Michelle Duggar flipped out over gay crew member

[TexasBushwhacker]

http://defamer.gawker.com/tell-your-duggar-tales-did-michelle-duggar-get-a-gay-c-1706502185|

This is an interesting story from a crew member of 17 Kids and Counting. Enjoy!

[In_The_Wind]

1. Did she think he was hot?

[Buzz Clik]

2. Did they lose a couple of kids along the way?

Two free range children went maverick?

Bookkeeping error?

[TexasBushwhacker]

7. 17 Kids and Counting was the original title

This took place during the first season, in 2008.

[Buzz Clik]

9. Never heard of it. Until yesterday, I never of heard of the 19-child sequel.

[onehandle]

3. Gay people remind her of the time she found all of that gay porn in her husband's closet.

A painful memory.

[bettyellen]

5. You should delete this homophobic bullshit.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. I posted an excerpt of the reality because this thread was going to be all lols and rolfs

nt

[bettyellen]

13. Really gross to see this "joke" that slurs gay folk. Thanks for posting the facts.

[MADem]

29. No one is being "slurred" unless you think it is a slur to be gay or enjoy a bit of porn.

I think the poster's goal in posting that snark is to illustrate HYPOCRISY--not to insult gay people in any way. Religious fundamentalists who are gay or bisexual often are the worst when it comes to excoriating gay people--they go crazy about the topic, because they are living a huge lie and they think that by disparaging what they are, that it will somehow "cure" them of being ... themselves. Ted Haggard, of course, is the most famous gay-hating gay preacher, but there are others.

When we look at the Duggars, what do we see?

This is a family that wants the girls to be PURE until marriage, and their son was MOLESTING--not fondling--MOLESTING them. And they--the parents--covered it up!!!

This is a family that HATES sexual expression--so any encounters with PORN would be viewed as VERBOTEN.

This is a family that DESPISES homosexuals, and says they are going to hell--so the fact that one of their own might be gay would be anathema to them.

It's a pointed barb the poster is making, but it drives the point home that the Duggars are a bunch of lying hypocritical assholes who condone abuse and cover up wrongdoing when it comes to their lives. They are the first to excoriate others for sexual orientation that is part and parcel of what a person is, and they are the first to EXCUSE sexual perversion when it comes to one of their own--even when their OWN is ABUSING their OWN. Such a hypothetical outcome would simply be a bit of Schaudenfreude, as Al Gore might say. The family would be forced to recalibrate their hate. But it's not a slur (except to hateful religious fundamentalists, and really, who cares what they think?).

According to some accounts, around ten percent of our population is gay. Between all those Duggars, one or two might be, too. I hope any gay Duggars would step forward and reject the conduct of their relatives. Of course, since they are religious, they'd have to do it in a religious context-- "They are wrong in their hate and I hope the Lord will forgive them," or something like that. I've never watched their dumbass show (grab remote/click) but if a couple of Duggars came out and said something like that, I'd tune in!

[Ms. Toad]

32. It is not what I think - it is how the poster is using it -

which is certainly not as a positive attribute. You can't use homosexuality to slam someone without implying it is a bad thing. It used to be pretty standard that comments like this would be hidden - with only the rare one getting a jury like this one. Recently, though, more and more supposedly progressive people on DU don't seem to understanding that you can't use homosexuality (or mental illness, or anything else for that matter) as a weapon without implying it is a bad thing.

Being gay should NEVER be used as an insult on DU.

[MADem]

35. I don't think the poster is using it the way you think the poster is using it.

The poster is suggesting that ignorant people with bigoted attitudes who take a trait that most NORMAL people regard as "neutral" -- after all, you are what you are, whether you believe that "God" made you or you're just the creation of two biological beings--and who are appalled by that neutral trait, would get one hell of a wake-up call if they were compelled to face their bigotry head on.

No one is "using" homosexuality anymore than they are "using" heterosexuality. It's part of the human condition, like blue, green or brown eyes. People who get UPSET by it -- for whatever reason-- are the "joke" here. They are the ones being mocked.

I just don't quite understand why you are regarding being gay as an insult, when the object of the supposition was to mock the discomfort of matriarch who taught bigotry to her children, covered up for a molester, and didn't get help for her own children/victims. The supposition slams the Missus for HER bigotry--that's the focus of it. I really don't understand your squeamishness.

Others in this thread have pointed out how the most virulent anti-gay rightwing fundamentalist sorts (Ted Haggerd, e.g.) are often trying to "pray away the gay" themselves. Mrs. Duggar had a gay camera crew member on her show BANISHED for his entirely natural orientation. That's as stupid as banishing someone for being blue-eyed, or red-haired.

The poster simply wanted her to enjoy a dose of her own stupidity.

[Ms. Toad]

36. Then why assert anything about Jim Bob's sexuality at all?

You can point out her homophobia without making any comment on Jim Bob's sexuality. Unless you really think they were celebrating Jim Bob sexuality.

I am not "squeamish." I am offended because my sexuality is being used to insult someone. Why is that so hard to understand?

