S21.E02: Season Premiere (Part 2)

[iMonrey]

Quote

So to claim "formula" is IMO overstating things. 

There is most decidedly a formula to casting. The roles are the same every season. True, the outcome isn't a guarantee, even with Grodner's best efforts and shenanigans. But the goal is the same.

What galls me is when CBS has the audacity to call this show "a social experiment." Um, no. When you use the same ingredients every time you make the recipe, that's not experimenting.

[Nashville]

20 hours ago, Katesus7 said:

Jackson is so far up his own ass, he’s practically a donut at this point.

Damn, but I like that.  😂

[LoneHaranguer]

55 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

When you use the same ingredients every time you make the recipe, that's not experimenting.

Scientists experimenting on rodents with mazes and other contrivances would disagree. The producers should go to a little more effort in redressing things for each iteration since these hamsters had a chance to see their predecessors in action.

[green]

7 hours ago, After7Only said:

They did in an early season with Danielle.   She played a game similar to Cirie.  Was everyone's friend/mom while low key running the show.   She made it to the end but lost because at that time they did not sequester the jury and they all saw her diary rooms where she talked about how she manipulated them all.   

But they haven't really cast a black woman like her since.  

That was BB3.  And Danielle was robbed.  She remains my favorite HG ever.

But back then they cast some interesting people at times.  Grodner just casts cardboard cut-outs.

Edited June 28, 2019 by green

[Pass the Tequila]

As a newb, I was hoping for some best viewing/reading experience quidelines please? 🙏

What does BBAD mean? I think I've got a handle on most of the abbreviations but that one got me. 🤓

Also I peeked in at the 1st few pages of the live feeds thread...which I never do!  I'm wondering if this particular show is better enjoyed by following the live feeds thread? What percentage of people here only read this thread? Normally I don't like to be spoiled, but when formulating opinions about strangers, it's f'n irritating when production twists and manipulates my perceptions for ratings purposes (bleh), so I'm wondering if I should reconsider what "spoiling" means? 😎

And not to sound "stalky" but ...

Callaphera - I like the way your mind works...and I just howled at some of your observations. Thanks! 😁

@halting hex - off topic, but everytime I see your username I read "Halt at X" and wonder if you're another dressage enthusiast? 🐎 (Ack! what a lame horse emogie lol)

As for the episode itself? Meh. It's early yet for me to pick favourites.. but I do know that if Sam lasts, dude is going to owe me batteries for my remote control mute button usage! 🙄

I'm kinda wondering about the strategy of Christie winning the comp?  She kept saying she wanted to "win for her alliance" or "it was down to her and Holly because the rest of the alliance had fallen off" or something along those lines. That would not be my motivation for wanting to win. Wtf?! I get being a team player but I hate when females get too "servitude-ish" Win because you are here to play! Or maybe she thought they would "owe" her for having a member of their (* cough * production's) alliance win and therefore they'd have "control" of the house? I'm referring to the televised alliance of Christie, Holly, Nick, the two jackasses, and Isabella (who incidentally was/is already in a F3 with the two Jackasses).

Oh one more thing - That crusty plush squirrel costume looked disease infested. gag 😵

Ps- poor David, he intrigued me. I hope he comes back, but soon, otherwise it's a steep hill to get back "in" with the cliques, no?

Edited June 28, 2019 by Pass the Tequila
punctuation

[Wandering Snark]

BBAD = Big Brother After Dark which plays on the Pop channel.

To be spoiled or not be spoiled that is the question. Whether it is more entertaining to know what lies beyond the televised curtain or not, 'tis each viewers right to decide.

[leocadia]

I enjoy remaining unspoiled for any kind of scripted show, or even reality programs that are completed before airing.  BB is a little different because it's happening in close to real time (particularly the winner being announced) so following the live feeds has never spoiled the experience for me.  I can definitely say that you get a much better idea of what is really going on in the house compared to what they choose to show during the broadcast episodes.  

[iMonrey]

In addition to what leocadia has said, the live feeds don't tell the whole story, because you don't see the diary room entries on them or the ocmps. That's something you can only see on the show. Now granted, it's often the case that the DRs are producer prompted and swayed, but it's definitely a chance to get an honest reaction from someone, as opposed to when they're interacting with other HGs and you don't know if they're just saying things for strategy. 

