Jump to content
IGNORED

Jinjer 49: Westward Ho!


Coconut Flan

Recommended Posts

I always like this Politico article about the origins of the Religious Right in the U.S.

I really recommend reading the article as it gives an excellent background on how the Religious Right came to power, and why evangelical Christianity is so tied up in the Republican party. Hint: It had nothing to do with abortion, originally, and a lot to do with racism.

  • Upvote 15
  • I Agree 2
  • Thank You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is far too complex for what I can type out here, but the modern evangelical/political entanglement  as we know it today,  (obviously as others have stated up thread, it has deeper roots), started with Ronald Reagan.   He used to go around campaigning in white, rural areas, county fairs, etc talking about how he would restore the nation to its former glory.   In fact MAGA was actually his phrase.  Rump stole it from him.  That's really when all the "family values" bullshit began to take hold, which of course is just code for women in the kitchen,  whites in control of economic and political institutions. and men in charge.   He rose to popularity at a time when the economy was shaky, the threat of nuclear war was real, and the baby boomers were approaching middle age and worrying about their future (a/k/a retirement funds). 

So Reagan threw on a cowboy hat and acted like,  well, a cowboy,  and people ate that shit up like pie on Christmas.   So you had the "long haired hippie " boomers and the short hair conservative boomers deepening the divide,  and the GOP quickly figured out that they could win over the evangelical crowd by promising a return to the mostly fictionalized days of yore, which to their way of thinking included the puritanical values the country was "founded" on. 

It's all been down hill from there.   Abortion is symbolic.   For the more staunchly religious conservatives, abortion has become the issue that embodies their entire moral platform and the thing that sets them apart from unsaved.  For  conservative politicians,  it is merely the dog whistle they blow to summon the misguided believers.  

Edited by WarriorJane
Clarity
  • Upvote 27
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NakedKnees said:

This is such an interesting question and I'm certain I'm not the best person to answer it, but I want to try. I think the modern movement has evolved in 3 distinct phases.

The initial emergence of the modern Pro-Life and Pro-Choice movements in the US was strongly linked to the women's liberation movement of the early 1970's. So let's say you're an adult conservative Christian then. Even if you don't personally think much about the legal status of abortion, perhaps you think about things like maintaining "traditional" family structures and gendered division of responsibility, encouraging women to stay out of the workforce or to leave once married/pregnant, generally following what your Christian leaders say, etc. There was a lot going on and it probably wasn't hard to wrap abortion up into this tidy package of what being in the then-fledgling "Religious Right" meant. I think it was easy for both sides to see how easily abortion access in particular could disrupt the types of concepts listed above (the nuclear family with complementarian division of domestic and public labor, basically).

Fast forward a bit to the late eighties and nineties when you basically have a generation that's grown up in this context of abortion being an important part of Christian values. From what I've seen, being militantly pro-life could be branded as "cool" among a wider set of youth (think sort of alternative, aggressive/inspiration "I am the Pro-Life Generation" type stuff). As much as we talk about it here, extreme fundamentalist youth stuff from the nineties like "Beautiful Girlhood" dolls and Hope Chests are harder to make seem "cool." You also get an increase in violence done to abortion providers in this era. To me, in this way it's not much different than animal-rights and other activist groups sometimes considering their ethical mission "above" the law and destroying property/risking hurting people. That's not to say that these tactics are fundamentally wrong- there are certainly social issue areas in which I'd be tempted to tolerate or encourage those tactics- but I'm just referring to this anarchist/punk rock sort of "the bravery of the youth will save the world" type quality that emerged in the pro-life movement and galvanized a new generation.

Finally, in the post-9/11 George W. Bush era, I think we saw a similar "wrapping up" of pro-life views as being another bulletpoint in what it meant to be a Republican: pro war, pro gun, nationalistic, openly Christian... and sure, pro life too. There was also a big tack away from prayers and bombs and toward legislation in the pro-life movement, which has unfortunately been successful much of the time. The goal is to get an abortion case that could effectively overturn Roe V. Wade to the Supreme Court, at which point we'll see much of the geographic area of the US "go dark" in terms of abortion access.

