Mr & Mrs Jill Duggar 60: The Shilling Dillards

[Pecansforeveryone]

To piggyback off of Nakedknees, I also think Dan and Deanna Dillard get a bit of a pass. While I 100% believe they are more moderate and mainstream than the Duggars, I wouldn't be surprised if they attend a church that preaches homosexuality and abortion are sinful. I mean if Chip and Joanna Gaines attend such a church, it wouldn't surprise me if Dan and Deanna Dillard did as well. 

[VelociRapture]

15 minutes ago, NakedKnees said:

I LOVE your list. I would probably move JinJer to #2, and I do think ChErin should be higher. I believe they posted misleading stuff on Instagram toward the end of the fall of Gothard. It was something to the extent of "Our family is not using ATI" when their children were babies and presumably not using homeschooling materials at all. Please correct me if I'm wrong- I could just be thinking of Alyssa and John.

I know I harp on this a bit, but I think Chad gets a pass on this forum all the time. We're always reminding each other that we don't really know these people but just see them through the filters of reality TV and social media when it comes to other fundies and issues. We honestly don't know how kind/loving Chad is, or how many of these other husbands would care for their wives (as reality TV showed it, at least) if they went through the same struggles (I'd even say traumas) Cherin went through. They're still young IBLP royalty, and to me, that may be big (if the organization survives).

To me, Chad and Erin, Alyssa and John, and Jinger and Jeremy are the most insidiously attractive couples.

I’ll explain my reasoning for the rankings.  

I agree about Chad. I think more posters here are giving them less of a pass recently though - partly because they don’t approve of their reproductive choices given Erin's clotting condition and partly because Erin seems to favor Carson over Brooklyn. I’ve also seen people recently criticizing Erin’s super gushy “Chad is the best!” social media posts as well because they think it’s obnoxious or overcompensating. 

That’s a big reason why I ranked Zach and Whitney higher than Cherin - I personally think they are more dangerous because they look and act much more like a regular couple. Whit works in real estate, Zach works as a Police Officer, they only have two kids right now, they first met in a very natural way, and they talk about their relationship as if it’s an actual partnership. Compared to that, Cherin doesn’t look all that much like a regular couple or family to me.  

As for JinJer, I put them third because Jeremy is a Preacher. His views and beliefs are available via recorded sermon for anyone to view online, which I think could make it tougher for people to forget he’s a jerk. If someone starts waxing rhapsodic about how dreamy he is we can always link to one of his homophobic or anti-Catholic sermons. John Webster rarely posts anything online and isn’t on the show very much, while Zach has a normal job and very rarely posts on the joint Instagram account he and Whitney share.

(And you’re correct. It was Erin who made a very carefully worded comment regarding Bill Gothard and ATI. She stated they no longer followed Bill Gothard and weren’t involved with ATI, which didn’t indicate anything at all about their involvement with IBLP.)

[Rachel333]

11 minutes ago, Pecansforeveryone said:

To piggyback off of Nakedknees, I also think Dan and Deanna Dillard get a bit of a pass. While I 100% believe they are more moderate and mainstream than the Duggars, I wouldn't be surprised if they attend a church that preaches homosexuality and abortion are sinful. I mean if Chip and Joanna Gaines attend such a church, it wouldn't surprise me if Dan and Deanna Dillard did as well. 

It seems sometimes like people forget how mainstream those ugly beliefs are.

[NakedKnees]

1 minute ago, VelociRapture said:

I’ll explain my reasoning for the rankings.  

I agree about Chad. I think more posters here are giving them less of a pass recently though - partly because they don’t approve of their reproductive choices given Erin's clotting condition and partly because Erin seems to favor Carson over Brooklyn. I’ve also seen people recently criticizing Erin’s super gushy “Chad is the best!” social media posts as well because they think it’s obnoxious or overcompensating. 

That’s a big reason why I ranked Zach and Whitney higher than Cherin - I personally think they are more dangerous because they look and act much more like a regular couple. Whit works in real estate, Zach works as a Police Officer, they only have two kids right now, they first met in a very natural way, and they talk about their relationship as if it’s an actual partnership. Compared to that, Cherin doesn’t look all that much like a regular couple or family to me.  

