Archive through August 17, 2003
TV ClubHouse: ARCHIVES: Big Brother USA 2003 General Discussions Part 1:
Robert's reaction:
Archive through August 17, 2003
Kimsue | Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 10:42 pm     did the MOD find something offensive about my first entry? |
Ric_Munoz | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 12:50 am     Robert at his very worst could not begin to hold a candle to Mike Booger--never will there be a more disagreeable BB cast member than MB, EVER! |
Kalekona | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 01:29 am     Ric--- You can say that again!!! Mike "Boogie" was unwatchable, and my view on why is simple I beleive Robert doesn't believe even half of what he says while Mike believed everything he said. No without a doubt Mike was the worst As for Erika upon her nomination.. all i can say is no one ekse has gotten a JEER from TV Guide about their actions/comments. |
Beruthiel | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 01:46 am     Which says more about BB and TV guide than it says about Erika, IMHO, and none of it would be good. It seems that we need reminding that Erika repeated something that Jun had said previously. It doesn't wholly excuse Erika, but that fact does seem to be omitted whenever the subject comes up. I think it extremely unfair and baised that BB chose to broadcast her comment, and not show Jun saying it first, while also failing to reveal all the filth that has spewed out of Robert's mouth, along with those of his cohorts, as well as Nathan's and Alison's too. Those comments would be something even more valid for TV Guide to JEER about, except they've never been given the chance to hear them, have they? Makes one go "Hmmmm". |
Misslibra | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 01:53 am     Beruthiel tell it like it is ! |
Kalekona | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 01:55 am     Jun saying what Erika did doesn't even compair...it's the same as one woman calling the other a B! Tch or two African Americans calling each other the n word.. That type of comment is excepted among the same racial groups. The inflection and use of the comment also has a clear effect on how something like that is said. She said it out of anger and with venom, and it isn't the only time she has used a racial slur. When are people going to start to understand that Erika is not a saint, she has made the same type of nasty comments about Robert has he has about her, (maybe not as frequently) There is a reason the two of them were together.. perhaps they deserved each other. |
Beruthiel | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 02:33 am     I'll agree that Erika isn't a saint when you agree that Robert isn't simply 'misunderstood', but is actually a thoroughly unpleasant man, Kale. Since that obviously isn't going to happen, I guess I'm quite prepared to keep on defending Erika, if I think the need arises, in the same way that you defend Robert. You have a right to your opinion, while I have a right to mine, and if you are frustrated because few folks 'understand' then perhaps you can ease your frustration by accepting that we see things differently. I've lived a long time, and learned to trust my own judgement, and so I won't be swayed by other opinions. I do, however, accept that others are free to decide what they think based on their own experiences in life. We are here, I always thought, to EXCHANGE opinions, which is what I'm trying to do. Once again, I'm going to agree to disagree with you, and leave it at that, for tonight. There are other threads I want to read, as well as the live feed posts, in the limited time at my disposal this weekend, since I have family visiting. Goodnight!  |
Scribe | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 04:59 am     Boogie was more annoying. |
Bigsister | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 08:14 am     Until I heard Robert make that remark, I did not have a particular favorite in the house. Now I am rooting for Erika to win, just to rub his nose in it. |
Costacat | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 08:49 am     Kalekona, I don't know why you keep bringing up the comment that Erika made. The ONLY DIFFERENCE between what SHE said and what OTHERS have said is that HERS is the only one that the BB editors decided to show on TV. The constant harping on a comment is getting to be quite tiresome. I am totally disgusted at how some things are just not let go. For pete's sake, it's been discussed ad nauseum. Must Erika's comment be brought up at every single opportunity, whether it's relevant or not? THIS thread is about Robert's reaction, not Erika's response to HER nominations weeks ago. |
Kellirippa | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 09:34 am     Whoa Costa, pull in your claws, plenty of points on this board get discussed ad nauseum, no fair picking on the ones you don't find agreeable... I'm just saying.. |
Lancecrossfire | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 11:26 am     Time out please. |
Cangaroo | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 11:35 am     I realize this is off topic...but my feeling is that the "PC" police go too far. So what if Erika said what she did about Jee? He's able to defend himself. I do have a big problem with people saying stuff about people who are not able to defend themselves...hence Allison's constant remarks about "retards". If someone were to make crude remarks about children, I would have a problem about that too. I think some people just need to grow a thicker skin and get over it...people say things like that and nothing is going to stop them from thinking it or saying it. For the people who do make the un-PC comments, it only goes to show what sort of person they are and personally, from a "minority's" viewpoint, I would much rather know from the start how someone feels than have someone act all PC and be totally two-faced about it. That way, I at least have the opportunity to respond. If they're "PC" all the time, I don't. Being "PC" is just a way of putting a "socially acceptable" name to the act of being two-faced. |