So, that's where we're at now. I know that some countries have it worse (I'm just coming from living in Chile, which I might say generally has it worse) but I think there's a special kind of anxiety that comes from constantly feeling like you, your rights, and your autonomy are on a knife's edge when it comes to abortion. Maybe that's American exceptionalism talking though, haha.

The Pro-Life movement, while even thinking about it makes my blood boil, has proven itself agile to changing times. I think the die-hard believers in it are a vocal minority that's really good at keeping the majority at least vaguely supportive of their mission.

Anyone who wants to- please correct me! I'm not getting this from any particular sources, but I am a woman from the US who has been interested in this issue and at times quite active in the pro-life movement for about 15 years (and the United Methodist church for about 10 of those). Some things I've read and watched recently that are probably informing this diatribe are Life's Work by Willie J. Parker, Reversing Roe on Netflix, and The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti (which is about purity culture rather than abortion, but really helps illuminate the timeline of modern American conservative Christianity and its markers).

***slight correction to my last paragraph: I have been personally involved in the pro-choice movement, NOT the pro-life movement. I don't have an insider view, although I generally appreciate hearing them.

Kind of tangential, but most "pro-life" identifying people I meet IRL are quite sane and just wouldn't choose abortion for themselves. When I try to explain that view is technically pro-choice and pro-life is about legislating it for everyone, they generally don't want to talk about it. I don't really get it, but this is by far how most of my interactions with so-called "pro-lifers" go (outside of protests and that type of thing).

Tomato, tomahto... those people are probably still voting for pro-life policy in any case, so this little issue is likely just semantic.

  • Upvote 6
  • I Agree 1
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small addition, for any of my fellow Canadians who are also interested in this topic (or even Americans who are more broadly interested) 

The Armageddon Factor by Marci McDonald is also quite good. It's close on 10 years old and I read it about 7 years ago so my memory is foggy but I would definitely recommend it. Even if it is a bit terrifying. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
1
12 hours ago, louisa05 said:

But they time I left there, I had become truly fascinated with those people's need for someone famous to validate their belief system. Politicians, celebrities of any kind, athletes, whoever. They would latch onto them if they gave even the slightest lip service to Christianity. They latched on to Sammy Sosa in 1998 during the big home run record season he and Mark McGwire had. A few random God mentions and they were painting him as the most faithful Christian in the history of Christianity. They latched on to rumors of celebrity conversions that would float through their churches. I never even figured out where those rumors came from--they would be various actors, musicians or athletes mostly. Gene Simmons once. Jane Fonda multiple times (eventually, on public record, she acknowledged being involved in a mainline Protestant church for a time--but that certainly wouldn't have fit their conversion story). Alice Cooper multiple times. Tom Cruise supposedly was leaving Scientology to be an evangelical once. Various 90s boy band members (because I was there in that era). And athletes. Constantly athletes. Any athlete getting a lot of public attention at any given moment. 

My mother in law is that way!!  I don't follow her brand of Christianity so she tries to find celebs or family members of celeb/athletes that do.  I don't care.  The fact that Dale Earnhardt's brother's wive's sister's husband's daughter is the same brand doesn't matter to me. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, medimus said:

This is so fascinating. 

Whoever came up with the prosperity gospel seems to have a lot to answer for! Or rather they were very canny to come up with it. I confess to having never heard the term before here, but I am a heathen. I wasn't brought up with religion and neither were my parents. Though I did go to Catholic schools in a Catholic country but I suspect the prosperity gospel isn't such a thing with the catholics? Maybe it is. I find it all really interesting (and lots of the traditions beautiful).

From what I gathered the prosperity gospel seems to be indeed an US American invention. The Puritans had their own ideas about Christian work ethic and prosperity which probably laid the groundwork but it’s interesting how it grew to this in the US (because it’s not as if Europe had no Puritans or other Protestants left). I know this is massively generalising and a rather negative prejudice but it really often feels as if in the US things will be brought to extremes. 

6 hours ago, NakedKnees said:

This is such an interesting question and I'm certain I'm not the best person to answer it, but I want to try. I think the modern movement has evolved in 3 distinct phases.