In short, it's a more well-rounded experience following the live feed thread and watching the show.

[IndyMischa]

12 minutes ago, leocadia said:

I enjoy remaining unspoiled for any kind of scripted show, or even reality programs that are completed before airing.  BB is a little different because it's happening in close to real time (particularly the winner being announced) so following the live feeds has never spoiled the experience for me.  I can definitely say that you get a much better idea of what is really going on in the house compared to what they choose to show during the broadcast episodes.  

Sing it if you know the words. 

[green]

4 hours ago, Pass the Tequila said:

Also I peeked in at the 1st few pages of the live feeds thread...which I never😎 do!  I'm wondering if this particular show is better enjoyed by following the live feeds thread? What percentage of people here only read this thread? Normally I don't like to be spoiled, but when formulating opinions about strangers, it's f'n irritating when production twists and manipulates my perceptions for ratings purposes (bleh), so I'm wondering if I should reconsider what "spoiling" means?

I never read spoilers for The Amazing Race (which was totally AMAZING this season, hated to see it end Wednesday, sniff) or for Survivor.  They can give away who wins when who is out etc.

But BB spoilers are totally different.  You may know who is HOH for the week or who wins veto a day or too early but since it is a live and happening show no one can possibly spoil who ultimately wins or who is voted out in advance (all evictions are live remember).  So it is oranges to the other shows' apples.

I don't watch the live feeds myself.  But honestly I could never ever watch TV BB unless I read the Live Feed thread here.  It is usually far more fun than watching the episodes.  The people posting are funny and snarky and it is a blast.

And yes the Live Feeds often (always) give you a totally different take on things.  At least TAR and somewhat with Survivor their storylines are based on major content the Racers and Survivors do.  The editors know the outcome and the major plus and minus traits of these people over the whole season and shape the show so it matches more the reality of things while still being entertaining.

But this being a live all summer show and producer Grodner having a heavy hand the edit is really weird for the TV version.  So to me the Live Feeds thread is essential.

And again that thread is funny as hell.  It's like people reading it like me and people both reading and watching the live feeds are all together in a dysfunctional family way making snarky comments and such and having a blast. 

So please come join us all of you who have never been but don't mind losing the surprise of who wins veto in advance for an episode.  If you don't like it what do you lose?  Knowing who wins HOH a day early and not even that if HOH is live on the TV version as it sometimes is.  No big deal.  Drop out if it isn't your cup of tea.  Or become "one of us" "one of us" "one of us" ... heh.

Edited June 28, 2019 by green

[Halting Hex]

4 hours ago, Pass the Tequila said:

@halting hex - off topic, but everytime I see your username I read "Halt at X" and wonder if you're another dressage enthusiast? 🐎 (Ack! what a lame horse emogie lol)

The "Halting Hex" was a power that Jessica Graf (the girl in my <-------- avatar) received during Big Brother 19.  It basically allowed Jessica to cancel an eviction entirely (she and her now-husband, Cody Nickson, were nominated against each other, and this let both of them remain in the House…where they ended up getting evicted in the next two weeks, anyway) and as originally described, was tricked up in some IMO so-corny-it's-cool invocation language.

Sadly, when Jess used it, the producers decided not to let her go all Charmed and perform the "ceremony", but merely had somebody from production tape a voice-over of the invocation.  Jessica just sat and smiled and looked cute wearing her cat-ears, as pictured. 

(I made my avatar myself from a screencap of the episode. [A "life"?  Who needs a "life"?  Weird.]  And the cat-ears were way more of a big deal than they merited, but that's a bit of a digression.)

I do have an equestrian in the family, but that's my uncle.  My knowledge of dressage is largely confined to the occasional Olympic viewing, and the Law & Order episode ("Corpus Dilecti", episode 6.11) that starts with a case where somebody killed a show horse for the insurance, before the investigation leads to a two-legged victim as well.

4 hours ago, Pass the Tequila said:

I'm wondering if this particular show is better enjoyed by following the live feeds thread?

The Feeds certainly have their devotees and you can get a greater depth of viewing with them.  But I couldn't live without seeing the competitions and hearing the Diary Rooms, and I'd hate to be spoiled for them, heading in.

