Alyssa and John 8: Four Daughters, a New House, and a Pool

[kmachete14]

@GreenBeans I “trained” my baby and now she wakes up, rubs her blanky on her cheek to self sooth, and sleeps 6 hour chunks instead of 2 hours on, 2 hours off, all night. She wakes up happy and smiling babbling and I wake up without sleep deprived hallucinations. It’s not incredibly sad to teach your baby how to knit together sleep cycles. A baby who’s needs are met all day also needs their needs met at night — and sometimes that’s sleep! 

[nelliebelle1197]

8 hours ago, FrumpyAtheist said:

I think a definition of "tolerance" is warranted here. To me tolerance just means not willing to go to war over, willing to have a conversation with, willing to shop peacefully next to at the grocery store and generally willing to intellectually accept differences of belief. I think it's a hallmark of civilized society and, frankly, adulthood. 

Tolerance does not mean you have to agree with someone or be a moral relativist. I'm an atheist and think all religion is dead wrong and harmful. But I 100% tolerate religious people. I suspect most of us hold at least one belief others would find wrong. Tolerance is essential. I'm with Sassy on this.

No, tolerating racism and hate and bigotry is exact opposite of adulthood. It is hiding your head in the sand and letting it go for the sake of peace; you approve of it and allow it to flourish by tolerating it. It is fear and hiding. You do not tolerate what is awful. You fight against it because it oppresses everyone else or step back and wallow in your own privilege. 

They can have their religion but they cannot practice in a way that takes rights away from others. Dan Webster was in Congress trying to take rights away from you and me and impose Christian view of the world via lawmaking. I refuse to tolerate that. He can have his religion but his rights end when he tries to take rights away from any one else. Period. That is the goal of so many of these nut jobs. That is the major difference- you would not think of taking away their rights, but they really really want to take your right to be a frumpy atheist.

Edited April 25, 2021 by nelliebelle1197

[formergothardite]

14 hours ago, SassyPants said:

Sorry, but how is it wrong for them to be intolerant of certain beliefs but ok for me to be intolerant of the converse.

Gotta be the change you want to see.

The only way we can change things is to direct our money and our vote accordingly-

How can we change the world if we are tolerating people who are not just trying to remove rights from gay people but are wanting to wipe them from existence? Reacting in horror to such beliefs and actively speaking out against them seems to be the path to change, not just being polite when people are pushing to actively harm others. 
 

I don’t think it is bad to be intolerant of certain things. Some things we shouldn’t put up with. We shouldn’t tolerate the KKK or Nazis or in this case Dan Webster and his followers. 

[FrumpyAtheist]

A lot of you post as if you know all the political and moral beliefs of everyone you interact with. How do you live your everyday lives if you don't 100% agree with everyone you interact with? Do you need to know who your cashier at th grocery store voted for in order to be able to shop there and be polite? Sounds juvenile, exhausting, and impractical. I disagree strongly with many of the beliefs held by people on this board, for instance, but I feel the way to fight beliefs you disagree with is NOT on the individual level (that's inheritance) but at the ballot box and by civil discourse, not by going around boycotting or lecturing everyone you disagree with. It's not productive and doesn't work.

* intolerance not inheritance 

[formergothardite]

I grew up with some pretty horrific beliefs. One thing that helped me change is that people did react in horror when I said really awful stuff. If people in my life had just quietly tolerated my hateful and dangerous beliefs I wouldn't have started thinking about why these things were bad. I needed people to not tolerate it and to confront me with why what I was believing was bad. They didn't tolerate me saying terrible things that hurt people. We we see bad things we need to speak out. 

Another example is that one of the people who live near us and hangs out primarily with my husband used a slur constantly. My husband spoke to him about why it was so offensive and that he wasn't going to hang out with people who used it. He assumed the man would get mad but he was actually really apologetic and said he has never thought about it and he would make an effort to drop it from his vocabulary because it was just a mindless habit. If my husband had just tolerated it and thought he shouldn't do anything on an individual level then this man might have never thought about what he was saying actually meant. 

This doesn't mean not being civil. It means that when someone says Jews should be killed, you speak up. If someone says gay people shouldn't have rights, say something.  Tolerating hate is encouraging hate. 