As for JinJer, I put them third because Jeremy is a Preacher. His views and beliefs are available via recorded sermon for anyone to view online, which I think could make it tougher for people to forget he’s a jerk. If someone starts waxing rhapsodic about how dreamy he is we can always link to one of his homophobic or anti-Catholic sermons. John Webster rarely posts anything online and isn’t on the show very much, while Zach has a normal job and very rarely posts on the joint Instagram account he and Whitney share.

(And you’re correct. It was Erin who made a very carefully worded comment regarding Bill Gothard and ATI. She stated they no longer followed Bill Gothard and weren’t involved with ATI, which didn’t indicate anything at all about their involvement with IBLP.)

Thanks for the further explanation! That all makes a lot of sense.

Something I've wondered about is whether John's father has been (or ever will be) in the spotlight for something politically extreme. Their recent posts in DC made me surprised that John and Alyssa are still so relatively low-key, but I've also never looked deeply into Daniel Webster's career.

[Palimpsest]

1 hour ago, Rachel333 said:

Cross Church is very mainstream, definitely more so than Jill and Derick. It's literally one of the largest churches in the country and is the largest church in Arkansas.

Cross Church is SBC.  SBC is regarded as "mainstream" because it is huge.  F'ing huge.  As is Cross Church.  That hugeness terrifies me.  As do many of the other Fundie mega-churches.

The SBC has been becoming more and more extreme over the last 20 or so years.  It is truly frightening because Extreme Fundamentalist beliefs are becoming more "mainstream."  I think the SBC is due for a schism (an official one) because some SBC women are finally speaking out.  We will see.

Quote

That doesn't make it not fundamentalist, but it does seem at odds with how "fundie"/"fundie-lite" are usually used around here.

Fundie-lite is a meaningless term, IMO.  Fungelical is a better one, because it acknowledges that extreme beliefs have been invading what we used to call "conservative Christian" or "Evangelical" beliefs.

Quote

The distinction has never been clear, though, and I don't find it a particularly useful one. However you categorize these people, they're still harmful.

We have never forced a definition or a distinction here.  We have always wanted to define "Extreme Fundamentalism" very broadly.  Unfortunately we have some people who want to define "Fundie" incredibly narrowly. As in Gothardite as conveyed by early Duggar shows on TV.  Which was never reality.  Nor does it really reflect how bad extreme Fundamentalism really is.

People who do not find the core beliefs of IBLP, Jill and Derick Dillard, and the SBC, in its present form, harmful will continue to be challenged here. So will those who don't understand that cosmetic surface changes do not change the basic hideous message.

8 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

It seems sometimes like people forget how mainstream those ugly beliefs are.

And is that not the truth.  And we agree on how ugly those beliefs really are.

I get rather sick to my stomach every time someone says "I think <insert name> is "Fundie-lite." 

So the "Fundie-lites" don't say skirts-only, so they don't say head covering, so they don't proclaim Quiverfull (but then no-one ever does they just love children).

It really is wake up and smell the coffee, however much you may love and hope for the paper dolls you think you "know" from UnReality TV.  Your uninformed version of  "Fundie-lite" still =  incredibly destructive. 

 

[Rachel333]

@Palimpsest To be clear, I don't think you're wrong at all to label the SBC fundamentalist, I just found it interesting since I feel like they're usually categorized fundie lite here, and the issues you describe with the term "fundie lite" are exactly why I don't really find fundie/fundie-lite to be a particularly useful distinction either.

[VelociRapture]

50 minutes ago, NakedKnees said:

Thanks for the further explanation! That all makes a lot of sense.

Something I've wondered about is whether John's father has been (or ever will be) in the spotlight for something politically extreme. Their recent posts in DC made me surprised that John and Alyssa are still so relatively low-key, but I've also never looked deeply into Daniel Webster's career.

Well, his nickname is Taliban Dan for a reason. 

ETA: Here’s his voting record in case you or anyone else is interested:

https://webster.house.gov/voting-record

1 hour ago, Pecansforeveryone said:

To piggyback off of Nakedknees, I also think Dan and Deanna Dillard get a bit of a pass. While I 100% believe they are more moderate and mainstream than the Duggars, I wouldn't be surprised if they attend a church that preaches homosexuality and abortion are sinful. I mean if Chip and Joanna Gaines attend such a church, it wouldn't surprise me if Dan and Deanna Dillard did as well. 