What I do (and it's more than a bit unusual, I admit) is cobble together a deeper experience by combining the aired episodes and After Dark (I mean, 2-3 hours a night is enough anyway, IMO).  Since (once we're done with the extended Week 1) the schedule is 

• Thursday, HoH

• Friday, nominations

• Saturday, Veto

• Monday, Veto ceremony

I have to bank the After Darks in my DVR and slot them in the appropriate sections of the aired episodes.  (This requires a significant amount of catch-up on Thursday, before the live evictions, and sometimes delaying the live show until I'm done.)  And then they screw with me a good chunk of the time by having these "tune in Sunday to see who wins HoH" garbage attempts at "suspense".  I'm really hoping the "Whacktivity" competition becomes a Sunday episode staple, just so they don't feel obligated to "sell" the Sunday episodes by delaying the HoH conclusion until then, every single week.

My all-time favorite, though, was the sadly once-and-never-again Big Brother: Over the Top from the fall of 2016.  Since the entire season was online-only, the competitions were shown on the Feeds, thus allowing me to watch without losing out on anything.  And they had a daily summary mini-episode, complete with DRs and editing, as well as a weekly production that included the live eviction. Sigh.  I really wish they'd do that again.  (I even resent the Celebrity edition for "taking OTT's spot", even though of course they could do both, if they wished.)

But that's just me.  And, in the words of Taylor Swift, "I'm the only one of me"…for which the world may be quite grateful.  So take my methods with the appropriate amounts of salt. 🙂

ETA:  If I have the time, I try to keep up with the Feeds thread, but only after the fact.  I never want information from there to be my first exposure to anything that later makes air.  But again, JMO.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Halting Hex

[Pass the Tequila]

Thanks so much you guys for your thoughtful and helpful comments. And the suggestions, background history, factoids and sharp wit! 😎 I feel like I've become a member of a cool club or something. Love it! 😁

I'm really enjoying the show so far... and looking forward to snarking reading you guys. 🎉

[PaperTree]

On 6/27/2019 at 4:12 PM, atiyah9369 said:

Jeez, Julie. What the hell are you wearing???

Somewhere in suburbia, a living room is missing its drapes.

[PaperTree]

9 hours ago, Pass the Tequila said:

Also I peeked in at the 1st few pages of the live feeds thread...which I never do!  I'm wondering if this particular show is better enjoyed by following the live feeds thread?

Reading the live feed thread makes the season for me.  I'm up on everything and very grateful for the feedwatchers so I don't have to listen to it 🙂 . 

Lots of great stuff goes on that never makes it into the episodes, plus I love knowing who wins the comps in mostly real time.

[Halting Hex]

On 6/27/2019 at 3:32 PM, Nashville said:

I love it when the Production attempts to rig the game blow up in their faces.  😆

I'm always cheered by remembering that Alyson Grodner's Producer Puppies almost never actually win the game.  Ian Terry, okay, but exception doesn't prove the rule.  And AG eventually got on the "Derrick Explains It All" train, but obviously SparkleGlitter was her number one choice that year.  (And maybe Devon Loves His Daughter, if he hadn't turned out to be such a meathead.)

OTOH, "Big" Jeff never made it past fifth place, despite AG having Julie introduce the Cootie Taw with a "but first, let's see how cute Jeff and Jordan are together!" showmance push in 11.09.   Paul lost two votes, because he's got the Jury-management skills of a floatie.  And Da'Vonne had three advantages shoved into her hands, and was still gone in Week Two.  (So awesome.)

Heck, even Arnold Shapiro had "America" vote Kaysar back into the House, only for my queen Jenny Vasquez to make sure he still didn't even make Jury, anyhow. 😄

[SallySarue]

On 6/27/2019 at 11:03 AM, HurricaneVal said:

The banishment picks are interesting, and can be taken a couple of ways.  Choosing the other houseguests who dared to run against him for Camp Director (except that I believe he put his hat in the ring last, which makes him the aggressor), and the one person who didn't bother to kiss his ass on one level seems quite reasonable, and the logical path to follow if he wanted to keep himself looking "clean" to the rest of the house.  Except, he didn't really explain it that way, so even if that was his logic, nobody in the house knows that was his logic, so he looks like an ass.  But then again, if he was going with that logic, he should have picked Jessica, Jack, Nick, and then either Cliff or David.  