Moelicious | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 11:36 am     Get Robert out of the house, the quicker the better.... |
Sherri | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 01:19 pm     I will have to admit that my jaw was hanging down on the floor when I heard Robert say that about Erika after she nominated him. I then quickly became amused, because Robert continually seems to surpass himself in his behavior toward her. I think that Erika nominating both Justin and Robert was absolutely 100% the best strategy to take and I think she really did it for strategy alone, as she said. I choose to believe her on that. If Jee3 are broken up by at least one of them leaving the house, then we really have an open field. The only real alliance left in the house will be Erika and Jack, period. I thought what Erika said to Jee in the cage about any alliance of 3 is eventually going to have to go down to 2 was very true, and I can't blame Jee for watching out for himself. They are getting down to the wire and they all need to play for themselves. Right now I am torn about who I would rather see leave insofar as Robert and Justin. I'm going to wait and see. I don't think Jun will use POV, so it will still be between the two of them. All said IMHO. Hope everyone is having a great Sunday! |
Cricket | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 01:43 pm     Excellent posts Beruthiel and Costacat. In addition to what he called Erika on nomination day, Robert made more derogatory comments about Ali and Jun this morning. Since he has no regard for women, I'm beginning to wonder how he got along with his mother. I've only heard him talk about his Dad and his brother. Has he said much about his mother? |
Earthmother | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 02:06 pm     To say it's ok for people to make racial comments as long as they are the same race is racism at it's ugliest. |
Seanflynn2003 | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 02:14 pm     Earthmother, I appreciate your commitment to keeping ugliness out of conversation, but I really disagree with you. I am gay. If I among my gay friends use derogatory terms, it is in a joking, self-deprecating way. Same way among blacks, women, any other group using the equivalent nasty words. If someone not gay says it, the intent is far less clear, and is frequently meant to hurt. Let;s take this out of a group context. If I bang my leg, and mutter to myself, you stupid SOB, I know the context of why I am doing that. If a stranger sees me doing it, and yells out the same thing, that could be considered hurtful and mean. The same thing applies within a group setting -- the context is important. This dichotomy has always existed and always will. To say a stranger coming to me and saying you f++++t is not as bad as one of my friends saying it, well, that is something I totally disagree with. One could be hateful, the other likely playful. Playful is better than hateful. |
Cangaroo | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 02:31 pm     I agree with Seanflynn...ANYTHING taken out of context can and most likely will be understood in the wrong way. To totally undestand, we would have to have not just heard the whole conversation, but seen it (for the body language) and know the people themselves to know the exact intent. That's why I say the PC police can be out and slamming people for what they say, but many times it's for the wrong reason. Extremism in any context can many times be worse than the original sin. |
Seanflynn2003 | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 02:43 pm     Also sometimes when a group adapts a word previously offensive, they can take the sting out of this; it's tough but it happens. Take Queer - this was for many years a slur. Some time ago, first small groups, then larger ones among gay communities started using it more and more, to the point that a TV show can be called Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. That doesn't mean if some shorts queer at me that it is acceptable. But sometimes words can lose their sting if groups are smart. Among gays, it is not uncommon to call straights by another word that many of you may not have heard -- breeders. I tried that once with a straight friend. He told me it was offensive, and he was right, even if it was meant in jest. |
Cangaroo | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 02:59 pm     EXACTLY Seanflyn. While growing up, I learned that when kids called me "slant eyes", "slope", "chink", even "red commie" (I used to LOL about that one a lot), I would just reply something like, yeah, so what? It often sucked the wind right out of the hot aired name callers. Just shrug, say yeah, and go on. But from then on, I knew exactly what those kids were like and could appreciate knowing it from the start (so I could avoid them). The ones that dont's say anything to your face, but then will as soon as your back is turned, to me, those are worse because one "can't see them coming" in order to avoid the collion so to speak and they're gutless to boot. When I lived in WI, I gave birth to my first in a very small hospital. The nurse on the night shift came right out and told me she didn't approve of "mixed breeding", LOL (my husband is Caucasian), but she still treated me as she should in a nurse/patient aspect and I respected to her for it...there was no beating around the bush and pretense. I just responded that I felt that's okay, it's her right to believe what she wants and the issue was not forced or uncomfortable. I'm the first to admit that I hate racial slurs of any kind, but it's their right...same as it's the right of the people around them to call them on it in response. I couldn't stand Dana, I did not respect her lack of self-control, but I did respect the fact that one knew exactly where she was coming from. The whole racial thing can be taken reversely too. I once commented on how "fair" my in-law was, who took great offense (she was attempting to tan without burning), but in the next sentence (she was addressing my husband), she talked about how she was "too white". Go figure. Same same. |