I agree. I think they get a pass for now simply because we don’t know much about either of them and they don’t broadcast very much about themselves publicly. Other than Dan leaving his job (and no current position popping up on LinkedIn yet) and Deena posting a few eye roll worthy/questionable things there just isn’t much to go on. 

I looked up the Church she attended. It burned down within the past year, but they really didn’t have much on their website that could give insight into her beliefs. I wouldn’t be surprised if they attend Cross Church now instead, but I don’t know if they do or not. 

ETA: I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they believe the same things as Dan’s family. I’m personally just not comfortable jumping to conclusions based only off the fact that they’re related to Cathy and the Dills. If evidence pops up that tells us that they do believe the same things then I am all for judging them at that point.

[Lisafer]

@Palimpsest the SBC scares me too. They're a huge force in my area, have large church buildings and lots of money, and pass as mainstream when their beliefs are more fundamentalist. 

[mollysmom]

4 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I grew up IFB and there were only a couple families who were skirts only in any of the churches I came in contact with. We wore shorts, pants and regular bathing suits. A good many of the women worked and a lot of the churches had schools that people sent their kids to. Maybe there are some IFB groups like that, but it is hardly true for all of them. 

We used to have a poster here who was skirts only(she had a blog) and looked very fundie, but was very liberal with her politics and beliefs. Just because someone puts on pants doesn't mean they aren't fundie. 

I guess this just reiterates the fact that not all IFB's are the same. I was raised IFB and honestly, if we saw a woman wearing pants we were told that she wasn't "saved" because "saved" woman knew better than to wear pants. Looking back now I can't believe how fucked up their teachings were but my family still believes that....I'm the pants wearing black sheep (and loving it haha)

[Palimpsest]

22 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

@Palimpsest To be clear, I don't think you're wrong at all to label the SBC fundamentalist, I just found it interesting since I feel like they're usually categorized fundie lite here, and the issues you describe with the term "fundie lite" are exactly why I don't really find fundie/fundie-lite to be a particularly useful distinction either.

We certainly agree. I should have said "general you."

But I really don't understand why any regular poster here thinks that Cross Church and the SBC in its present form is anything else but extreme Fundamentalist and very destructive.

Just one link: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/sbc-patterson/559532/

 

[TatertotAsserole]

27 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Fungelical is a better one, because it acknowledges that extreme beliefs have been invading what we used to call "conservative Christian" or "Evangelical" beliefs.

Quote

Totally agree. 

I grew up in Northern Indiana around A LOT of Conservative Christians, Fundiegelicals, and straight up Fundies. Here's how I'd define each.

 

Fundies: Definitely homeschooled. Typically had more than five kids. Girls wore ankle length skirts, boys wore matching polos (mostly for identification purposes). Weren't allowed to part take in mainstream popular culture. Weren't allowed to talk to people who weren't part of their church/family. I grew up playing the violin and our local youth orchestra was a strange combination of hyper-competitive Asian/White kids who went to the college-prep school and straight-up Fundies. When I was in  9th grade, I was studying for an honors bio final before a concert. My friends from school and I had our text books out and were quizzing each other about cell structure, the Krebs cycle, and...evolution. One of the Fundie kids overheard us talking and from then on out, we had to have separate "green rooms" before concerts because the Fundies complained about over-hearing heathen biology. 

 

Fundiegelicals: Some were home schooled, some transferred to christian/prep school in later grades (mostly because their parents wanted them Christian colleges like Wheaton or Hope College in MI), and some even went to public school.  Some went to small, home churches. Others went to the hipstervangelical mega church. Most had families on the larger side (4-6 kids) but some had families as small as two kids.  The moms of the family sometimes had jobs out of the home (teachers, real estate agents, hairdressers, bank tellers.) They dressed "modestly" but still wore pants, long shorts, and sleeveless tops.  They were, of course, anti-gay, anti-abortion, and Islamophobic. But unlike the conservative christians, they kept it *politely* under-wraps. They were allowed to participate in *some* popular culture like watching Disney movies and other G or PG rated films. Most fundiegelicals parents in our community drew the pop culture line at Halloween and Harry Potter. I was born in 1989 so Harry Potter was VERY big among kids my age. I went to a public elementary school and gave a book report on the first two Harry Potter books in the 1998-99 school year. Four kids out of sixteen left the room because the parents didn't want them hearing about witchcraft. Halloween was another big one. I'd say about 1/4-1/3 of the homes in our neighborhood would shut their lights off on Halloween because they didn't want to participate in Satan's Holiday. When I went to high school (a college-prep private school) the fundie-lite kids often joined us in Junior/Senior year after being homeschooled. Their parents typically weren't equipped to teach subjects like Trigonometry or Physics, they wanted the SAT prep/college counseling resources, and many joined our school to play sports on a real team. Nonetheless, they didn't spend much social time with the rest of the student body. They didn't bother us, we didn't (appear to) bother them. 

