[BBXX]

Originally Posted by vesavius

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.

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by BBXX

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?

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by vesavius

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, 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. Atr 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 ****?

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by BBXX

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.

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

Originally Posted by BBXX

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BBXX

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

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.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by vesavius

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

It's called a nuanced POV.

I agree, I would not cry about free speech if someone was voted out. 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?

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.

But, and it's not my view at all, why shouldn't someone have the view that being gay is immoral?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Beso]

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.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Beso

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.

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by Beso

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.

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

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by BBXX

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BBXX

I have said that Mickey shouldn't have been removed for his lesbian jokes.

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.

Originally Posted by BBXX

Would you say that it's wrong that homophobic abuse is considered a crime?

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.

Originally Posted by BBXX

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.

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

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by vesavius

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

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.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by BBXX

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 ****?

Then you're not for freedom of speech then imo.

The only time freedom of speech should go out the window is if the person is either threatening or harassing someone, everything else should be allowed imo.

Admittedly Mickey would be removed under my metric for threatening both Jojo and Chris in different scenarios.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Then you're not for freedom of speech then imo.

That’s fine for you to think, but your definition of freedom of speech isn’t THE definition of freedom of speech which absolutely puts restrictions on certain scenarios such as hate speech, which will come with consequences if broken.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by BBXX

That’s fine for you to think, but your definition of freedom of speech isn’t THE definition of freedom of speech which absolutely puts restrictions on certain scenarios such as hate speech, which will come with consequences if broken.

Oh I know that the laws in this country will arrest/punish people for being dickheads, but imo being a dickhead in and of itself shouldn't see people removed off a Show like BB imo, and that's just away from anything Mickey's done because tbf he was pushing his luck.

Countries around the world claim that they need more Prison space, yet the law enforcement will arrest people for offensive comments, thus making even less Prison space.

I do respect you as a member so I do apologize if my previous post came across a bit OTT or rude, I just don't like people's speech being censored.

Because with someone like Mickey for example, I knew as soon as he said that he wanted to "tie Jojo up" that he was extremely unlikely to be someone that would be my favourite on Big Brother.

And that imo is the beauty of Big Brother, and the Internet nowadays as people will be more honest about their opinions, and you know if you like the person or not afterwards.

Where as tbf with this CBB lot some of them might have fantastic personalities irl, but they're being inhibited by production and a chunk of the public because their lives could be potentially ruined.

And in my view it's a slippery slope, because yes you're okay with censoring speech when it comes to people's prejudices, but it never stops there, history has taught us that.

I'm sorry for the long rant btw, freedom of speech is something that I am passionate about, as I didn't like it when Carol Vorderman got fired from the BBC over tweets either.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Oh I know that the laws in this country will arrest/punish people for being dickheads, but imo being a dickhead in and of itself shouldn't see people removed off a Show like BB imo, and that's just away from anything Mickey's done because tbf he was pushing his luck.

Countries around the world claim that they need more Prison space, yet the law enforcement will arrest people for offensive comments, thus making even less Prison space.

-

And in my view it's a slippery slope, because yes you're okay with censoring speech when it comes to people's prejudices, but it never stops there, history has taught us that.

I'm sorry for the long rant btw, freedom of speech is something that I am passionate about, as I didn't like it when Carol Vorderman got fired from the BBC over tweets either.

You can diminish hate speech to "being a dickhead" if you wish, but that doesn't diminish the actions words do have. People do, will and always have acted upon the words of people, take a look at history. The people spreading negative messages about women are usually not actually assaulting them themselves physically, but their words illicit a response in incels to so do. The influential people spreading anti-LGBT rhetoric aren't beating up a gay couple who are just enjoying a drink outside a pub, but they inspire others to do so, not through orders, but simply by helping stir the pot of simmering homophobia already present.

You simply cannot put your head in the sand and act like the effect of words end at the moment they leave the tongue, that they're "just words" and "offence is taken and not given". It's not about that. It's about the impact the words have on others who want a reason to think it's justifiable to punch a gay man in the face.

LGBT people are four times more likely to be a victim of assault than straight people and compared to five years ago there is a 56% increase in hate crime against LGBT people.

But yeah, the real issue is the slippery slope that starts with telling people if they say discriminatory words they will be reprImanded.

(Suffice to say, none of this is now referring to what Mickey said by any stretch, the conversation has moved far beyond Mickey onto a much larger subject at hand)

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Then you're not for freedom of speech then imo.