The initial emergence of the modern Pro-Life and Pro-Choice movements in the US was strongly linked to the women's liberation movement of the early 1970's. So let's say you're an adult conservative Christian then. Even if you don't personally think much about the legal status of abortion, perhaps you think about things like maintaining "traditional" family structures and gendered division of responsibility, encouraging women to stay out of the workforce or to leave once married/pregnant, generally following what your Christian leaders say, etc. There was a lot going on and it probably wasn't hard to wrap abortion up into this tidy package of what being in the then-fledgling "Religious Right" meant. I think it was easy for both sides to see how easily abortion access in particular could disrupt the types of concepts listed above (the nuclear family with complementarian division of domestic and public labor, basically).

Fast forward a bit to the late eighties and nineties when you basically have a generation that's grown up in this context of abortion being an important part of Christian values. From what I've seen, being militantly pro-life could be branded as "cool" among a wider set of youth (think sort of alternative, aggressive/inspiration "I am the Pro-Life Generation" type stuff). As much as we talk about it here, extreme fundamentalist youth stuff from the nineties like "Beautiful Girlhood" dolls and Hope Chests are harder to make seem "cool." You also get an increase in violence done to abortion providers in this era. To me, in this way it's not much different than animal-rights and other activist groups sometimes considering their ethical mission "above" the law and destroying property/risking hurting people. That's not to say that these tactics are fundamentally wrong- there are certainly social issue areas in which I'd be tempted to tolerate or encourage those tactics- but I'm just referring to this anarchist/punk rock sort of "the bravery of the youth will save the world" type quality that emerged in the pro-life movement and galvanized a new generation.

Finally, in the post-9/11 George W. Bush era, I think we saw a similar "wrapping up" of pro-life views as being another bulletpoint in what it meant to be a Republican: pro war, pro gun, nationalistic, openly Christian... and sure, pro life too. There was also a big tack away from prayers and bombs and toward legislation in the pro-life movement, which has unfortunately been successful much of the time. The goal is to get an abortion case that could effectively overturn Roe V. Wade to the Supreme Court, at which point we'll see much of the geographic area of the US "go dark" in terms of abortion access.

So, that's where we're at now. I know that some countries have it worse (I'm just coming from living in Chile, which I might say generally has it worse) but I think there's a special kind of anxiety that comes from constantly feeling like you, your rights, and your autonomy are on a knife's edge when it comes to abortion. Maybe that's American exceptionalism talking though, haha.

The Pro-Life movement, while even thinking about it makes my blood boil, has proven itself agile to changing times. I think the die-hard believers in it are a vocal minority that's really good at keeping the majority at least vaguely supportive of their mission.

Anyone who wants to- please correct me! I'm not getting this from any particular sources, but I am a woman from the US who has been interested in this issue and at times quite active in the pro-life movement for about 15 years (and the United Methodist church for about 10 of those). Some things I've read and watched recently that are probably informing this diatribe are Life's Work by Willie J. Parker, Reversing Roe on Netflix, and The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti (which is about purity culture rather than abortion, but really helps illuminate the timeline of modern American conservative Christianity and its markers).

That was a very interesting read. Thank you. Only one part left me wondering. Abortion and making it accessible and legal/not persecuted didn’t come out of nowhere here either. Women demonstrated on the streets for it. It started in the 1960. In 1971 374 women admitted to have had an abortion in the cover story of a huge magazine (they followed their french fellow campaigners). It was very much a byproduct of feminism, hormonal birth control, different view on sexual ethics and less and less influence of the church.  The conservative ideas were and are still strong.

In the end we found a compromise in 1976 which is still the basis. Abortion isn’t legal but we implemented many justified and therefore not persecuted exceptions. You have to jump through some hoops but you can abort at any time, though it gets much harder after the first trimester. Important to know- a pregnancy in the legal sense starts with the nidation of the embryo. All measures you can take before are not considered an abortion.

It’s not the best compromise but it is a wildly accepted compromise in our society. The current fight is that sadly doctors aren’t allowed to educate about abortions on their websites or with handouts. It’s called “advertisement of abortion”. This paragraph is going to be reformed (spoiler: it’s a joke  they now can inform that they offer abortions but still don’t educate about the methods) but hopefully it will be abolished in the future.

The topic of having legal and safe abortions has from my understanding (what I know about my European neighbours) always been a fight by women and often fought together with feminist agendas. Our men didn’t celebrate feminism either. It’s very interesting that the society in the USA hasn’t been able to compromise on that matter.