The fact that he did pick the marginalized/minority folks out of that pool (plus, bonus Kemi) for banishment does point to something ugly in Jackson's makeup.  Maybe it is unconscious racism.  Maybe it is conscious racism.  My thought is that he's just your typical entitled douchebro who sees no value in anything and anyone who isn't pretty, white, and athletic like him, so that's why he picked who he picked.  And he has no idea why. 

The fact that Jackson was elected by the rest of the group as the Camp Director also says something about their makeup.  They'd rather a pretty white guy be the leader, rather than maybe someone more qualified, but marginalized, like Jessica, David, or Cliff.  Jackson didn't get into that position by himself.

My prediction is that Jackson will only associate with the "pretty" side of the house, and will never exchange even two words with quirky and weird Nicole.  My further prediction is that this house, like all BB houses in the past, will polarize into the two factions and alliances of the pretty popular folks, and the freaks and geeks.  Just like High School.  And just like High School, the F&G crowd all want to be part of the popular crowd, so they'll eat their own in their attempts to claw their way into being part of the cool crowd.  It happens every time.

Those are some heavy accusations projected on a lot of people based on speculation and assumption. I don't disagree at all about the popular crowd vs the freaks & geeks, because it's true, and happens all the time. And I really don't like Jackson at all, and hope he gets evicted very soon for many of the same reasons everyone else has already mentioned. But racism never even crossed my mind until I read it here in the comments (and no, I'm not white). It's one thing to speculate that someone's choices and actions were motivated by popularity/social status or physical appearance. But to accuse someone of something that could be as character-damaging as racism...that's on a whole other level that I think a lot of viewers have jumped to too quickly. Do I think he acts like an egotistical, arrogant jerk? Yes! But in my opinion, what I've seen from Jackson so far does not justify him being labeled as racist.

As you pointed out, his banishment picks could be taken a couple of ways. The way I took it was exactly how you worded it...quite reasonable and logical, in order to keep himself looking clean. They might not have shown footage of him explaining his reasoning, but I can't imagine that he didn't at some point. Why wouldn't he? But even if he didn't, I'm pretty sure the houseguests could come to that conclusion on their own. It's not a foreign concept for how the first week's nominations are often made. In fact, it's almost always how they are made, in an attempt to keep blood off of their hands (with slight variation, such as nominating the first people who dropped out of the HOH competition, or the only people who didn't attempt to talk to the HOH that week, etc). 

And when you said "But then again, if he was going with that logic, he should have picked Jessica, Jack, Nick, and then either Cliff or David." This wouldn't exactly make sense, because Jack & Nick didn't take an active roll in doing anything that would justify nominating them over the people who DID choose to actively run against him. Jack & Nick had no control over who voted for them.

The fact that the nominations were "minority folks" could've had nothing to do with it. I agree that he seems like a typical entitled douche who values looks and athleticism over substance, but I don't recall ever hearing him say anything regarding race, or doing anything that would suggest that he doesn't like anyone other than white people. I think that's such a loaded accusation to be putting on someone, without seeing more questionable or incriminating actions to base it on. And then to further insinuate that all the people who voted for him could be racist or prejudiced or ethically flawed in some way, just makes the original claim about him being racist even less credible, since now, that label is being carelessly slapped on a whole group of people for merely playing the game they signed up for. There are just too many variables and possible reasons why people might choose to align with one person or the other, and I feel that it is extremely careless and irrational to be making such significant and hurtful allegations that could damage someone's reputation, with so little to back it up with. I don't personally know the guy...maybe he WILL turn out to be racist. Time will tell. But I find it deeply disturbing that so many people would jump on the race bandwagon over what we saw on the show so far. Especially when there is a perfectly legit reason why he picked those exact 4 people. Like I said, I would've nominated the same people, and if I found out that a bunch of strangers were accusing me of being racist over it?? I would be horrified and devestated, to say the least.

On 6/27/2019 at 7:00 AM, peachmangosteen said:

I swear, if I have to watch a 6 person alliance (of bland, white people) run the entire game unchallenged again I'm gonna lose my fucking mind. Last season was painfully boring, I can't do it again! I need them to be broken up immediately

I'm having a hard time understanding how it is okay to say something like this, and no one is accused of being racist. But could you imagine if someone said "If I have to watch another 6 person alliance (with *annoying black people)..." 