Bohawkins | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 03:11 pm     Earthmother... there is some truth to what you are saying about a negative word to describe a particular race (or group) still being hurtful even when used by someone of the same race. I think that the distinction that SeanFlynn used of a word or phrase being used in a playful manner as opposed to hateful is a useful mechanism. In addition, his discussion of a negative word being claimed by a group and essentially "defused" is also very good. Whites have been amazing at that sort of thing, embracing such words as Redneck, Cracker and others. However, what seems to me to be particularly harmful is the practice of a group using a term themselves, while they wish that same word to be known as a "hate" term if used by others, specifically the so-called "N" word. To me the "in your face" tactic of black people calling each other the N word (especially in the presence of other races), and using it in songs and other situations, while branding anybody else who says it as racist, is a dangerous practice. I think that if a term is to be villified, then it should be made obsolete. If it is to be neutralized (like Redneck, or Queer) then make it a word that can be used playfully (as SeanFlynn mentioned) by anyone. |
Tishala | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 03:17 pm     Sorry, but I don't think Sean's point was that "queer" could be used by anyone. It is still, in any given situation, potentially hate speech. |
Watching2 | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 03:34 pm     Sean, I've been called a "breeder" lots of times by my gay friends, but I know it's all in gest and because we are so close, I can use the words they use with them. That being said, I would NEVER use those words with someone I didn't know and didn't know well. There are still people among these "groups" which are still offended by the use of the word(s). I used to have a really hard time when I first started hanging out w/a lot of gay people when they used the words queer, "dyk*", "fa*", referring to themselves. I didn't like them calling themselves that! The longer we were friends, the more comfortable I became with the "language" until it came to the point where I was considered "family". Now we tease to no end. My "honorary adopted" son (who is more a friend I go out places with) always calls me "bit**" and I call him it right back, and then some. The difference is, we love each other and know it's just meant in fun. Up until this past summer, I taught "religious ed" classes to kids, grades 4-7 and I never would let any of them get away with using any of those words. I felt kind of funny one time when I heard these little 4th-grade girls say the word "queer" when referring to something they were making. I was ready to jump and tell them not to use the word, but had the presence of mind to ask what they meant by it. They look at me really wondering why I would question them and said, "You know, weird, unusual, like in 'Alice in Wonderland.'" Acck! It's just I've heard way too many kids use words as put downs, not even really understanding what it meant, but knowing it was something to use as a put down. Plus, kids know so much more these days earlier, it seems. I do recall having my son come home in 3rd grade complaining about kids calling him a "fa***t" and I had to ask him if he knew what it meant. So there I was, in all my being a good mommy and explaining delicately what it meant and he looked at me and said, "Oh, you mean gay?!" The real kicker for me was when I was trying to explain there were words which were used to put down gay people just like people used words to put down black people and he said, "What words could they possibly use to put down black people?" WOW. I can't tell you how awesome that made me feel to know he was 9-yrs-old and didn't even know there were bad words toward black people. My kids are no angels, but it makes me feel good to know that at the ages of 22, 19 & 15, they don't hold the bigotry we all grew up with, even while hearing it from others. Now, if they're talking about things they don't like....... lol... I still get on their cases for that! I mean, they must protest against something. They're teens/young adults afterall. The times are changing, just not fast enough. |
Bohawkins | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 03:35 pm     Tishala, in SeanFlynn's example about the word "queer," he pointed out that indeed it can be used by anyone (as in the title for a TV show), but he illustrated that the distinction is whether it is used playfully or in a hateful fashion. When I was much younger, "gay" was very much a negative term; then it was embraced and claimed. Now everyone refers to homosexuals as "Gays." SeanFlynn illustrated the "Queer Eye for a Straight Guy" title, and I would add to that the Showtime series, "Queer as Folk." In addition, the Gay movement campaign, "We're here, we're queer... get used to it," served to diffuse the term and make it more of a mainstream word without the previous sting it had. Admittedly, the word Queer (just as the word Redneck, in spite of Jeff Foxworthy's comedy) can be used hatefully, but these pop culture efforts have done a lot toward making them neutral terms, which can be used playfully. |
|