That user is the definition of a Karen. Always thinks they are putting the world to right but they are actually just cringe and out of touch. Most of their posts are like this :laugh:

Yeah, all good points actually, imo saying stuff like he did which can offend people should be allowed in, I think it's much more beneficial to have them stay and have the HMs pull them up on it and let them all talk about it, that, imo is the best way to help people understand why it could be hurtful etc you may get through to the person and you may not but I can guarantee there's a better chance than just telling the person to shut up or kicking them out. I think that's what BB was all about in fact in the early days, different HMs, with different views and opinions, thrashing out their conflicting views and seeing things from other peoples perspectives.

**Of course this doesn't apply to threatening behaviour or bullying

I think he was deliberate in his wording of the things he said in the hope of being ejected.or at least nominated and evicted first.

To do that and not care about anyone's feelings but his own is really poor form.


Up until his departure though he was still by far the most interesting housemate and will be sorely missed.

Would he still get paid (or paid his full fee) if he got ejected? Seems like something they'd have written into his contract so HM would follow the rules

They probably all had different things written into their contracts. It's feasable that Mickey had paid at all costs one, considering his stature in the celeb world compared to the other hms.


Physicality wouldn't be one of them though. So it would be interesting to know why he was actually thrown out. Was it the language he used and the tears of Ellie. Or for squaring up to chris:shrug:

Remember 'You Decide'?

Short of actual physical violence that should always be the case, not removing HMs because 'members of the public may be offended'. Why bother voting when all you have on offer is an ideologically approved shortlist of who the production team and RedditX deems appropriate for mass consumption?

Vote between Daley, Jack, and Chris! Wo0o0o0h, interesting.

Someone is always offended. About everything. Every single interest group has an axe to grind. It never ends. You can't run an actually decent version of BB like that.

I watch BB for human behaviour, it's highs and lows, not for some enactment of a sanitised vision of some post Stalinist dystopia where everyone is grimace smiling and afraid to say anything while policing the HM next to them in case THEY say something that is worth social credit points.

Chris! Quickly say "you can't use that word" multiple times so that Reddit sees you and thinks you are one of them!"

Unless they are physically assaulting someone in any sense, leave them in and let the public decide.

Genuine question, let's say on the civilian Big Brother there is an out and out homophobe, and throughout their stay they're just grossly homophobic. That person then goes on to win a lot of money for the homophobia, and it's voted for by the public, so you have a homophobe rewarded for homophobic behaviour by fellow homophobes and other people who think words don't matter.

Swap out homophobe for racist or sexist. Can you not see why such a result would be dangerous in giving people carte blanch to act in the same way.

I get what you're saying, and think the only think worth Mickey being removed for was the tie you up comment, but television can't be seen to be rewarding or promoting hateful rhetoric. It's puts real people in real danger.

Well, as demonstrated one person's homophobia is another person's edgy joke, so... Who gets to decide? The most offended? That's just a race to the bottom.

But, do I see how it could be dangerous? No more than I can see the authoritarian suppression of action and speech under the jackboot of the 'we know what's good for you' new puritans to be dangerous.

People are already in real danger from that.

I am a firm believer of exposing bad ideas and actions to sunlight as a disinfectant, because they grow a lot worse in the darkness. I would 100% have a Mickey in there, for example, than a 'pick me' creeper like Chris. At least Mickey wears who he is openly and allows you to make a judgement on him based on that.

Question; Why are so called 'Liberals' the most authoritarian in every conversation these days?

I think intention is the biggest decider between what makes something a homophobic joke and what makes someone a homophobe, and I was referring to a hypothetical scenario of the second one.

I do agree with your option of exposing bad ideas and actions to sunlight, but not on the principle they could potentially be rewarded off the back of those bad ideas. More to the point, in the example I gave, why would anyone want to watch someone be and out and out homophobe. Grim.

I really am not an authoritarian, though I can understand that some on the extreme left do make it seem like liberals are that way inclined. Aside from being for small government, I am absolutely for free speech: people should be free to say whatever they feel and think. However, I think just because you're free to say something, it doesn't mean you're free to say something without consequence, rebuttal or objection and that is different in different settings. If you expose your free speech in a workplace and say that gays are immoral, like someone said earlier on this site, then don't cry about free speech when you get the sack.

Question: Why does your definition of authoritarian seem to start and end at people objecting to other people say hateful ****?

I missed this. LOL.

Not you critiquing others for not considering mental health issues when you outright called Ali fan's 'nutters' last year.

Real advocates for mental health issues don't call other people nutters so you can stop pretending.

My wise old nan used to say that when someone says a thing everything before the 'but' should be disregarded.

I agree, I would not cry about free speech if someone was voted out for their views, that's the game. I object to people being removed because they *might* offend someone. That's the whole point of my post in this thread.

You say you are not authoritarian, but you are arguing an extremely authoritarian position here so I am not sure how to reconcile that. Do I take you as what you show you are or what you say you are?

