express displeasure at the game ending,  an older and more sophisticated baby may decide to act sillier or turn on the charm to entice daddy or mommy to keep playing, or as is often the case with little ones they may just get distracted with something else and be perfectly content.    From these common interactions the baby is learning all kinds of things about human interaction.  This is all innocent and educational for babies. 

Of course when you get monsters like the Pearls looking at this, they would claim the whole thing to be a calculated and sinful attempt to manipulate the parents and would likely advocate slapping sweet baby with plumbing tubings.  That is when this perfectly normal experience that includes Curiosity of the natural properties of the world, Understanding of Cause and Effect, Experimentation and of course human connection and bonding  is turned into a full on nightmare by people who are wholly and fully ill-equipped to deal with children, or worse, who are just inherently cruel and sadistic

 

[Eternalbluepearl]

2 hours ago, HarryPotterFan said:

What kind of sick fuck just assumes her infant son has the potential to be a child molester? JB and Mechelle really messed up their kids.

Honestly, I completely agree with you that JimBob and Michelle messed up. I was the victim of a crime as a young teenager and once something bad happened to me I thought bad things were always going to happen to me. It was as if every bad story I had ever heard on the news was now REAL and a looming possibility. Yes, I've been to therapy over the years for my anxiety. I think it's possible Jill could be feeling something similar. Sexual crime is something that really and truly happened to her in her own home. It's her reality, not just a story that happens to someone else or on the news. So maybe to her it's something she feels she needs to be extra on-guard about. I don't like any of the Duggars, I'm just explaining my experience with trauma and maybe Jill experiences this kind of post-crime trauma too. 

[calimojo]

Ugh,  that is pretty sad. I can't imagine having baby boys and looking at them and one of the first things I think of is that someday they are likely to molest their sisters so I need to put in safeguards ( which we know didn't work, and aren't used consistently by JB and M), in advance.  I mean who looks at a kid and thinks like this?

I remember looking at my babies and all I saw were perfect angels and I couldn't even imagine them ever being naughty, ever.  Of course they were eventually like all kids, but even once I realized that was going to happen, I never once thought, Hmm,  I need to separate by differently gendered kids because one of them could be a child molester. 

I worried that they would not learn to share, or take turns, or would become known as the "biter' in their pre-school class, or they wouldn't pick up their toys, or would run wild in a public place.  I never once though, Hmmm, I sure hope little johnny doesn't feel up Suzie in the church nursery. 

Obviously as they got older, we had in depth conversations about good touch, bad touch, needing permission before touching others, No means no, etc. But I sure wasn't thinking about this as a possibility when they were a toddler. 

 

[Chickenbutt]

I don't know if this has anything to do with the current conversation, but I find it very interesting. I think it kinda lends itself to @calimojo's point.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=still+face+experiement&view=detail&mid=A5C0B957E116723A14C0A5C0B957E116723A14C0&FORM=VIRE

It is called the Still Face Experiment. You can google it for more examples.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

@calimojo we aren't saying the same thing at all. The child throwing the toy isn't manipulating dad, he's interacting with dad and manipulating the toy. Baby is not deceitfully tricking dad into retrieving the object, dad is playing along and will stop when will get tired.

In psychology manipulation when applied to other humans is an invariably negative concept. Because as I have already explained at length, it means that someone influences someone else's behaviour with deceit to avoid dealing with the person's free will.

Baby isn't deceiving dad, means that baby isn't manipulating dad. Baby is INTERACTING with dad, a completely different concept that doesn't have a negative connotation because in interacting with someone you are respectful of their will and their boundaries.

I don't know how to explain it in a clearer way.

[calimojo]

But, that is what i am saying  it is not a negative form of manipulation.   I was clear that it isn't deceitful.  I think our concepts are the same but the descriptor differs.    the point by both of us is that it is very unlikely that Israel was engaging in intentional deceitful manipulation.  A child his age is not really capable of that yet.  But rather, he may well have a concept that when he does X  that this then results in him having a more pleasant experience in his world.  When he interacts with his dad in a certain way, that this then results in a return of similar affection or a pleasant exchange with his dad.  Is he plotting this out?  Is he sitting in his crib plotting out how he is going to manipulate his dad and mom all day long?  No, of course not.  But this is all about how he learns to have input into his own experience and situation.  He is learning that his actions and his interactions will beget reactions and interactions.  This is all part of his developmental growth.  Active and effective parenting supports a child's autonomy and interaction with their world.  To label it as wrong, naughty etc will stymie their development. 