 

[SassyPants]

5 hours ago, formergothardite said:

How can we change the world if we are tolerating people who are not just trying to remove rights from gay people but are wanting to wipe them from existence? Reacting in horror to such beliefs and actively speaking out against them seems to be the path to change, not just being polite when people are pushing to actively harm others. 
 

I don’t think it is bad to be intolerant of certain things. Some things we shouldn’t put up with. We shouldn’t tolerate the KKK or Nazis or in this case Dan Webster and his followers. 

Well, Dan Webster is not who we are talking about here. And while I vehemently disagree with his beliefs and acknowledge his powerful position( hence why I mention VOTING), I am very uncomfortable associating his beliefs to the behaviors and actions of Hitler. 
 

To the best of my knowledge the Websters ( not Dan, John nor any others) have verbally advocated for rounding up, imprisoning or killing anyone. 

8 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

No, tolerating racism and hate and bigotry is exact opposite of adulthood. It is hiding your head in the sand and letting it go for the sake of peace; you approve of it and allow it to flourish by tolerating it. It is fear and hiding. You do not tolerate what is awful. You fight against it because it oppresses everyone else or step back and wallow in your own privilege. 

They can have their religion but they cannot practice in a way that takes rights away from others. Dan Webster was in Congress trying to take rights away from you and me and impose Christian view of the world via lawmaking. I refuse to tolerate that. He can have his religion but his rights end when he tries to take rights away from any one else. Period. That is the goal of so many of these nut jobs. That is the major difference- you would not think of taking away their rights, but they really really want to take your right to be a frumpy atheist.

Theoretically, Webster should be checking his religious beliefs at the door before he votes in Congress. People like Webster are the reason we all have to vote. 

20 hours ago, CaptainFunderpants said:

The paradox of tolerance.

He's a Dominionist. He doesn't believe you should have your beliefs tolerated. He believes you should be barefoot and pregnant, homeschooling your brood, that you're not a person -you merely exist as the property of your husband.

Mmm, no, those are not beliefs that should be tolerated in modern society.

But what power does JOHN(not Dan) actually have in terms of my life? He can vote in federal elections, that is all. And FWIW, so can I-

[SassyPants]

I just look at things from a different point of view. A POV that is very much influenced from being bathed in religion -RC for 45 years and 5 years UU ( with a 15 year period of no religion) Please know, I rip fundie ass on this forum on the regular and am no fan. In fact, I’ve never even watched the Bateses’ show. Anyhow, many religious denominations  are very legalistic in nature. There are no gray areas or unknowns. These folks don’t reason, they blindly follow. I’d imagine people like the Websters believe that endorsing, accepting or turning away from something that they have been taught is morally wrong does not come from a position of hatred as someone above mentioned, but from a position of concern. It’s all about being a good witness and role model and saving souls. It’s the old live the sinner, hate the sin-

Are there churches that are actively racist ? With religious tenets that endorse active racism? 

59 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

I grew up with some pretty horrific beliefs. One thing that helped me change is that people did react in horror when I said really awful stuff. If people in my life had just quietly tolerated my hateful and dangerous beliefs I wouldn't have started thinking about why these things were bad. I needed people to not tolerate it and to confront me with why what I was believing was bad. They didn't tolerate me saying terrible things that hurt people. We we see bad things we need to speak out. 

Another example is that one of the people who live near us and hangs out primarily with my husband used a slur constantly. My husband spoke to him about why it was so offensive and that he wasn't going to hang out with people who used it. He assumed the man would get mad but he was actually really apologetic and said he has never thought about it and he would make an effort to drop it from his vocabulary because it was just a mindless habit. If my husband had just tolerated it and thought he shouldn't do anything on an individual level then this man might have never thought about what he was saying actually meant. 

This doesn't mean not being civil. It means that when someone says Jews should be killed, you speak up. If someone says gay people shouldn't have rights, say something.  Tolerating hate is encouraging hate. 

 

I live in a very tolerant area of CA, so what might be considered a bubble, but I’ve never heard anyone publicly say something so horribly hateful and intolerant about another group of people that I felt it needed to be corrected, and I’m cruising toward 70. Now I have no idea what others think and don’t say, but I’ve found that in person, most people tend to think before publicly spewing. 
 