 

Conservative Christians: None were homeschooled, most went to the hipster-evangelical mega church.  Parents definitely used birth control. Many had moms who had college (if not advanced) degrees. Boys and girls were expected to go to college (typically state schools) if the money was there. Many of the normatively popular kids at both my public and private school were in this category. They were VERY vocal about being anti-gay, anti-abortion, Islamophobic, and pro-Bush (I was 11 when Bush 43 was elected.) Nonetheless, these were the kids who "rebelled" the most. They were the most likely to get drunk, high, and pregnant (even compared to the Godless Secular kids.) Many of them went off to flagship big 10 schools, joined greek life, and other than the occasional instagram post about church, I totally forget that religion plays into their lives. 

 

As far as Duggar/Bates couples go: Most are somewhere between Fundie and Fundiegelical. I think it'll take another full generation for anyone to go "Conservative Christian." 

[Rachel333]

21 minutes ago, Lisafer said:

@Palimpsest the SBC scares me too. They're a huge force in my area, have large church buildings and lots of money, and pass as mainstream when their beliefs are more fundamentalist. 

I think the problem is that their fundamentalist beliefs are fairly mainstream.

13 minutes ago, TatertotAsserole said:

I grew up playing the violin and our local youth orchestra was a strange combination of hyper-competitive Asian/White kids who went to the college-prep school and straight-up Fundies.

Me too! It's definitely an interesting mix. 

35 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

Well, his nickname is Taliban Dan for a reason. 

It's sad that he's not even the first man we've discussed on FJ nicknamed Taliban Dan. 

[TatertotAsserole]

1 minute ago, Rachel333 said:

I think the problem is that their fundamentalist beliefs are fairly mainstream.

Me too! It's definitely an interesting mix. 

One half of the orchestra was perpetually stressed about SATs/APs/Ivy admission statistics and the other half were siblings from the same 5 families quietly praying for our heathen souls. 

[Lisafer]

The discussion about dresses vs. pants has me interested because my family was skirts and dresses only. When I started wearing pants, even though I was still fundie as far as being homophobic, anti-choice, believing in young-earth creationism, etc.--the pants represented a shift in my beliefs. That decision held a lot of meaning for me; it was an assertion of my independence and a departure from my former acceptance of my parents' teachings. It might not hold that much meaning for the Duggar women; I don't know. 

[SapphireSlytherin]

The "big" SBC church in my old town recently had a massive "split" with the younger ones "planting" a new church in an old warehouse - all organized on Facebook, and all about allowing a woman song leader. 

What they don't realize is that the MONEY that makes the church actually run is held by the old folks - none of whom were invited to join the new church. It's been the talk of the town for the past few months.

SBC's beliefs just boggle my mind (separate classes for females and males, no women in leadership roles, etc.).

[Daisy0322]

12 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

The "big" SBC church in my old town recently had a massive "split" with the younger ones "planting" a new church in an old warehouse - all organized on Facebook, and all about allowing a woman song leader. 

What they don't realize is that the MONEY that makes the church actually run is held by the old folks - none of whom were invited to join the new church. It's been the talk of the town for the past few months.

SBC's beliefs just boggle my mind (separate classes for females and males, no women in leadership roles, etc.).

I love church dramas it's always petty and somewhat shortsighted. 