 <*or insert whatever insult you prefer>

Without a doubt, people would lose their ever loving minds, and go on the attack...understandably. But it's okay to say this about white people?? Mmmkkkkk

(I'm not calling you, or anyone else, racist!  I'm just pointing out how easily things could be taken that way, when it wasn't meant to be at all.)

On 6/27/2019 at 4:41 AM, Halting Hex said:

I don't think that Jackson chose to banish Cliff/Jessica/David/Kemi because he was being consciously racist, but…I do think he lacks the awareness to take a look back and realize he was kicking 3 of the 4 non-white HGs out of the house and consider how racist that might look.  And, given that this is a game where advantages are sometimes voted on by the viewership, that's a look Mr. Michie might not want to have.  

There's really no reason he couldn't have subbed Paul Lynde, er Original Sam Smith, out for David, for example.  Yes, David threw his hat into the ring before you did, but he got exactly zero votes (and, as noted upthread, not even anyone to lament his possible exit in the DR), so he doesn't seem like much of a threat to be leading a coup.  Meanwhile Sam appears to be somewhat strong and Jackson has, apparently, never even considered aligning with him.  So there's no reason Whistlenut 2.0 couldn't have been sent back to the interstate.

I agree with the first part, that he probably wasn't being racist when he nominated them, because I would've done the exact same thing, since those happen to be the 3 people that ran against him, and the 1 person who didn't speak to him. Sounds perfectly logical to me. I would understand people getting offended if they saw blatent racism going on. But that is not at all what it looked like to me. What I find offensive is people pinning the "racist" label on someone who mentioned nothing racist whatsoever, and people choosing to ignore the completely valid reason for nominating them, which seemed to me to have zero to do with the color of anyone's skin. 

And I do think there was a reason he couldn't sub someone else out for David. Because if he says his reason for nominations was not personal, in an attempt to get less blood on his hands since those were just the people who ran against him...but then he didn't nominate ALL of the people who ran against him...that would just completely invalidate the entire point, and his reasoning would lose all credibility.

On 6/27/2019 at 12:40 PM, HurricaneVal said:

The problem with that is that there were more than three others who were in the running for Camp Director.  Jack and Nick also put their hats in the ring, and they got votes, as opposed to Cliff and David who got no votes.  If Jackson was trying to justify his choices as choosing his biggest threats due to the Camp Director campaign, that logic completely breaks down because the two guys who actually got votes are a bigger threat than the two guys who got no votes.

Jack & Nick did not volunteer for camp director. The houseguests were allowed to vote for whoever they wanted, whether the person volunteered or not. It was not an active choice on their part, since they had no control over who voted for them.

[Stats Queen]

1 hour ago, SallySarue said:

Those are some heavy accusations projected on a lot of people based on speculation and assumption. I don't disagree at all about the popular crowd vs the freaks & geeks, because it's true, and happens all the time. And I really don't like Jackson at all, and hope he gets evicted very soon for many of the same reasons everyone else has already mentioned. But racism never even crossed my mind until I read it here in the comments (and no, I'm not white). It's one thing to speculate that someone's choices and actions were motivated by popularity/social status or physical appearance. But to accuse someone of something that could be as character-damaging as racism...that's on a whole other level that I think a lot of viewers have jumped to too quickly. Do I think he acts like an egotistical, arrogant jerk? Yes! But in my opinion, what I've seen from Jackson so far does not justify him being labeled as racist.

The fact that the nominations were "minority folks" could've had nothing to do with it. I agree that he seems like a typical entitled douche who values looks and athleticism over substance, but I don't recall ever hearing him say anything regarding race, or doing anything that would suggest that he doesn't like anyone other than white people. I think that's such a loaded accusation to be putting on someone, without seeing more questionable or incriminating actions to base it on. And then to further insinuate that all the people who voted for him could be racist or prejudiced or ethically flawed in some way, just makes the original claim about him being racist even less credible, since now, that label is being carelessly slapped on a whole group of people for merely playing the game they signed up for. There are just too many variables and possible reasons why people might choose to align with one person or the other, and I feel that it is extremely careless and irrational to be making such significant and hurtful allegations that could damage someone's reputation, with so little to back it up with. I don't personally know the guy...maybe he WILL turn out to be racist. Time will tell. But I find it deeply disturbing that so many people would jump on the race bandwagon over what we saw on the show so far. Especially when there is a perfectly legit reason why he picked those exact 4 people. Like I said, I would've nominated the same people, and if I found out that a bunch of strangers were accusing me of being racist over it?? I would be horrified and devestated, to say the least.