Where I live, not many people would  think to spew about gay people, POC, Jewish folks, indigenous citizens, the aged, the disabled...

Now criminal assholes, yep, fair game.

Edited April 25, 2021 by SassyPants

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, FrumpyAtheist said:

A lot of you post as if you know all the political and moral beliefs of everyone you interact with. How do you live your everyday lives if you don't 100% agree with everyone you interact with? Do you need to know who your cashier at th grocery store voted for in order to be able to shop there and be polite? Sounds juvenile, exhausting, and impractical. I disagree strongly with many of the beliefs held by people on this board, for instance, but I feel the way to fight beliefs you disagree with is NOT on the individual level (that's inheritance) but at the ballot box and by civil discourse, not by going around boycotting or lecturing everyone you disagree with. It's not productive and doesn't work.

* intolerance not inheritance 

I was repulsed by Trump, but still interacted with friends and neighbors who supported him. I used to say that I wasn't going to drop people because they supported Trump, I wasn't going to pick and choose people on that basis.

That is very different than what happened. Here's what happened: I criticized John Webster and his beliefs. Sassypants felt this criticism meant I was being "intolerant."

Do we live in a society where we can't express our disagreement with others? I can't imagine what is wrong with expressing disagreement about a fundie on a fundie snark board.

[SassyPants]

34 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

I was repulsed by Trump, but still interacted with friends and neighbors who supported him. I used to say that I wasn't going to drop people because they supported Trump, I wasn't going to pick and choose people on that basis.

That is very different than what happened. Here's what happened: I criticized John Webster and his beliefs. Sassypants felt this criticism meant I was being "intolerant."

Do we live in a society where we can't express our disagreement with others? I can't imagine what is wrong with expressing disagreement about a fundie on a fundie snark board.

The following is the part of your comment that rubbed me the wrong way. I asked you directly about it, but you have not clarified.
 He does not wish tohelp those who have. This comment had to do with a litany of entitlements that John has experienced in his life, but you state that John does not wish to help others who have had less fortunate  upbringings.

Again, how do you know that John, personally ,does not want to help the impoverishment,  abused, disenfranchised...? Pretty bold statement to make.

[Jackie3]

3 hours ago, SassyPants said:

The following is the part of your comment that rubbed me the wrong way. I asked you directly about it, but you have not clarified.
 He does not wish tohelp those who have. This comment had to do with a litany of entitlements that John has experienced in his life, but you state that John does not wish to help others who have had less fortunate  upbringings.

Again, how do you know that John, personally ,does not want to help the impoverishment,  abused, disenfranchised...? Pretty bold statement to make.

A bold statement? Can I ask about some of the "bold statements" you've made in the last couple of days?

3 hours ago, SassyPants said:

The following is the part of your comment that rubbed me the wrong way. I asked you directly about it, but you have not clarified.
 He does not wish tohelp those who have. This comment had to do with a litany of entitlements that John has experienced in his life, but you state that John does not wish to help others who have had less fortunate  upbringings.

Again, how do you know that John, personally ,does not want to help the impoverishment,  abused, disenfranchised...? Pretty bold statement to make.

A bold staetment? Can I ask about some of the "bold statements" you've made in the last couple of days? How do you know that Anna perceives herself this way?

 

Wow, I'm definitely not good at embedding quotes. But my point is, we all make comments like this one. We assume we know what the fundies are thinking based on the info we have. My question is--why do you defend John so? 

[Anna Bolinas]

9 hours ago, FrumpyAtheist said:

How do you live your everyday lives if you don't 100% agree with everyone you interact with? Do you need to know who your cashier at th grocery store voted for in order to be able to shop there and be polite?

If the cashier at the grocery store told me that, as a woman, I should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and allow my husband to make every decision for me, I would have a problem with that. If the cashier at the grocery store called someone a slur, I would have a problem with that. But if the cashier at the grocery store just does their job, and then the interaction ends, I don't have a problem with that. But it's a not an either/or situation--I can both interact with people without knowing their political affiliations and call out egregious bigotry.

And I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that you have to interrogate everyone you come across about every facet of their political beliefs. But like we know what the Websters believe, so of course we're going to criticize them because they've made their nonsense quite obvious.

