Many have done it, and so have you. Calling it “woke liberal” and JoJo was just offended because she was thin skinned. Instead of just saying what it is: inappropriate. By shifting the focus onto the reaction and suggesting it wasn’t something to be offended by automatically trivialises what he said and my point as a straight person, you don’t really get it.

As for the second point, again, straight people don’t get to decide what is and isn’t weaponisation of offence and then when it crosses their line into that give “pushback”. By suggesting that you’re essentially insinuating that gay people are allowed to object to homophobia but only on the parameters set by straight people. Anything louder than a quiet chant and there will be pushback, and you seem to be suggesting that pushback is justifiable.

Gay people have been fed threads of freedom and acceptance over decades and now they finally have hold of the end of the rope certain members of society have decided they’ve been given too much.

And I know this is coming across as me solely going for you, I don’t meant it to, it’s just you are the only one talking to me haha.

I think he's the only one in there that can take a joke.

gurl please

How does 'woke liberal' erase anything? It is simply a label to separate modern 'progressive' authoritarian liberal from mainstream 90s liberal.

It doesn't erase anything.

I'm actually a JoJo fan, but she is incredibly brittle shelled at times due to her upbringing. Woke 'liberalism' definitely also plays into this because it as an ideology teaches that there is social power in being seen as the victim. People are more complex than just boiling them down to 'gay or 'straight'.

If that kind of honest discussion is 'erasure' to you, then I guess we are never gonna agree on that so ok.


Straight people are under no obligation to allow themselves to be bullied into silence by the weaponisation of fake offence.

As you said yourself before, they are allowed an opinion. Gay people don't get to silence or control them, any more than the LGBT+ community should be silenced.

Whether you think it's 'classy' or not is another matter, but you are allowed to think whatever you want about it ofc


This is untrue.

It's not that they have 'too much', it's how a lot of the more radicalised side of LGBT+ choose to use it that causes many on the receiving end of it to push back.

Many now have the rope and just want to use it to whip straight people with it as a revenge. I don't blame many straight people for not wanting to put up with that.

The sweeping statements like this one don't help either though.

It can come across as man bashing imo.

Are you being serious?:joker:

Can we reach a compromise - he really doesn't seem like a homophobic person, but it was a homophobic remark ... even it was a joke/banter, which can be offensive if not played right.

Tbf any group can face prejudice, including straight people for being straight.

Granted I don't believe Glenn to be Hetrophobic, and obviously it's nowhere near as prevalent as Homophobia.

really?

when was the last time you came across homophobia as you go about your daily life?

if ever?

I agree with you on this.

I don't know what kind of solution we as a society can come up with to combat the radicalisation that's happening to both men and women either, without negatively impacting free speech.

Mickey naming Daley and Danny as his favs in there..... that should shut down the homophobia debate surely, it is possible not to like a gay person and not be homophobic, that said I think he and Jo Jo have resolved their issues now so not sure why its being flogged in here ....the horse is dead

I also agree with this.

I do think that a lot of men feel attacked by the Entertainment industry and the media in general, which is why people like Trump, Tate, Farage, and Tommy Robinson have gained such huge followings within the male demographic (especially white straight men.)

To be balanced though, people like Anita Sarkeesian was only able to garner such a big following, and radicalized some Feminists was because those women didn't feel like that they were welcomed into certain activities that were dominated by straight men.

Basically it keeps going full circle where both sides keep trying to outdo each other with how hateful they can be towards the other gender.

Gosh, I had forgotten about Sarkeesian... :joker:

That's going back to the Gamergate days! GG was never about that though, tbh, but that's a whole conversation in itself, probably not for here haha

I think that's fair.

I watch Melonie Mac videos for starters.:laugh:

So never in your day to day life me neither

its almost like its been weaponised by activists....

:skull:

I sincerely appreciate the olive branch, but I just think 'homophobic' is just so badly overused.

In the end, I guess the only person on the end of his words was JoJo and she has clearly made peace with it and moved on, so at this point I am happy to as well.

You’re not gay

I'm practically a shut-in.:joker:

I do understand that it is a complicated topic tbf.

Regarding Mickey, it's very possible he says something so much worse and we will have something new to ruminate about shortly, so I think if there's a hole to be dug, it can certainly be dug a bit deeper... he alone has that capability...

For Jojo, it will be interesting if their earlier interaction will hold weight over his future behavior in his house... whether he evolves or devolves...
That's the true advantage to keeping Jack. He has so much more potential to annoy the hell out of HMs and some of us will root for it, I think... :laugh: If he makes it to the Final and places somewhere up top, that will be quite the feat.