I'm having a hard time understanding how it is okay to say something like this, and no one is accused of being racist. But could you imagine if someone said "If I have to watch another 6 person alliance (with *annoying black people)..." 

 <*or insert whatever insult you prefer>

Without a doubt, people would lose their ever loving minds, and go on the attack...understandably. But it's okay to say this about white people?? Mmmkkkkk

(I'm not calling you, or anyone else, racist!  I'm just pointing out how easily things could be taken that way, when it wasn't meant to be at all.)

I agree with the first part, that he probably wasn't being racist when he nominated them, because I would've done the exact same thing, since those happen to be the 3 people that ran against him, and the 1 person who didn't speak to him. Sounds perfectly logical to me. I would understand people getting offended if they saw blatent racism going on. But that is not at all what it looked like to me. What I find offensive is people pinning the "racist" label on someone who mentioned nothing racist whatsoever, and people choosing to ignore the completely valid reason for nominating them, which seemed to me to have zero to do with the color of anyone's skin. 

And I do think there was a reason he couldn't sub someone else out for David. Because if he says his reason for nominations was not personal, in an attempt to get less blood on his hands since those were just the people who ran against him...but then he didn't nominate ALL of the people who ran against him...that would just completely invalidate the entire point, and his reasoning would lose all credibility.

Thank you for all of this - I totally agree with you.

Maybe they will reveal they are racists, but that is a heavy accusation to make against someone you don’t know based on decisions they have made so far in this game.  

[Halting Hex]

3 hours ago, SallySarue said:

Because if [Jackson] says his reason for nominations was not personal, in an attempt to get less blood on his hands since those were just the people who ran against him...but then he didn't nominate ALL of the people who ran against him...that would just completely invalidate the entire point, and his reasoning would lose all credibility.

Well, as Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".  Jackson can use a general "they went against me" rationale, without applying it to every single detail.  He can be flexible, if he chooses.

"Jessica seemed to be capable of building an alliance and Cliff did a bit of campaigning, too.  And Kemi didn't even want to talk to me.  I guess I could have thrown David in there, as well, but he didn't really campaign, he got no votes, and I don't need America hating me because I banished every black person in the House, y'know?  And I thought Sam was trying to blow smoke at me with that 'we're all gonna have your back, dude' line, so I'm not real sure I trust him, anyhow.  But three out of four of them aren't going anywhere, so I wasn't really trying to draw lines in the sand, anyway."

After all, it's not as if Jackson had to submit a speech to the HGs for public scrutiny and critique.  (In fact, he wasn't even in the room when the Banished were bopped by Benny.)   Just as long as he had a semi-cogent line to give in private to those who asked (most of whom would be grateful that they weren't "stuffed in a sack"* themselves), he shouldn't have been in too much difficulty.

*-as noted, there's a good chance that "Benny" didn't actually have any HGs in the sacks, and thus that footage was shot only for purposes of the show.  Which makes the hamster (Holly?) who gave the DR about "Kemi" banging into the sink a bit disingenuous, but those are the Games Grodner Plays…

[SallySarue]

2 hours ago, Halting Hex said:

I guess I could have thrown David in there, as well, but he didn't really campaign, he got no votes, and I don't need America hating me because I banished every black person in the House, y'know?

It's really sad that anyone would expect a houseguest to alter their gameplay, possibly to the detriment of their own game, and NOT nominate someone JUST BECAUSE because they are black, out of fear that "America would hate them for banishing every black person in the house." Especially when "every black person in the house" is only 2 people. That's hardly enough to claim he's racist. That sounds ignorant and prejudiced in itself. It's basically saying that he cannot nominate these people without fear of being accused of something as awful as being racist, just because he is WHITE.