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, Lisafer said:

The discussion about dresses vs. pants has me interested because my family was skirts and dresses only. When I started wearing pants, even though I was still fundie as far as being homophobic, anti-choice, believing in young-earth creationism, etc.--the pants represented a shift in my beliefs. That decision held a lot of meaning for me; it was an assertion of my independence and a departure from my former acceptance of my parents' teachings. It might not hold that much meaning for the Duggar women; I don't know. 

Pants were the first change for some female fundamentalist relatives. Their fathers (who are brothers) were fundie pastors, "bivocational" pastors  as it is called--which basically means the church barely paid them so they needed day jobs as well. They had 9 kids between the two of them and the kids's entire lives revolved around the church. They got unaccredited church basement school for a large part of their educations. They were all sent to an unaccredited fundamentalist "school of ministry" in lieu of college. And as soon as they were out of the house with some money to make their own choices, all four girls bought jeans and began wearing them. 

Today, as adults, not a single one of those 9 children even attend church. I also have a close friend who grew up fundamentalist, homeschooling and the whole thing. She also does not attend church. She is such a far left liberal now that she, frankly, makes me insane. Many of the students at the Christian school I taught at who were the most vocal kool-aid drinkers are not religious at all now. 

But all I ever read here is that children of fundamentalists are brainwashed and absolutely will never change. Not true. One or two Duggar kids will move away from it all. It doesn't happen in a single moment. The people I know moved away gradually. Rejecting beliefs you were raised with under fear of hell can be a slow process. But Jill's outfit absolutely is a rejection of something her parents taught her. It may turn out to be the only belief of theirs that she ever rejects. Or it may turn out to be the beginning of many. Only time will tell. 

[Lisafer]

50 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

But all I ever read here is that children of fundamentalists are brainwashed and absolutely will never change. Not true. One or two Duggar kids will move away from it all. It doesn't happen in a single moment. The people I know moved away gradually. Rejecting beliefs you were raised with under fear of hell can be a slow process. But Jill's outfit absolutely is a rejection of something her parents taught her. It may turn out to be the only belief of theirs that she ever rejects. Or it may turn out to be the beginning of many. Only time will tell. 

Oh I agree! Goodness, I do get frustrated with the assumption that these fundie children will never change. I have a lot of siblings and we were raised like Duggars without the tv show. Now that we are all adults, some of us are Christian, some are not. Most of us can cuss a blue streak even though we weren't allowed to say "crap" growing up. Our children range from public-schooled to home-schooled. We wear normal clothes.

I'd say several of us took our upbringing and stomped the hell out of it. I have no doubt some of these fundie kids will do the same.

[TheOneAndOnly]

Maybe Jill's wardrobe changes reflect her realizing that since she doesn't live with a certain brother anymore she isn't in danger of being molested at all times and can relax.

[metheglyn]

3 hours ago, Lisafer said:

Oh I agree! Goodness, I do get frustrated with the assumption that these fundie children will never change. I have a lot of siblings and we were raised like Duggars without the tv show. Now that we are all adults, some of us are Christian, some are not. Most of us can cuss a blue streak even though we weren't allowed to say "crap" growing up. Our children range from public-schooled to home-schooled. We wear normal clothes.

I'd say several of us took our upbringing and stomped the hell out of it. I have no doubt some of these fundie kids will do the same.

The main difference for the Duggars and Bates from more typical fundies is that they WERE raised on TV and are still expected to carry the brand in order to keep supporting their families (especially the kids still at home). Even if they are questioning and changing their inculcated beliefs it's not likely to result in major visible differences aside from clothing and specific church attendance. A serious, visible change could have even greater consequences for them than for non-TV fundie kids, and that's already hard enough.

[PainfullyAware]

50 minutes ago, metheglyn said:

The main difference for the Duggars and Bates from more typical fundies is that they WERE raised on TV and are still expected to carry the brand

I've often wondered what the psychological impact "reality TV" throws into the whole fundiegelic stew. If it was me I could definitely see my public posts lagging behind my personal beliefs, if they were changing, so as not to "let down" anyone. Theres also the loss of status/fame in a community they are highly regarded in, to consider. If Duggar kids stay within the general territory  of christian conservatism then they can probably maintain that status. But if they walk away, they will lose it all. Or worse, be famous for shoving it all back in their parents' faces.

Remembering they all have agency is important, though. It does make them that much more responsible for what they perpetuate because they aren't just brainwashed cogs in the fundie machine. 