 

please note: what I explained about the current legal situation in my country is obviously a streamlined version. But to explain it fully I would have probably needed my own thread.

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NakedKnees said:

***slight correction to my last paragraph: I have been personally involved in the pro-choice movement, NOT the pro-life movement. I don't have an insider view, although I generally appreciate hearing them.

Kind of tangential, but most "pro-life" identifying people I meet IRL are quite sane and just wouldn't choose abortion for themselves. When I try to explain that view is technically pro-choice and pro-life is about legislating it for everyone, they generally don't want to talk about it. I don't really get it, but this is by far how most of my interactions with so-called "pro-lifers" go (outside of protests and that type of thing).

Tomato, tomahto... those people are probably still voting for pro-life policy in any case, so this little issue is likely just semantic.

It's so interesting.

I understand what you mean by some pro-life people who are actually pro-choice when you talk to them, but just wouldn't have an abortion themselves. I was involved in the campaign in Ireland last year to change the laws there and did door to door canvassing. A lot of people were already very much pro change, but lots of the ones who were happy for us to talk to them were coming from that point of view and I think there was probably a sizable number who were open to that. I think it probably helped that being pro-choice or pro-life is not a big part of identity (or at least certainly not as much as it seems to be in the US). It definitely wasn't in Belgium where I grew up. Cultural context really matters sometimes and it is fascinating.

  • Upvote 10
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of the change has to do with the wide availability of prenatal ultrasound. More people were okay with abortion in the 1970s, before it became common for people to have seen baby-like images of fetuses. But yeah, it would have made more sense for people to say that Jesus wanted social justice or food security.

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 5:26 AM, Antipatriarch said:

Nice socks, Jeremy. ?

I was going to say, Nice flood pants,  Jeremy, but it's earthquake season.

17 hours ago, Virago said:

the undercurrent that abortion is ultimately about female liberation and Evangelicals (the patriarchy) can’t have that. The moral core of the abortion argument aside (is it murdering innocent children or removing a non sentient clump of cells?) totally set aside, evangelicals want men to control women, whether they’re in your cult and you’re their headship, or whether they’re outside your cult but you still try your hardest to take their autonomy. Their entire religion is built upon the idea that God declares women are lesser than, and shouldn’t make their own decisions

THIS.  It is not about the sanctity of life -- which is painfully and disgustingly obvious in that evangelicals are not rising up en masse to decry the child concentration camps at our borders.  They could care less about the actual suffering of these children.  It is all about control over women.  At this point, I  pity the next one who comes up to me in public to try to hand me a bible, or an invite to their church, because that person is going to get quite an earful, complete with the foulest of language.

Edited by EmmieJ
  • Upvote 18
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Planned Parenthood clinic in my area now offers vasectomies. The billboards around town are pink and have a soccer goalie defending the net. I wonder what Jinger would think if she saw those billboards.

  • Upvote 2
  • Haha 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe already covered but as others probably said, before the race to pander to evangelicals (I'm old enough to remember when all three candidates for the 1980 election swore they were born again) family planning was a very much agenda of Republican women. They were at the forefront of abortion rights as well (whether because they wanted women empowered or just didn't want poor people to keep breeding is well... nothing I'm sure about).

Of course it's not about life. Leaving aside concentration camps, etc., for actual living children, think about what the debate about fetus rights entails--maybe allow abortions for women who were raped. Well, if it's about the fetus, why would it matter if the woman (or, more likely, girl) was raped? Women/girls who become pregnant through no "fault" of their own might be allowed abortions, but not those who had sex on purpose. Tell me that's not about controlling the sexuality of women.

For the record, I have had an abortion and I have had a live birth from a rape. So I don't care about "pro-life" shit.

  • Upvote 15
  • I Agree 2
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, patsymae said:

Of course it's not about life. Leaving aside concentration camps, etc., for actual living children, think about what the debate about fetus rights entails--maybe allow abortions for women who were raped. Well, if it's about the fetus, why would it matter if the woman (or, more likely, girl) was raped? Women/girls who become pregnant through no "fault" of their own might be allowed abortions, but not those who had sex on purpose. Tell me that's not about controlling the sexuality of women.

I agree so very very much with this. 