Funny how people will totally ignore the fact that he had no control over who volunteered for camp director, and that one of them happened to be black. And he had no control over the fact that the person who decided she didn't need to play the game, and didn't go talk to him, also happened to be black. Claiming that these 2 got nominated because they are black, and not acknowledging that there was a perfectly legitimate reason for nominating each of them, is ridiculous. This is pretty much how nominations have been decided for this type of stuff during the first week of the show in many other seasons of Big Brother as well. I'm tired of people pulling the race card on situations that had absolutely nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin...until THEY brought it up. Ironic. 

Maybe neither of the nominees (or shall I say banishees?) did anything wrong, necessarily, or deserved to be nominated. That's the whole point. It would be hard to decide who to nominate so early in the game, when there's not much to go on, so it makes sense to choose anyone who did anything to stand out...and those were the 4 most obvious people. They are all entitled to play their own game how they see fit. Oh, unless you are white I guess...in that case, you better make sure you don't nominate 2 black people, otherwise you will be accused of being racist. Unbelievable.

[Halting Hex]

35 minutes ago, SallySarue said:

I'm tired of people pulling the race card on situations that had absolutely nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin

Nobody "pulled the race card".  Nobody (in the house) has made any accusations against Jackson.

All I said was that in a game where public perception can influence the events of the game, it behooves players to be aware of how their actions might influence said perceptions.  (Brett pretty much got Grodner's Zingbot's "hey, stop being such an ass in the goodbye messages" message loud and clear last season, for example.)

Let's not forget that there's a $25,000 Fan Favorite prize out there, after all.  "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", according to Alexander Pope (hey, I may as well completely empty the aphorism drawer, right?)…but a certain amount of self-awareness doesn't seem as though it should hurt.  But JMO.

[SallySarue]

1 hour ago, Halting Hex said:

Nobody "pulled the race card".  Nobody (in the house) has made any accusations against Jackson.

All I said was that in a game where public perception can influence the events of the game, it behooves players to be aware of how their actions might influence said perceptions.  (Brett pretty much got Grodner's Zingbot's "hey, stop being such an ass in the goodbye messages" message loud and clear last season, for example.)

Let's not forget that there's a $25,000 Fan Favorite prize out there, after all.  "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", according to Alexander Pope (hey, I may as well completely empty the aphorism drawer, right?)…but a certain amount of self-awareness doesn't seem as though it should hurt.  But JMO.

It has happened over and over in this very thread, where people are reaching to make something out of nothing, claiming someone is racist, when there is a perfectly valid and logical explanation for the choices of who was banished, and it had nothing to do with what color these people are. IMO, anyone who is accusing him of being racist over what we saw on the show, is the one displaying racist tendencies by so quickly throwing such a horrible accusation out there in the first place, just because someone is white nominating someone who is black. I havn't been shown anything to indicate that anyone is racist in the house. Never once did I say anything about my comments pertaining to anyone in the house. Another assumption that seems to have come out of nowhere. My statements were solely regarding viewers comments that I have read since the last episode aired. 

And never once did I imply that people in the BB house shouldn't have self-awareness as to how they are coming off to the outside world.  Where do you come up with this stuff?? Nevermind, I don't really care. I'm done with this topic. It's a waste of time and energy.

[Eolivet]

On 6/28/2019 at 1:27 PM, Pass the Tequila said:

I'm wondering if this particular show is better enjoyed by following the live feeds thread?

Devil's Advocate here ... I followed the live feed thread for a couple seasons, and then had to stop because it took away my enjoyment of the show. Knowing there were heinous people that were being edited into America's Sweethearts completely killed my interest. I became so preoccupied with what the editors chose to show and what they chose to hide that it spoiled any enjoyment of it as entertainment. I don't need to know how truly awful these people are. I would honestly rather think of them all as dumb reality show contestants in a social experiment for a lot of money, all of whom lacked the good sense to say "no, I do not want cameras following my every move 24/7!"

For this episode at least, I am very happy that CBS appeared to nip Jack's "I will suddenly give Jackson a different name 'cause I feel like it" power trip in the bud. Dude's name is Jackson, not whatever Jack decides to call him. Even if having two guys with "Jack" in their name is too confusing for his teeny-tiny brain.