[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.

[Merry Mockmas]

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.

[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.

[Merry Mockmas]

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.

I agree with this tbh.

[Good King Glennceslas]

Are people still trying to defend racism

[Good King Glennceslas]

I’d say you’ve defined your view on it quite clearly and I’m sorry to tell you, it’s racist.

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

I’d say you’ve defined your view on it quite clearly and I’m sorry to tell you, it’s racist.

Well, there's a credible viewpoint I can trust

[Good King Glennceslas]

I would. I’m clearly not the only one who thinks it.

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

I would. I’m clearly not the only one who thinks it.

Two people having a bad take doesn't make it a good take.

You have no power here

Anyhow, done with you. Moving on. Have a great night Glenn!

[Conzors]

I wouldn’t say homophobic but definitely ignorant

[vesavius]

'Hate speech' is such a nebulous non defined term... It just means whatever the person wielding it wants it to mean.

Such a dangerous weapon in the hands of the more deranged. Not saying that's you at all BBX, but for every moderate that would use it wisely there are 100 that would use malicously it to suppress control and bludgeon others with that simply disagree with them.

That aside, the people beating up gay people at this point in the UK's history are not doing it because they watched a spicey episode of CBB.

Originally Posted by BBXX

....and compared to five years ago there is a 56% increase in hate crime against LGBT people.

I don't think the Left are at all ready yet to talk about why that actually is.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by vesavius

I don't think the Left are at all ready yet to talk about why that actually is.

I'm all quite genuinely all ears (my father was an elephant), but please provide statistics and evidence to back up the claims.

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I'm all quite genuinely all ears (my father was an elephant), but please provide statistics and evidence to back up the claims.

I have already provided some in this thread, but you ignored them.

I am not gonna do the work of digging around for more for them to be ignored again or, more likely, to be dismissed because they don't come from a hard left source or whatever. I have had these sealioning type discussions far too many times and know how it goes.

Like I say, you aren't ready for that particular conversation yet I don't think. Give it another 5-10 years and you will be.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by vesavius

I have already provided some in this thread, but you ignored them.

I am not gonna do the work of digging around for more for them to be ignored again or, more likely, to be dismissed because they don't come from a hard left source or whatever. I have had these sealioning type discussions far too many times and know how it goes.

Like I say, you aren't ready for that particular conversation yet I don't think. Give it another 10 years and you will be.

You provided stats on the attitudes of British Muslims, which I didn't ignore and went on to inform you of my opinion around religion and my distain for their hatred of my sexuality.

I asked for stats that the 56% rise in LGBT hate crimes are because of British Muslims which is what you were inferring.

I don't like the values Islam promotes, and have never pretended to, but I'm also not going to pretend they are responsibility of the rise in hate crimes without evidence.

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I asked for stats that the 56% rise in LGBT hate crimes are because of British Muslims which is what you were inferring.

The problem for LGBT+ is not predominantly even from British Muslims.

But, how can you acknowledge that over 50% of UK Muslims (these are not the recent immigrants that come from far more fundamentalist cultures, btw) don't even think homosexuality should be legal and not make a connection?

TBC, I am not attacking moderate Muslims here, I am friends with many and they express a wide range of rational and reasonable views. This is not about them.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I'm all quite genuinely all ears (my father was an elephant), but please provide statistics and evidence to back up the claims.

Was he dumbo?

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Beso

Was he dumbo?

That’s a good one, nice work.

[Jessica.]

Anyway everyone who said that Danny and Jojo forgave him so he must be a nice person are wrong because Danny was so relieved when he left and Jojo didn't pine over him either.

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

Anyway everyone who said that Danny and Jojo forgave him so he must be a nice person are wrong

On my part, that's a relief, because I personally never said that. I have said that JoJo has made her peace with mickey and if she has then I am happy to move on, but that's not the same thing.

I didn't actually see anyone else say that either, but if you say you did, ok.

[Merry Mockmas]

Originally Posted by vesavius

On my part, that's a relief, because I personally never said that. I have said that JoJo has made her peace with mickey and if she has then I am happy to move on, but that's not the same thing.

I didn't actually see anyone else say that either, but if you say you did, ok.

Tbf there were people that I saw saying that Danny was now friends with Mickey.

[vesavius]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Tbf there were people that I saw saying that Danny was now friends with Mickey.

I accept that for sure, I def don't see every post.

[Merry Mockmas]

Originally Posted by vesavius

I accept that for sure, I def don't see every post.

Oh same here tbf.

Even during off-season there can be stuff that's being said and I have no clue what people are going on about.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

A rise in hate crimes = a rise in allowing silly idiots to WEAPONISE "hate crimes" as a means to shut people down.

The only hate that has been on the rise is from the far left and activists

still, at least we don't have any of them on here