When I was in college we had to do an exercise in one of my classes where we were randomly assigned into groups of 5 or 6 IIRC and then we were given topics and we had to write a statement about the topic that 100% of the group agreed with. One of the topics was about abortion and out of our group all but two of us were somewhere in a middle zone of abortion being ok in some cases (like rape or incest) and not in others. I was on the abortion needs to be a legal option available to any woman who needs or wants one and the decision is between her and the doctor providing the abortion (and in my ideal world abortion providers are plentiful so there aren't women who could legally get one but practically speaking cannot access one). The other person was of the opinion abortion is murder and should therefore be illegal in all cases.

I argued my point without getting into my personal history and we completed the assignment, but as someone who has actually been pregnant and given birth after a rape, as vehemently as I disagreed with her 100% illegal/immoral position, there is something about the others in our group, with their "except in cases of rape and incest" that makes me feel like they care about punishing women and not at all believing in the sanctity of life of my living breathing child nor the lived experience of that child's very pro choice mother who made the right choice for her. 

On the other side I had a friend hold me up as some ideal of the pro-life side when I made that choice and that pisses me off to this day. My body, my choice. As it should be for every woman/girl in every situation. 

These laws affect real people in real life. It's shouldn't be to just get them born, woman be damned, and who cares what happens to mother or baby after.

Edited by JustEnough
Changed a word. Turns out typing "agree" when you mean "disagree" radically changes the meaning of a sentence.
  • Upvote 10
  • Love 21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I upset both “sides”  on abortion - I didn’t choose it and wouldn’t for myself. The idea of babies being aborted makes me sad (I’m also a vegetarian because eating animals also makes me sad). I have had to make hard decisions on pregnancies and kept them but I understand what would cause woman to choose abortion very personally. 

howeber think roe vs wade is done with and there should be no fight to over turn it. the way to reduce abortions in my opinion looks very different: universal healthcare including birth control paid for, make it easier for peo who don’t want kids to get permanent birth control, have subsided daycare and more Subsidized housing, more accountability for men - child support enforcement with more bite across all state lines and even internationally (i have  a deadbeat ex myself) and no more predatory interest rates for student loans with additional funding to help moms go back to school and train to be able to support their kids. 

Abortions make me very sad but also that we don’t have all the support needed for women to work and raise the kids the men don’t want - that makes me just as sad and angry!  I would rather also see a woman use a morning after pill when it is a few cells than  a later abortion - so I think that should be available and covered. 

And yes - the migrant camps break my heart and make me angry  and I don’t get all these self proclaimed Christians in my circle going on about how “but Obama” and “they should have come here legally” Jesus said the anyone who caused offense to one of these little ones- it would be better to have a millstone around his neck and he thrown into the sea. I agree with Jesus. He values children. I think a lot of the so called evangelical Christians will hear  Jesus say “I never knew you”.  Missing the love your neighbor part completely! 

“Pro life” to me should mean more healthcare, more funding for education, more funding for women’s health, more subsized daycare and housing and also more funding for special needs kids AND respite for their families. Also free access to birth control and touch laws for child abuse and yes getting those migrant kids back to their parents/families. It doesn’t and I don’t get ithe disconnect. ?

 

Edited by CherylV
  • Upvote 11
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2019 at 3:29 AM, NakedKnees said:

***slight correction to my last paragraph: I have been personally involved in the pro-choice movement, NOT the pro-life movement. I don't have an insider view, although I generally appreciate hearing them.

Kind of tangential, but most "pro-life" identifying people I meet IRL are quite sane and just wouldn't choose abortion for themselves. When I try to explain that view is technically pro-choice and pro-life is about legislating it for everyone, they generally don't want to talk about it. I don't really get it, but this is by far how most of my interactions with so-called "pro-lifers" go (outside of protests and that type of thing).

Tomato, tomahto... those people are probably still voting for pro-life policy in any case, so this little issue is likely just semantic.

