to wonder how much you would like others to mask their thoughts or opinions?

[UnacceptableWidge]

Please don't let this put you off the thread but I am a Big Brother fan and after catching up on last night's programme I have been pondering over this.

A brief outline of the incedent during the show that irritated me. A boxer was expressing his view that to be gay is not normal and the woman he was talking to was initially trying to get him not to carry on with the conversation (probably as she suspected it was mean they would both be voted out for his views)
The people in charge of the show called him (Evander Holyfield) to the diary room for a warning about behaviour that could be offensive to the viewing public.

AIBU to think that many people have different views?
You only need to read a handful of threads on AIBU to see a plethora of opposing views on a particular subject.
I think his opinion was odd, nothing he said made me warm to him and I imagine it showed the viewing public a side of him that they will not like but should everyone on a show like this be warned to not air personal views?

Shouldn't there be more opportunity for free flowing discussion and a chance to educate or at least create a chance for people like Evander to possibly see another way of thinking?

It felt to me that he simply got told not to talk about it by worried producers effectively closing that discussion down.

Sorry I'm rambling now but AIBU to wonder if most people would welcome discussion or were the producers correct to encourage him to censor his own thoughts in order to not offend?

The problem is that two potentially opposing views are protected - religious freedom and sexual orientation. And there is no "ranking" of this protection.

I don't watch BB. But there is a right to religious expression as well as rights to non-interference in relationships.

I don't think anyone has a solution to this one. And certainly not a light entertainment show.

There is a difference bewteen talking about something and discrimination, which is where the 'rights' are protected.
You cannot stop a gay couple sharing a hotel room, but there is nothing illegal (only stupid and ill-informed) about saying homosexuality is wrong as often as you like

I don't think homophobic views like the ones he expressed (people can choose not be be gay?) should be given airtime. There is no free flowing discussion when it is between a tv programme and viewers. People don't get a chance to respond to his views because it's a one way information feed.

It says more ab

It says more about the person expressing these views than anything though. When Nick Griffin was made bankrupt many people thought that it served him right.

It's certainly a quick and easy way of finding that someone is a complete tosser.

I think dobro e should be allowed to state their beliefs. However abhorrent to others.

auntieStella those were the exact 2 opposing viewpoints. One party was saying sexuality was not a choice as such and the other was referencing their religious belief and how it influenced their opinion on homosexuality. Again I can't say I agreed with him but as president pointed out it says more about the individual than the programme.

Surely just his interpretation of religion? Many Christians [most I hope] do not hold his offensive views.
He can think what he likes. Maybe he does not have the right to say it.

Homosexuality is natural and not a choice. Religious belief is a choice, and has no basis in logic or scientific fact. Someone's right to be themself and be respected trumps someone else's bullshit excuse for being thick and bigoted every time.

Next!

He signed a contract with a TV company. It will have contained conditions as to what conduct is acceptable. He broke them.

Thick and bigoted is how he is coming across....

everyone has a right to say what they want - shutting down discussion prevents change. How would you feel if the prevailing anti-homosexual views in the 60's prevented discussion and therfore homosexuality was still illegal, because you can't discuss views opposing the majority?

I don't think Evander is into discussing the issue. He has his view and that is that.

Having your opinions shut down for fear of being blasted as a bigot does not solve problems and in some cases causes them. For example, not so long ago, anyone who though immigration was a problem was seen as a racist bigot. Now the pendulum has swung so far the other way we (as a nation) possibly are in danger of bigotry.

I'm not in the UK and don't watch BB, but it's not the real world; it's TV land. [/states obvious]

In theory you're utterly correct, and your standpoint in your OP is the crux of free speech.

But TV producers operate in a very different context, and there's too much at risk from their perspective.

I think it says a huge amount about our society that such fundamentally hateful views are no longer tolerated in such a blanket fashion. A huge amount. He may not intend to be hateful, but he is being.

I'm Agnostic, and have a huge problem with organised religion, but even I can see that someone like Jesus, if he did indeed exist/was the son of God, would have had absolutely zero problem with people being gay.

carolDecker that's exactly the reason I think the warning bothered me so much.
I agree with sapphire that Evander is probably totally set on his way of thinking but I believe there are a fair few within the viewing public who may be leaning towards the view he holds and that they may well have been educated, enlightened or encouraged to question opinion if the producers had not put a stop to the conversation.
I'd hope upon exit Emma Willis would reignite the discussion but the show is far too shallow for a Paxman style interrogation and would lose the majority of it's target audience if it tried to get too deep

Why would people who are homophobic watching a homophobe question their own opinion? They'd just sit there nodding along with Evander and rolling eyes at anyone saying the opposite.

I want to hear what people's personal opinions are. This helps build up a character judgement of them. I think its human nature.

I don't think it helps to have every different point of view censored. I'm sure JD is censoring his own mouth 99.9 per cent of the time. Its not convincing and it creates a false character.

This is regardless to what the opinions might be. If someone is a bigot, I want them to be one openly so we can all make the judgement about them (and vote accordingly, if you're the voting type) , not hide it because BB says its not nice.