[BeccaGrim]

7 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

If the cashier at the grocery store told me that, as a woman, I should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and allow my husband to make every decision for me, I would have a problem with that. If the cashier at the grocery store called someone a slur, I would have a problem with that. But if the cashier at the grocery store just does their job, and then the interaction ends, I don't have a problem with that. But it's a not an either/or situation--I can both interact with people without knowing their political affiliations and call out egregious bigotry.

And I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that you have to interrogate everyone you come across about every facet of their political beliefs. But like we know what the Websters believe, so of course we're going to criticize them because they've made their nonsense quite obvious.

That's right! They discuss it. Quite publicly, usually every Sunday when they get out of Church and his father has made a career out of his beliefs. On a Fundie board talking about Fundies it is fine to discuss and critique those beliefs IMHO.  Also, if the cashier did such a thing to me at the grocery store, I'd avoid her line, and frankly might say something to her too.  

[HeartsAFundie]

1 hour ago, BeccaGrim said:

That's right! They discuss it. Quite publicly, usually every Sunday when they get out of Church and his father has made a career out of his beliefs. On a Fundie board talking about Fundies it is fine to discuss and critique those beliefs IMHO.  Also, if the cashier did such a thing to me at the grocery store, I'd avoid her line, and frankly might say something to her too.  

Didn't Steve Maxwell have a run-in with a grocery store cashier and attempt to "save" them?  Though in that case the shoes were on the opposite feet.  

[nelliebelle1197]

This is straw man central. One is not tolerating the abhorrent beliefs of the QAnon-believing grocery store clerk because one will rarely find out that Susie Checker thinks John Podesta is bathing in baby's blood. And if one does find out Susie is proclaiming the glory of Q drops while she rings up the roast, then really Susie needs to be reported to her manager for inappropriate behavior. Susie would also need to be reported if she was showing everyone her Bernie buttons and screamed for $15 minimum wage while working. The reason these things don't matter is the situations where you have to be civil to Susie QAnon typically happen in situations where you will never find out about her racism or CT nonsense. If she lets you know, she deserves pushback.

My husband owns his own business and a Q supporter who carries guns and flys Q and Trump flags all over his property (he currently for some unknown reason, living in our area, the bluest area in our purple state - 93% Biden) recently tried to hire him. My husband no thanks and turned down the job, making it clear he was not comfortable working for someone who is so opposite of his own moral structure. You can push back, you can do it politely and you don't have to tolerate it for civility.

[CaptainFunderpants]

21 hours ago, FrumpyAtheist said:

A lot of you post as if you know all the political and moral beliefs of everyone you interact with. How do you live your everyday lives if you don't 100% agree with everyone you interact with? Do you need to know who your cashier at th grocery store voted for in order to be able to shop there and be polite? Sounds juvenile, exhausting, and impractical. I disagree strongly with many of the beliefs held by people on this board, for instance, but I feel the way to fight beliefs you disagree with is NOT on the individual level (that's inheritance) but at the ballot box and by civil discourse, not by going around boycotting or lecturing everyone you disagree with. It's not productive and doesn't work.

* intolerance not inheritance 

But for the most part I do and I make a point of knowing?

In March 2020, I completely changed my shopping habits; I opted to shop exclusively at Trader Joe's and Costco, because those were the stores that were enforcing a mask requirement.

I live in an incredibly liberal area and so local elections are often discussed and you know peoples politics pretty quickly after talking to them. The ones that have intolerant beliefs I keep at arm's length. Same with family. My parents always prioritized keeping intolerant family members at distance, and to this day we're low-contact with probably 90% of our extended family.

While I have acquaintances with abhorrent beliefs, they have zero desire to be close with me and I have zero desire to be close with them. Even in terms of jobs; I ultimately quit a job I loved because my beliefs on a particular issue got more entrenched and I couldn't stand working there knowing that they heavily supported something I didn't.

For some of us, it is that big of a deal, and it's not that 100% thing; it's if you're a Republican, you're never getting past the acquaintance stage, straight-up. The details don't really matter.

That said: one of my now close friends was a fairly passive Republican for a long time and then the 2016 election happened and it brought him to his senses and now he's a hardcore Democrat. I'm open to people changing, but until they have, they'll be kept at arm's length.