It is not just "being too semantic"! Don't give up on this point, please. I was/am this person. I was raised very SBC, even going with my youth group to a "pro-life" march (makes me sick that I did not question it back them, but I was like 13). It is only in the last few years that I have begun to call myself pro-choice and wrap head around that I can be personally pro-life about what I would do in a situation, but the fact that I don't WANT to be part of anyone else's choice (like I don't want to make that decision for them because I don't want them to make it for me) IS a pro-choice way of thinking. It is so hard when you come from the background of being told that you have to care about other peoples choices in this matter, that it ties you up in it and makes you somehow personally complicit in an abortion. That school of thought does so much damage to a person. It is really only the past 6 or so years that I have really sat down to think about the semantics of the situation and come to understand what I feel, what choices I would want, and what word that falls under. I am even much more bold about saying that I am pro-choice now. Please don't give up on these kinds of people, even before I got my head around what label I was I still would never have voted to ban it.

I also had to realize one day that I did make a choice when I chose to have my first child after getting pregnant at 17. I didn't feel like I had a choice, but abortion was suggested to me so in retrospect I do realize I did have one. Seeing now that I did have a choice gave me the confidence to become vocal about being pro-choice even those I choose what some would call a pro-life choice there. Key word is CHOICE and I wish more people in those circles would recognize that.

  • Upvote 11
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daily Mail seems a bit obsessed with Jinger living in LA now. Second article about her this week. The grocery shopping pics are a bit invasive IMO. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They must be alerting the paps themselves or paying for some sort of cheap ass publicity. Literally nobody in LA would care about them.

  • Upvote 9
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe she had the bad luck to get a paparazzo as a neighbor. It seems in the Duggar karma somehow.

  • Haha 3
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

jeremy and jinger met the original actress who played Micheal J Fox's girlfriend in the back to the future movies. 

How insane is that

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, nst said:

jeremy and jinger met the original actress who played Micheal J Fox's girlfriend in the back to the future movies. 

How insane is that

Not weird or rare at all, to anyone who lives out here in SoCal. It's not a big deal. Actors and actresses go to church too, or have kids on sports teams, and they have kids who go to both public and private schools. Very common.

If they are making it a big deal, they are demonstrating that they are outsiders. People who live here know it's uncool to act anything but nonchalant. Sure, we might call our best friend and (quietly) squeal "Guess who I just met!" but we would never publicly show any reaction. And posting social media pics counts as a reaction.

Edited by livinginthelight
  • Upvote 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think JinJer are reading here.

Jeremy finally got rid of the socks in his loafers.

  • Haha 12
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CarrotCake said:

I think JinJer are reading here.

Jeremy finally got rid of the socks in his loafers.

Would have been much better if he dumped his elephantine ego instead.

  • Upvote 12
  • Haha 9
  • I Agree 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, nst said:

jeremy and jinger met the original actress who played Micheal J Fox's girlfriend in the back to the future movies. 

How insane is that

Not insane at all given where they are, but it makes me wonder how many of the celebs or "celebs" they run into will actually know who they are. Many of them are really used to taking pics and such with random fans that they probably wouldn't think twice about it, but I wonder if any would be bothered by the connection if they knew what these people represented!

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't run into her. They went to the store that she owns and works at and brought her a bday cupcake. As calculated as you can get, though she's like a bottom level celebrity...

  • Upvote 16
  • WTF 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eponine said:

Not insane at all given where they are, but it makes me wonder how many of the celebs or "celebs" they run into will actually know who they are. Many of them are really used to taking pics and such with random fans that they probably wouldn't think twice about it, but I wonder if any would be bothered by the connection if they knew what these people represented!

why would the "celebrity" include her phone number 

edit 

SHADE JINGER - she replaced the picture of the autograph with the phone number with an actual photo of her and micheal j fox filming 

SHADE 

SHADE 

56 minutes ago, AtlanticTug said:

They didn't run into her. They went to the store that she owns and works at and brought her a bday cupcake. As calculated as you can get, though she's like a bottom level celebrity...

yes but why would she include her phone number on a piece of paper and then jinger replaces it less 24 hours later 

shade 

it's the changing the tire while 3 months pregnant jessa angle 

on another site it's still there. 

HA 

drop the mic Jinger can never escape the net

it is the tire all over again 

10 hours ago, livinginthelight said:

Not weird or rare at all, to anyone who lives out here in SoCal. It's not a big deal. Actors and actresses go to church too, or have kids on sports teams, and they have kids who go to both public and private schools. Very common.