Your comment originally suggested that Mickey made his comments in the current climate of “woke liberalism” and so your insinuation is that JoJo took offence to gain social power, rather than because the comments were actually just offensive. That is undermining the homophobic remarks.

I agree in theory, but you yourself are deciding what offence is fake and what isn’t and then playing victim based off of your own made up benchmark, which isn’t actually reality.

If there is proof the offence is actually fake then fair enough, as that’s just a form of manipulation and is wrong but my point is you are setting a level of what you deem to be offence worthy and what isn’t and anything that veers into the “what isn’t” is then categorised as “weaponised fake offence”. My point is, as a straight person, that is not your level to set.

I think we should rationalise this further: your version of straight people being silenced extends to: “we can’t say what we want without repercussions to the offensive thing we said anymore”. In this case it’s that Mickey can’t joke about tying a young woman up and ‘changing’ her sexuality, he isn’t allowed to refer to her as ‘the lesbian’ and that he can’t call her a fag. Taking offence to that is either using it to gain social power, is being thin skinned or is just fake and is simultaneously silencing straight people.

Whereas gay people being silenced is: literally living as a different person short term or long term for actual safety or so straight people aren’t uncomfortable with gay people just existing.

For example, I knew I was gay from an early age and pretended to be straight until around 20. It was so ****ing exhausting, honestly. When I came out; I was the only gay guy in my friendship group. How open do you think my friends were in hearing me talk about my attraction to men; who in the bar I thought was good looking, my sex life? Despite me hearing it all from them about women since mid-teens. Now all is good, but even when out initially my straight mates just didn't want to hear about my gayness: I was still being silenced by straight people who couldn’t handle hearing from me all the things they had been guilty of speaking to me about. It was ****ing repressing even after 10 years of knowingly being in the closet and hiding every quirk about me I thought might be a ‘tell’ in exposing me as a gay boy.

Sorry you can’t say fag anymore without it being called homophobic though, I guess.

I am not going to deny there aren’t radicalised members of the LGBT community; that would be stupid and dishonest. But I do think there needs to be a bit of honesty here about the power imbalance that each group of people have at either end of the spectrum.

At the end of the day, LGBT people make up 3% of the population. Let’s say for instance a third of that are super hardcore radicalised LGBT people (which is generous), you’re talking 1% of the worlds population. They can’t really illicit much change and certainly not change that makes it hard to be straight. Not change that invalidates your marriage, gets you killed, changes the way you interact with your partner in public, limits your travel, changes the language you use to hide your sexuality just incase.

On the flip side, the extreme on the other end of the spectrum will make up far more of the population and yield far more power. Look at the US right now, rights are being removed for trans people (and for women, but that’s a whole different subject), books are being banned to quell education and representation and quite honestly it wouldn’t surprise me if they do to gay marriage what they did with abortion and have it decided on a state by state basis which would end up invalidating marriages between gay people.

The change that can and has and will effect gay people due to the radicalised right is far more dangerous than any radicalised LGBT person can do purely by the fact that straight people make up 97% of the population. Their straightness is never ever going to be under actual threat through the actions of the 1% of extreme LGBT people.

It’s been good to debate with you as always but I feel like I cant continue this conversation without repeating myself, though I will happily read your reply. I appreciate your time in this exchange. Have a good day.

BREAKING NEWS: Straight man who has never faced homophobia claims homophobia doesn’t exist.

In other news: Blind man who has never seen grass claims grass is fake news.

…not to detract and derail what’s a very interesting sharing of opinions between BBXX and Vesavius in offering different perspectives…the initial remarks that caused upset and offence from Mickey…?..were not only said to a gay person, the offensive term wasn’t just directed at a gay person…it was all pointedly directed at a gay female and the ‘tie you up’ comment was definitely something that many females would find very disturbing and wouldn’t find any ‘lightness of joking’ in at all in any world but most definitely in this current world…and I do feel that’s often forgotten or overshadowed with females…so I do think this all quite layered because no such remarks were made to any male of the house…only a young female…

…I was watching a vid of a bonding chat with JoJo and Mickey/discussing their tattoos…and it was all very sweet and it made me think…I do think that Mickey maybe struggles in relating to females other than on a ‘physical attraction/sexual’ type basis…I don’t know if that’s true, that’s just my own pondering but the tattoo chat they has was so endearing because it had such a ‘father/daughter’ type vibe …

…anyway, I don’t have time to add any thoughts on other aspects this morning but it is very refreshing to read two perspectives and thought processes etc, relayed so eloquently and respectfully to each other…:love:..