You have explained yourself clearly.  I understand what you are saying as you  are very eloquent with your words, And I appreciate the dialogue.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

@calimojoYes I think @JillyO was right, we had a semantics problem.

Fortunately in the end we've understood each other. I'm not so confident that Derik will understand that his child's behaviour is absolutely normal and appropriate. Let's hope so for the sake of those children.

[calimojo]

I sadly think we agree on our assessment of Derick's ability to have insight into child development.   I hope we are wrong.   I feel for all the children of this cult, including those that are now adults.  It is very hard to unlearn what you have been taught your entire life.  So while I disagree and am often disgusted by the choices the kidults have made,  I have empathy for them.  Derick is more of a puzzle.  We assumed he was more enlightened and more able to think critically and apply logic and reason.  But it seems as if that is not the case.  IS this a new change in Derick or has he always been that way?   It is a messed up mess.

 

[nickelodeon]

2 hours ago, JoyJoy said:

Thanks! I don't find his statement that outrageous. Derick said it was human nature. Manipulation might be a strong word choice, but small children can behave that way. "Israel likes to say a love you papa before he asks for something" seems normal to me . Derick didn't say that was the only time Israel says I love you.

Fair enough, though keep in mind that when Derick talks about "human nature" he doesn't mean it in a positive or neutral way. Remember his tweet about wanting to move away from the "natural spiritual state that I was born in" and become more like Jesus? Many fundies, most famously Voddie Baucham, believe that children are born in a state of original sin, and it's because they're totally depraved heathens that they do normal things like disobeying or being naughty. (This comes from St. Augustine, BTW.)

Interpret Derick's short quote as you will, of course. But if people seem to be overreacting to it, it's because they have this context in mind as they're reading.

[of_the_lioness]

9 hours ago, lomo6 said:

Interesting perspective. Maybe it's different in the South, but where I grew up, the only people who had kids before 25 were conservative Christian (and then it was usually one kind around 23-25 after college), or it was a singular "oops" kind of kid (in both cases, the dad did not stick around). My good friend who had her first kid shortly before her 29th birthday was talking about how isolated she felt! 

Not knowing where either of you are from, I suspect it may also be a rural/urban/suburban phenomenon, and also related to the education levels of the area. I don't mean that in a judgmental or negative way; I grew up in a rural area where very few people were college educated, and marrying your high school sweetheart was fairly common. A few couples actually married during high school (and this was in the late 90s!) Some of those married due to pregnancy or already had a baby, but not all. Mr. Lioness and I got married at 20/21 and had our oldest at 22/23, and we were more toward the "middle" of our friend group as far as having kids. I was one of the younger moms at preschool, etc, but by no means the youngest. We now live in a suburban area where most adults have at least a bachelor's degree, and most kids go to college. I am at least 5-10 years younger than all of my oldest' friends' parents, the same age or a little older than my Kindergartener's peers' parents, and officially an "old mom" to a 1-year-old. 

[Grimalkin]

6 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

@calimojo we aren't saying the same thing at all. The child throwing the toy isn't manipulating dad, he's interacting with dad and manipulating the toy. Baby is not deceitfully tricking dad into retrieving the object, dad is playing along and will stop when will get tired.

In psychology manipulation when applied to other humans is an invariably negative concept.

     Very well written and clear. I still can't believe that English is a second language for you.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

5 hours ago, Grimalkin said:

     Very well written and clear. I still can't believe that English is a second language for you.

Trust me that it takes me some drafting efforts and double checks with the Merriam Webster sometimes 

[PainfullyAware]

At 32 only one of my friends has had a baby and another is pregnant. I never even knew of someone who was pregnant in their early 20s. I would imagine it could be pretty isolating  to have kids outside of the average age of your peer group. It's fascinating to me how these norms are different from nearby place to place in the same mainstream culture. 

As someone with a condition that may affect fertility I wonder sometimes if the pressure to delay is really a good idea ("focus on your career first and get established"). But living costs are just too high to even think about having one earlier, where I live.

At the same time I think it could be mutually beneficial and enriching to build friendships with moms of different ages, if possible. 

[Jaeniduggar]

20 hours ago, nickelodeon said:

It wasn't on the show, it was in an article in People mag.

 

It was an interview from TLC go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KqoauHbvbA

Derick starts his stupid comment around 0:50.

[zygote373]

I could not have rolled my eyes any harder.

 

[NakedKnees]

Oh Jesus Christ. That's so punny it hurts. Do people like Derrick take issue with worldly folks being so interested in the sun? Is it too pagan for good Christians or something?

[frugalitymom]

I have seen similar memes over the weekend so many times my eyes might permanently be stuck in an eye roll.