The only time freedom of speech should go out the window is if the person is either threatening or harassing someone, everything else should be allowed imo.

Admittedly Mickey would be removed under my metric for threatening both Jojo and Chris in different scenarios.

Freedom of speech doesn't go out the window per say, but it's still obviously possible to violate any laws that have nothing to do with the regulation of speech. A person may be calling someone an n-word while murdering the **** out of them. They won't be arrested for the use of that word, they're being arrested for the murdering part and all words can do is aid motive or add to enhancements. (Ex: Hate crime)

However, limiting free speech with speech laws that have the ability to regulate it means there is no freedom of speech. That's a pretty low bar here, but a fairly important one that most would agree that that right is no longer accessible to all of society. Govt can erode away more speech with additional legislation citing important social regulations that "need doing" so it would be trivial to scrap it with further protections.

We keep an iron fist on ours because self-censorship is considered anathema to a free society. It's also seen that advocates and politicians that want to mandate speech are only ever interested in doing so to suppress actual criticism, usually of them and their agenda.

I understand it is dated to question certain lifestyle choices and that words can be very hurtful, but get in line. We have all suffered due to the behavior of other humans throughout human history. Humans suffer daily due to bad governing and the one thing we do all have all in common is human suffering. The only thing limiting speech does is tip the scales so that one person's suffering outweighs another. Many people can't wrap their mind around this because they think too short term and don't really question giving the govt increasing precedent to erode speech protections.

Speech should always be on the table to keep free flow of ideas, even if its purpose is just the continued demise of bad ideas. We can still talk about the "glories" of slavery and general degeneracy in a debate form. However, being able to even have a have debate is critical to free thought. Also, having that debate doesn't make 1) that person a heathen 2) will suddenly cause slavery to make a miraculous return... a few people may have positive words to say about a certain idea, but the point is that the pushback is very real in that that people can't generally question the unpopularity of ideas as they don't have an external voice directing the public on what it should and should not say.

What some don't know, the primary reason America still has 2A is to be able to forcibly protect our freedoms and inherent rights. It's not for vanity. Yes, it would be nice to live in a world where we could trust the people in power implicitly with certain duties but that's not the reality of the world. So if anything, freedom of speech is just a more peaceful way we can through the force of political friction regulate our own govt and its powers.

Btw, a person can catch an aggravated assault charge by just threatening bodily harm in the US, but it's not the words or content that justify the charge, it's because they expressed intent. Ex: "I'm going to shoot you" is intent. Though in the case of a gun, it would be raised to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Mickey could've caught an assault charge in the US if it was justifiable enough he was intending to cause bodily injury to another person. His fists are considered weapons with the potential to cause fatal injury and so the indictment could even be raised with a dangerous weapon charge.

Also, if it's not clear, I support the inclusion of hate crime laws, but believe hate speech is cancerous to free speech protections.

[Abra]

Originally Posted by vesavius

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?

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.

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by Abra

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.

[Abra]

Originally Posted by vesavius

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

What did? People being held accountable for being racist and homophobic? Is it your opinion that Emily should have been allowed to call her black housemates the N word?

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by Abra

What did? People being held accountable for being racist and homophobic? Is it your opinion that Emily should have been allowed to call her black housemates the N word?

Emily was unfairly removed, yes. There was no malice or hate in her use of it. Plus, she invented Indie and we should all respect that.

We probably have very different ideas of what 'properly accountable' for using words looks like.

But I mean the ideological push of the Frankfurt School in general... What grew to be understood these days as 'woke'.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by vesavius

Emily was unfairly removed, yes. There was no malice or hate in her use of it. Plus, she invented Indie and we should all respect that.

We probably have very different ideas of what 'properly accountable' for using words looks like.

But I mean the ideological push of the Frankfurt School in general... What grew to be understood these days as 'woke'.

That was disastrous .. Emily looked as though she was gonna be a brilliant housemate

[Abra]

Originally Posted by vesavius

Emily was unfairly removed, yes. There was no malice or hate in her use of it. Plus, she invented Indie and we should all respect that.

We probably have very different ideas of what 'properly accountable' for using words looks like.

But I mean the ideological push of the Frankfurt School in general... What grew to be understood these days as 'woke'.

Sorry but the fact that you think a white girl is entitled to go around calling black people the N word without consequence just nullifies your entire argument for me. That's a pretty extreme view to hold that you are masking as some kind of appreciation for free speech. The word "woke" has become so overused by the right at this point that it's essentially meaningless.