[Marly]

12 hours ago, NakedKnees said:

I always thought that the goal of skirts-only was to address a biblical concept that men and women cannot wear the same types of clothes? Maybe a better Bible scholar can help me with that.

 

This is indeed the reason Dutch fundy women only wear skirts. They say that the bible says that men and women are not to dress the same, that women are not to wear men's clothes and men are not to wear women's clothes. They have decided that skirts are for women and pants are for men. However, they do allow girls to wear pants for sports related activities. PE in school, for instance, is done in sports pants (in most fundy schools PE is segregated though. The boys will therefore not see the girls in pants.), horse-back riding is done in pants, wall-climbing is done in pants, etc. Some fundy women also wear pants when they go hiking, but not all of them do.

This might be a difference between Dutch and US fundies, but here you rarely see a fundy woman, regardless of her age, in pants. That's why I first considered Jinger's change from skirts only to pants as a major change, because where I'm from, it really ís a major change. Here, if a young fundy woman wants to look more relatable, she wears more "fashionable" skirts (for instance, more tight-fitting, or knee-length or slightly above the knee instead of ankle-length skirts), but she will not wear pants. I think that here* you really can compare the skirt for fundy women to the hijab for muslim women. If have talked to a lot of fundy girls (town I grew up in was right in the Dutch bible-belt), and most indicated that while they do sometimes wear leggings/pyjama pants at home, when there's only direct family around, they feel uncomfortable wearing pants outside of the home. I have also talked to a number of (again, Dutch) women who left the fundy church, and the first thing they did was ditch the skirts-only rule. They said it felt extemely liberating to be able to wear pants. If they now wear skirts they do so because they want to wear skirts, because they have the option to do so, and not because it is a religious requirement.

* I am now talking about the Dutch context, not the American context. 

[emmeline]

12 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

Well, his nickname is Taliban Dan for a reason. 

I misread the post you'd quoted and was very confused for a minute about why you were calling Dan Dillard Taliban Dan!   I must have still had then Dillards on my mind from the mention at the top of the page. 

If Jill and Derick could change their habit of making inflammatory, bigoted and/or misguided social media posts, they probably would be a lot higher up the list (especially if Derick had also kept his job at Walmart). Jill's arguably had more of a fashion change (wears pants, has a nose ring), they spend time with people from different cultural backgrounds, they almost certainly prevented pregnancy for a while at least between Israel and Samuel. Luckily Derick in particular can't help himself and must keep reminding everyone of their awful beliefs. 

[Pecansforeveryone]

Thanks to @Lisafer and @louisa05. I do frustrated with the "oh my gosh, they didn't loudly and publicly renounce every single one of their heavily pressured  childhood beliefs that impact their whole social structure and all they have ever known ten minutes after they left home for the very 1st time! That means they are going to be fundies until they die, die, diiiiee!" Many of posters on FJ are living proof that people do indeed leave fundamentalism every single day. When I left most people in my inner circle didn't know until I told them. I am still not "out" as an atheist to extended family. I attended public schools k-12  and have a bachelors from a public university. It took me until age 34 to leave fundamentalism. 

[Frumper]

SBC churces are not all the same. There isn't a central authority, like Catholism or Mormonism that says "this is what you have to believe in order to be baptist."  A central tenant of being baptist is that each church governs itself.  There can be statements galore at SBC conventions, but each church ultimately makes its own decisions.  The SBC church that I grew up in, and that my parents still attend, have ordained women deacons, had a female assistant pastor (now retired), and some of the most politically liberal people I know go to church there.  Now to be fair, the vote to ordain women caused a deep divide in the church and many people left over it, but no one from some central governing body swooped in and said "you're not a southern baptist church anymore."  The members made their own decision.

The conversation about fundies "blending in" is interesting.  If you have people who hold anti-woman/anti-LGBT, etc beliefs personally, but who blend in and present themselves as nice Christian mommy-bloggers, are they doing harm by doing so?  Taking Jessa as an example, I think she probably holds exactly the same toxic beliefs as her parents, but in general she isn't making that part of her brand and doesn't seem to be pushing it as far as I can tell.  So is her public personna really doing that much harm?  I'm not sure where I come down on this, I'd be interested in others' thoughts.