But, and it's not my view at all, why shouldn't someone have the view that being gay is immoral? I mean, more than half of British Muslims (52%) think homosexuality should not even be legal, let alone is moral, and nearly half (47%) think it is not appropriate for gay people to teach in schools, according to a survey of British Muslims, but no one on the Left ever comes at Islam for it. If Mickey had said that in the house he would be strung up... The outrage is so selective and fake.


It doesn't, and if you honestly think that then you haven't been reading my words at all. It's a gross mischaracterization of every point that I have made and, frankly, you are better than that.

It's called a nuanced POV. :shrug:

I don't think someone should be removed for maybe offending someone, I think people should be removed for threatening behaviour. You said it has to come to physical violence and I was making a point that in some cases, it wouldn't need to get to physical violence in the house to reflect physical violence outside.

I have said that Mickey shouldn't have been removed for his lesbian jokes. I said that is someone was hatefully homophobic then they shouldn't be rewarded for their views that actively hate on someone who is just existing as they were born.

I am not saying people shouldn't be allowed this view, I am saying they shouldn't expect it to go unchallenged.

Think about it like this: Religion hates me because I am me. I hate religion because they hate me. For religion to stop hating me, I would need to be someone else, born differently, live differently, act differently, lie. For me to stop hating religion, all they need to do is not hate me.

Would you say that it's wrong that homophobic abuse is considered a crime? Because I don't see how anyone can claim to support gay people yet let abuse of them go unpunished. Perhaps you will say words aren't abuse, but you are wrong because they are and moreover, they help inspire physical abuse, too.

Moreover, where does that kind of attitude end, all in the name of anti-authoritarianism? What about those against capitalism, those who believe everything should be shared amongst us all. Let's make theft legal, a truly free society.

Please stop lumping one whole political lean into the same group. It is my opinion religion is a choice (where being gay is not), and someone's choice to follow teachings who inspire hate should not have any bearing on my existence as a human. Someone else's beliefs should not negatively impact someone's right to live how they were born. I don't believe in God or Allah or any other prophet, but that doesn't mean I expect everyone to live by my own beliefs, or lack of. It doesn't mean I want to restrict their way of living. In the same way someone's diet shouldn't impact what I eat, someone else's religion shouldn't impact my life. When it does, that's when I have a problem.

Yes, ending a post with a mischaracterisation is annoying isn't it.

Where does the challenging of an opinion end though? In my experience it's usually pack mentality. One where the person with such an opinion is harassed and surrounded by people. People who are not challenging the opinion, but blatantly trying to shut down or silence that opinion.

If we’re going to play extremes then let’s…

The end of challenging an opinion is the silencing of that opinion.

The end of letting that opinion go unchallenged is unchallenged physical attacks on a group of people who were simply born a certain way.

If we have to choose one or the other, I it’s not a tough choice.

If what you are saying is that darker behaviour has to be suppressed, controlled, and sanitised in the house so as to never reflect the darker side of being human ever again then what is this show even about now?

But, I have already covered this in my previous posts here so won't repeat it.

Can I be clear here please..? My OP was not about you. Plenty on RedditX said he should have been.. The overwhelming majority did in fact and it is those people I am talking about.

That depends on the type of abuse... Is calling someone who is gay a nasty slur 'abuse' enough to get arrested for? It shouldn't be, no. That shouldn't be any more illegal than calling a straight person a nasty slur. I hate the idea of protected identity groups in a Western liberal society.

Is physically abusing *anyone* worth considering a crime though? Of course.

Those people should be free to hold those ideas, no matter how bad they are.

Faking offence or outrage in order to control and stamp on others is sadly all too common and abused.

This ^

Yeah but if they robbed you you’d call the police.

And therein lies the point of difference between thinking those views and expressing those views in a way which inflicts harm upon another.

Protected identities exist for a reason, it’s so easy to disagree with it when the demographics you are part of haven’t had to deal with stuff others have. Next time a straight couple get attacked in the street for holding hands and being straight let me know.

they would not come

tell them someone called you a hurty name and yes they would come

If there was no law against theft of personal property then there would probably be no law against holding some means of defending your property either, I would guess, which is basically the libertarian viewpoint. You wouldn't use the police because there would be no state police. I am not a libertarian though.

Anyhow, for this conversation it's too much of an extreme example to be useful really

What demographic am I part of? I have never stated my orientation...

It's ironic to me though that every time something like this happens we get the usual "can't say anything these days" spiel online, but the first instance of someone getting removed from Big Brother for offensive language happened almost twenty years ago. This is nothing new, so I'm not sure why people act like this is a consequence of some kind of new culture against freedom of speech. No one is taking away his right to say anything he wants, but he is in a television show where there is rules and regulations.

Yes, this started seeping into the mainstream at least 20 years ago, I agree.

You once said something which implied you were straight, something about if I made a comment about your immutable characteristics it would be fine but if you made them about mine you’d be arrested.

'immutable characteristics' covers a lot of ground, I guess.

Anyhow, let's respectfully agree to disagree at this point. I enjoy our exchanges, you are usually civil and reasonable in the things that you say, even if I don't agree, but I feel that we understand each other well enough at this point :)