Calling someone a shithead is an insult because being a shithead is a bad thing.
Calling someone cruel is an insult because being cruel is a bad thing.
So when you call someone gay as an insult, you are saying that being gay is a bad thing - otherwise it is not an effective insult.

[MADem]

37. You know what a straw man is, I presume?

The supposition (it wasn't an assertion) was in aid of presenting a scenario where Mrs. Duggar--who banished a gay man from the "Seventeen Kids" set--would be forced to confront HER OWN BIGOTRY.

Look, if you don't want to take the point, I can't make you. You just aren't seeing the comment the way most people here are seeing it.

"Gay" is NOT a synonym for either "shitheads" or "cruel." See--you keep losing me. It sounds like you are trying to come up with some sort of "equivalence" again.

One more time--there's nothing "wrong" about being gay. It is a NEUTRAL condition. Only BIGOTS find something "wrong" with it--and the BIGOT in the comment is the hate-filled Mrs. Duggar, who banishes people for being gay.

[Ms. Toad]

38. When you use something as an insult

whether that something is shithead or cruel - or gay, you are implying it is bad. Name calling insults don't work unless you are implying the thing you are calling them is bad.

Period.

We've been over this ad nauseum on DU with respect to using gay as an insult, using "tard" as an insult, etc. Using a group of people as an insult is offensive.

[MADem]

40. Look, we're just going to have to disagree on this. I don't think being gay is an insult.

YOU are the one that compared "gay" to "shitheads" and "cruel" -- NOT ME.

I don't think the state of being gay is any more "offensive" than having brown eyes, or gray hair, or size nine feet.

It just IS. Period.

If you can't "get" that the target of that comment was the BIGOT, I just can't help you understand that. You are determined to take offense.

I suppose, by that light, that Michael Moore's excellent performance art piece on his old AWFUL TRUTH show was somehow "insulting" as well? After all, he was "using" gay people to shine a light on the conduct of bigots....so I guess it's Under the Big Pink Bus with him, too?

[Matariki]

20. The post reads more as a reference to the fact that virulent homophobes are often deeply closeted

as opposed to the post being homophobic.

[bettyellen]

24. Oh please, it's a homophobic concept - to imagine gays are responsible for their own persecution....

You see these baseless accusations all the time.
Making fun of the guy because you imagine he has gay porn? Yeah, it's using homosexuality as a slur.

[Matariki]

25. I don't understand what you are saying

There are studies supporting the fact that a very high number of homophobes have buried homosexual tendencies (or not so buried, which they struggle with and are deeply ashamed of). I don't see how that's saying that 'gays are responsible for their own persecution'(?)

I can post links to those studies if you'd like.

[bettyellen]

26. Because in essence you're using homosexuality to make fun of him when it's completely besides the

Point and would make his actions no worse or better than what they are. It's a derailment, and in this case- actually bolsters the Duggars' bullshit argument that being gay and pedophilia are linked- despite the fact his victims were all female.
It's foolish and derogatory to gay people to link them to homophobic bigots because "some were".

[Matariki]

28. Three things, Betty

First - *I'm* not 'using homosexuality to make fun of him' - I merely pointed out that the motives and meaning of the post you criticized were probably not homophobic.

Second - pointing out the fact that a homophobe's obsession with homosexuality is very often rooted in their own unresolved sexuality in no way links gay people to homophobic bigots. That doesn't even make sense.

And third - I don't disagree with you that those sort of 'jokes' are often insensitive, and as you say, border on using homosexuality as the punchline. In the instances where the person is closeted, it's just sad and tragic. Actually, their homophobia is tragic whatever the reason for it.

[Ms. Toad]

34. Neither is it the conscious intent by many on DU to insult people with intellectual disabilities

when they stick "tard" on the end of a word they are using to insult someone else

But whether that was the conscious intent, it only "works" if the concept being used to slam someone else is perceived to be a bad thing.

The intent does not have to be conscious to be hurtful, and to have no place on DU once it is pointed out (if the author is truly unaware of the impact and the historical conversations that have taken place on DU on this matter).

[Ms. Toad]

33. When you use being gay as an insult,

you are inherently saying that being gay is something negative. No - it is not just pointing out hypocrisy, generally - but especially when there has not been any suggestion that Jim Bob actually is gay. There is no reason for that comment other than to insult him by suggesting he is gay.

It took a long time for many on DU to understand that concept and, unfortunately, I have watched that particular bigotry creep back in over the last few months. I'm appalled at the number of posts (and jurors) who seem to have blanked out the long painful conversations - some of which contributed to the gay purge from DU a few years ago before we originally go the point across (among many) that it is not acceptable to use being gay as an insult.

[LostOne4Ever]

39. But even in those studies not ALL homophobes are gay

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Some are just bigots.

The joke has implication that all homophobes are self hating gay men/women/other.

Of course, I don't think that was the posters intention. I think they were wanting to show support for the LBGTQ community, insult the actual homophobes, and be humorous all at the same time.