[SassyPants]

15 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

A bold statement? Can I ask about some of the "bold statements" you've made in the last couple of days?

A bold staetment? Can I ask about some of the "bold statements" you've made in the last couple of days? How do you know that Anna perceives herself this way?

 

Wow, I'm definitely not good at embedding quotes. But my point is, we all make comments like this one. We assume we know what the fundies are thinking based on the info we have. My question is--why do you defend John so? 

As mentioned above, I don’t watch the show and don’t follow John on SM, so I can’t say I’ve ever heard him say or seen him do anything overtly malicious or hateful. Does he parrot his church’s lingo, yep, much like 99.9% of church attendees do. 
I also think it’s wrong to frame everything as coming from a position of hate as I mentioned above. 
John, like many hard core believers, is guilty of lacking intellectual curiosity-

Now his dad is evaluated differently because he has a very powerful federal position. He is free to have his beliefs, and we are free to disagree and vote accordingly.
 

 

[FrumpyAtheist]

Boy this thread will certainly help anyone understand why America is so divided and hostile. 

[CaptainFunderpants]

2 hours ago, FrumpyAtheist said:

Boy this thread will certainly help anyone understand why America is so divided and hostile. 

Because one side is off the rails and batshit?

If the Democrats were our conservative/ring wing party (which they would be, in a civilized country) I'd be great with it. Today's average Democrats are very respectable Republicans.

[UnicornHunter]

It irritates me to no end that in her Q&A someone asked what her pregnancy diet is like and she said “oh I literally eat everything I want.”

A few questions later someone asked how much weight she gains during pregnancy and she replied “20 pounds with the first two.”

These statements are incompatible Alyssa. I don’t care if she wants to restrict her eating while pregnant to gain LESS than the recommended amount but don’t be flippant about it and act like you didn’t try to stay as thin as possible since that’s one of your few personality traits.

[nausicaa]

5 hours ago, CaptainFunderpants said:

If the Democrats were our conservative/ring wing party (which they would be, in a civilized country) I'd be great with it. Today's average Democrats are very respectable Republicans.

People love to trot this out, but it's really not true. I'm assuming by "civilized country" you primarily mean western Europe so I'll focus on that--with the caveat that western European is a diverse place. 

The United States has much less restrictive abortion laws than nearly every country in Europe, I cannot think of a major European left wing politician who has run on the kind of late term abortion policies even most moderate Dems support. Requiring identification to vote is  a non-controversial issue in Europe that nearly every single left wing politician supports. But possibly the most major refutation to your claim is in the realm of immigration, where the policies of moderates like Biden and even a lot of Republicans (including Bush) are far to the left of someone like Macron, and even most of the left wing in France. Same for birthright citizenship.

The separation of church and state is also not as strictly supported in many European countries, and banning or restricting the activities and dress of religious minorities has much more support from the polity as well as left wing politicians, whereas such support here would be a major setback for any Democratic politician. Marijuana laws are another issue Dems in the U.S. are swinging left on as compared to their European counterparts. 

But then again, claiming you will outright not be more than an acquaintance with a Republican (nearly 30% of the United States is a registered Republican btw--though that doesn't mean they always vote that way) then you're going to find yourself in quite the echo chamber and that's going to lead to a lot of false assumptions like the one you made above. Nuance is difficult to maintain when you're only hearing one, simplistic side of multi-faceted issues. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by nausicaa

[Mrs Ms]

3 hours ago, UnicornHunter said:

It irritates me to no end that in her Q&A someone asked what her pregnancy diet is like and she said “oh I literally eat everything I want.”

A few questions later someone asked how much weight she gains during pregnancy and she replied “20 pounds with the first two.”

These statements are incompatible Alyssa. I don’t care if she wants to restrict her eating while pregnant to gain LESS than the recommended amount but don’t be flippant about it and act like you didn’t try to stay as thin as possible since that’s one of your few personality traits.

She gains so little because she is sick as a dog her entire pregnancy! ? If I remember correctly she threw up 7 times in one evening within her last week of pregnancy. She was hospitalised for dehydration WHILE on medication to help with her incredible nausea. 
She is a vain twit, but this has nothing to do with it.