If they are making it a big deal, they are demonstrating that they are outsiders. People who live here know it's uncool to act anything but nonchalant. Sure, we might call our best friend and (quietly) squeal "Guess who I just met!" but we would never publicly show any reaction. And posting social media pics counts as a reaction.

spoken like the girl who went to Malibu in April specifically looking for a place that DD hung out in ......

Edited by nst
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nst said:

why would the "celebrity" include her phone number 

 

It has been explain previuosly that the number is a fake number and one used in the film. 

  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Coconut Flan locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Recent Status Updates

    • Bluebirdbluebell

      Bluebirdbluebell

      Disgusted with Catholic Church over Cardinal Pell's funeral this week. It really reflects poorly on the church and should be a red flag to Catholics.
      · 0 replies
    • PennySycamore

      PennySycamore

      I've been away since about 10 PM on Monday evening.  My husband noticed that my speech was a bit slurred, called my daughter to see if she concurred and they both agreed that I needed to go to the hospital.  There I was taken back within minutes to be evaluated for a stroke.   My BP was sky-high. I. undressed and was helped into a hospital gown.  The PureWick did not work that night so when I had to go I just went.  (I do want a PureWick if I ever get urinary stress incontenence though and would need to wear diapers.). 
      I had a CT scan fairly early the next morning and it confirmed that I'd sufffered a mild stroke,  I had an MRI that afternoon which confirmed the both the mild stroke and no other damage and yet I had another CT scan -this time with a contrast medium injected.  I was allowed the Heart Healthy diet and my BP had dropped to 180/100.  They don'y want to drop the BP too rapidly so it has dropped enough to turn to Lisinipril to drop it further.
      After the ER. I was sent to the ICU and stayed until I was discharged this afternoon.  The staff were all really nice and my husband and two daughters were with me most of the time, helping out.  My oldest daughter's van was in the shop so I let her borrow the MINI since I knew she could drive a stick.  When she was visiting yesterday afternoon, her husband was in the ER waiting on a CT can and today, she was there when the speech pathologist was visiting.  She was able to get some good advice from her as her husband is currently unable to swallow.
      Anyway I'm home.  My dogs and the cat to see me home, especially my dachsie, were happy to see me home.
      A couple of things I learned:
      I need to teach my husband about loading the dishwasher.
      and 
      Jill would never be able to handle bedpans.
      · 7 replies
    • 47of74

      47of74

      Fornicate.  Six more weeks of winter according to Phil.
      · 0 replies
    • Jinder Roles

      Jinder Roles

      Currently obsessed with Laura Mvula, a musical genius
      · 0 replies
    • Bluebirdbluebell

      Bluebirdbluebell

      I highly recommend Not the Good Girl's Youtube channel. She is making great documentaries about cults.
      · 0 replies
    • BlackberryGirl

      BlackberryGirl

      Ohh jeeze, GrandBerry6 just came to me, snuggled his face in my neck and barfed, all over me. In my neck, in my hair, on my face, down inside my nightie all over the front of my nightie. Ohh FUCK! Bath, washed hair, cleaned sofa. Good times, good times.
      · 3 replies
    • Scrabblemaster

      Scrabblemaster

      I danced through my living room feeling awesome. From time to time I do this. Maybe wine is involved. Good music is definitely involved. It is awesome. I recommend it to you. With or without wine.
      · 2 replies
    • Hazelbunny

      Hazelbunny

      After a few months of trying to decide what kind of new computer to get and my brother telling me a Mac would be the best decision I could ever make and my sister telling me that would be the worst and I ought to stick to Windows.... I now have a used Mac. I am trying to get used to it. Not easy, but the Magnifying program is a lot better than the Windows one (that was the ultimate reason for my decision) and FJ works a lot better than on my 10-year old Laptop, too!!  
      · 0 replies
    • WannabeHistorian

      WannabeHistorian

      Y'all, holter monitors suck. And naturally the palpitations that caused this test to be ordered are remarkably absent today. 
      I'm off to go work out in the hopes that triggers it. T minus 10 hours till I get this thing off. 
      · 4 replies
    • 47of74

      47of74

      Fuck Fornicate.  Glad I got in to see this place before the world went to shit.
       
      · 0 replies
  • Recent Blog Entries

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.