It meant to be pro-LGBTQ but also furthers a nasty stereotype against LBGTQ people. It is a micro-aggression.[/font]

[Major Nikon]

10. Results...

On Sun May 24, 2015, 02:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Gay people remind her of the time she found all of that gay porn in her husband's closet.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6720640

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Alleging that someone is gay as an insult only is offensive.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun May 24, 2015, 02:30 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster is not using "gay" as an insult. The Duggars are homophobes.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: WTF? Hide this crap.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I fail to understand the alert. I only find homophobia in the Duggars, not in the post.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[romanic]

19. I'm gay

and I laughed cause it's probably true; some of the most loud X-tian zealots are gayer than a rainbow filled sky raining down Skittles.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Excerpt

"Michelle asked point blank “So ... you’re .... gay???” The four of us are staring at this from a distance as if we’re on the edge of our seats, completely shocked that someone in 2008 would even do that, and Jimmy ... suddenly strikes a pose like a model in a pinup photo, and responds “Well, darling, depends on who’s asking!” Holy shit, the four of us watching were doubled over in pain laughing so hard at this. ...

Well, when we returned, we found out that Jimmy was removed, fired from the set, and transferred to another production, and that none of us are to breathe a word of what we saw to anyone. The official reason given to pacify the Duggars was that he was “fired due to causing conflicts with the talent”. Talent! Amazing how such a small sentence can contain so much hyperbole. He was fired 100% because he was gay and for no other reason. The conflict was because he was gay."
http://defamer.gawker.com/tell-your-duggar-tales-did-michelle-duggar-get-a-gay-c-1706502185

[NaturalHigh]

8. What makes these people so special anyway?

I'll never understand how these egomaniacs are supposed to be special just because they're good at reproducing little Duggars.

[hatrack]

11. Because they're on the tee-vee, which makes you sparkly and special and magic!

It also makes you wise, and free to spout off whatever nonsense crawls through your hateful brain (see also: "Robinson, Phil&quot

[NaturalHigh]

15. Yeah, but I don't understand how they got on the tee-vee.

I mean, sure, they have nineteen kids, but do people not understand how that happens or something? To me they're just nitwits who never sat through a junior high sex ed course.

[RichGirl]

21. They aren't special...they are an oddity.

That's what TLC likes: Kate with her 8 kids, Cody with his 5 wives, people who weigh 800 pounds, hoarders, little people, conjoined twins, a while back they had the mermaid girl whose legs were fused together...etc. The oddest of the oddities was a brief show about the Palins of Alaska.

[NaturalHigh]

23. You know, I hadn't thought about that.

If I put on 600 pounds, may I too can be a TV star!

[MADem]

31. You've nailed their marketing paradigm! nt

[JHB]

14. The Duggars were more like an "attraction" than "talent"...

The show was half freak-show and half promotional tool for a cult.

[TexasBushwhacker]

16. TLC should change it's name to TFC

for The Freak Channel.

[davidpdx]

22. Once they lose their TV show they should take their freak show on the road

as a traveling circus. They could bring along Sarah Palin for good measure.

[BrotherIvan]

18. I would pay money to have seen her face

Loving some Jimmy right now. Glad he's still working and not having to hang around those nasty cultists is like a bonus.

[TexasBushwhacker]

12. And TLC had to have known about Josh

back in 2006. Oprah Winfrey was already in talks with the Discovery Network (which owns TLC) about starting OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network). Read more here:

http://blindgossip.com/?p=71479#more-71479|

[MisterP]

17. it's like with the Cosby case: suddenly a decade of what appear to be random jokes

turn out to be little signs that the writers dropped in because EVERYBODY knew, but couldn't do anything about it yet

[MADem]

30. OPRAH found out about Josh and refused to do a special on that family because of it.

http://defamer.gawker.com/the-web-has-known-about-josh-duggar-for-years-when-did-1706258269

In 2006, Oprah Winfrey canceled an appearance on her show by Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, the parents whose 15 children had made them famous not just to fellow evangelical Christians but to the secular world as well.

The loss of the Oprah special was no obstacle to the Duggars, who continued to star in specials for Discovery Health, and who within two years had their own TLC show, 19 Kids and Counting. But Winfrey’s about-face was a hot topic of rumor among the obsessive communities of Duggar watchers online, where it was whispered that Winfrey and her producers had canceled the show after discovering some kind of impropriety—at best, deeply retrograde beliefs about gender roles; at worst, the possibility that eldest son Josh Duggar had molested one or more of his younger sisters. ... Reading a Springdale police report filed in 2006 and released by InTouch yesterday, it seems clear Jim Bob and Michelle knew about Josh’s misconduct from the beginning—and helped him avoid prosecution.

But they weren’t the only ones who knew of Josh’s predation. So did Oprah Winfrey, her producers, the Springdale Police Department—and, apparently, a huge community of message board posters online.

All of which raises the question: When did Discovery Communications—the corporate parent of Discovery Health and TLC, which has profited off of every Duggar birth, courtship, and marriage announcement—find out? ...

[JaneyVee]

27. Imagine how FOX News would've covered this the other way.

If a gay couple had a straight crew members fired.