[justmy2cents]

3 hours ago, UnicornHunter said:

It irritates me to no end that in her Q&A someone asked what her pregnancy diet is like and she said “oh I literally eat everything I want.”

A few questions later someone asked how much weight she gains during pregnancy and she replied “20 pounds with the first two.”

These statements are incompatible Alyssa. I don’t care if she wants to restrict her eating while pregnant to gain LESS than the recommended amount but don’t be flippant about it and act like you didn’t try to stay as thin as possible since that’s one of your few personality traits.

I have to defend Alyssa here. I'm someone who's struggled with weight for most of my adult life, except for during pregnancy. I was an average weight when I became pregnant and only gained 18 lbs after losing 9 in the beginning. I ate whatever I wanted, though it wasn't much since I lost my appetite. My baby was pushing up on my stomach limiting how much I could eat. I wish I could have my pregnancy metabolism now.

[Mrs Ms]

She gets hyperemesis gravidarum (spelling?) So an actual medical thing, not just loss of appetite. (Though that already sucks!)

[CaptainFunderpants]

1 hour ago, nausicaa said:

People love to trot this out, but it's really not true. I'm assuming by "civilized country" you primarily mean western Europe so I'll focus on that--with the caveat that western European is a diverse place. 

The United States has much less restrictive abortion laws than nearly every country in Europe, I cannot think of a major European left wing politician who has run on the kind of late term abortion policies even most moderate Dems support. Requiring identification to vote is  a non-controversial issue in Europe that nearly every single left wing politician supports. But possibly the most major refutation to your claim is in the realm of immigration, where the policies of moderates like Biden and even a lot of Republicans (including Bush) are far to the left of someone like Macron, and even most of the left wing in France. Same for birthright citizenship.

The separation of church and state is also not as strictly supported in many European countries, and banning or restricting the activities and dress of religious minorities has much more support from the polity as well as left wing politicians, whereas such support here would be a major setback for any Democratic politician. Marijuana laws are another issue Dems in the U.S. are swinging left on as compared to their European counterparts. 

But then again, claiming you will outright not be more than an acquaintance with a Republican (nearly 30% of the United States is a registered Republican btw--though that doesn't mean they always vote that way) then you're going to find yourself in quite the echo chamber and that's going to lead to a lot of false assumptions like the one you made above. Nuance is difficult to maintain when you're only hearing one, simplistic side of multi-faceted issues. 

I'm honestly not crazy left wing myself. I've taken the 'What are your politics' quizzes for various European countries and I end up usually between their two more moderate parties.

That said: I don't agree with the Dems on birthright citizenship at all, i think it needs to go ASAP. I also think we should have an official national language (that being English). I'm not that far to the left myself, but at the same time Republicans in this country are 100% totally insane, so... I don't know why I would associate with them? I am fiscally conservative; fiscally conservative means universal healthcare/pre-K/maternity leave, etc.

I'm an Eisenhower Republican ?

And I don't know that I live in an echo chamber; not being friends with people doesn't mean I don't talk to them, it just means that in my limited free time they're not a priority. They're not the people I end up close to at work/activities/etc. And why would they be? They don't think I deserve rights. I'm not about to get all cozy with them.

Good to know about other countries restrictions on late term abortions though. The only thing that keeps me sane is knowing that I have access to one should something go horribly, horribly wrong. It's not like I'm all "oh ho ho, I can't wait until I get pregnant and then I'm going to sit on my hands and abort my fetus at eight months" it's that catastrophic things happen during pregnancies and I like to know that the worst-case-scenarios are prepared for.

It's also not like I fantasize about moving to a "civilized" country; I have the education and work credentials to move, but I'm committed to staying and fighting here.

[FrumpyAtheist]

Moving on from the boring political discussion I come to FJ to escape...

Agree with previous poster that HG is a serious medical condition and can legit cause you to lose or not gain weight in pregnancy. I'm not convinced that's the whole story with Alyssa, though. I suspect she also diets and tries to stay slim in pregnancy, especially her first as a newlywed. I think the fact that she gained more weight with successive pregnancies despite claiming to get sicker with each one proves it's less about the sickness than about control and being attractive.

Sad that for her being  at the young, most attractive stage of adulthood had to coincide with married life AND having kids.