Canopus

You realize that they aren't criminals in jail, don't you? They can walk out the door whenever they want. They know that, CBS knows that, and CBS is far more interested in producing an entertaining show than running a "fair" prison.

No, it wouldn't be fair at all. It would cause the players to hide any information from the producers, which would make the show even more boring. I don't want them playing for the audience, I want them playing it as if the cameras don't exist. Favorite Player already causes enough problems. Luckily, it's just a small amount, so damage is minimized. If you make "Favorite Player" suddenly worth $500K, it totally messes up genuine gameplay.

Old news.

Maybe no pride, but he was the only person in the house with any balls.

We've already discussed that, and it's very unlikely that the producers would kick someone out of the game once they reach the point of jury. It would unbalance the final voting. We've seen that the producers don't really care about breaking the rules, so what makes you think they'd go all the way from "a single penalty vote" to "kick you out of the game entirely". The only way they're going to kick someone out is if they're causing a safety problem to others or themselves, or causing too many problems to producing the show. And once the game reaches the jury point, that threshold goes way up.

Yes, I agree. If I knew I was going, I would break every rule in the book if it meant the other players would be punished. With this season's lot, I'd shoot myself in the head, if it meant the others would feel it instead!

Yes, and even if he didn't win it, I'm sure CBS would miscount the votes to make sure he got the win. So, who knows if he really won it? He was guaranteed it regardless. Lamest, most predictable season ever. I think it's time for CBS to cancel this show.

Who cares how many votes they give, when the player wants to leave. Give him 100 votes; the outcome is the same. As for kicking him out entirely, you can't really do that when they make it to jury. It messes up the game. And I don't think anybody wants to go back to BB1 days when the audience had such a huge impact on the game. If you let America vote, the players all start playing to the audience, instead of being honest in the diary room, etc. The game becomes even more boring and predictable. I think the current rule is fine. If CBS goes too hard on a player that clearly doesn't want to be there, they run the risk of the player quitting and walking out. About the only other thing they can do, is send the player directly to jury and have another HoH competition.

Heh, probably very true. Big Brother tends to attract houseguests from dysfunctional backgrounds. More drama.

Then why was the question brought up? As I already stated, I don't believe it should be viewed negatively, but it's a simple fact that it is (for many people). I think you already knew that, despite claiming otherwise. Go to a playground and watch how people react to the sole man sitting on a bench watching the kids. "Oh, what a nice stay-at-home father" isn't often the first thought people have of him. It's sad, but still true.

Yeah, I remember him. Really, really pathetic. She should be ashamed of her behavior, but her husband should be even more ashamed of his reaction to it.

It would be funny to see Kevin's reaction. Hell, why not? This is the season of bullying, they may as well go all-out.

Sure. But someone asked why stay-at-home-dad was viewed negatively. I stated the obvious reason why. Everyone knows it's viewed negatively, and everyone knows why it is viewed negatively. I'm just pointing out the obvious, because everyone else is afraid to say it. I don't agree that it should be negative, but it is, and it's not going to go away anytime soon. BTW, sexes are not "equal". They have equal rights and opportunities, as they should. And they should take on any role they can do. But I don't agree with the SJW narrative that there are no differences between men and women, and gender is a made-up societal construct. Women and men tend to prefer different things. There is a huge overlap, but it's not equal. I believe raising children is one of those things that more women have an interest in (and aptitude), than men. Not all women, and not all men. There's a big overlap. But the differences are there, and that is the reason why stay-at-home-dad will generally be viewed as negative for a long time. If you don't believe me, look around at who runs daycares, and who's teaching young children in school. It's mostly women, because they have the interest and aptitude to do it. Some men do as well, but not nearly as many as women. It's normal that more women like raising children, than men. Again, not all, but it's statistically very significant. Biologically, there are child-care tasks that men just are not equipped to do at all. We have technology now that allows men to do it, but there hasn't been enough time for evolution to erase the aptitude yet. As for "a woman's place is in the home", that's garbage. I don't believe there is a difference between men's interest in working, and women's. That is why there's no negative connotation with women that choose to work. Back in the 1950's, keeping women in the home was a societal construct, and not "normal". We've done away with those abnormal attitudes today. If you think this sounds sexist, fine. But rather than just yell sexist, point out where in my argument I am wrong.

Yeah, I remember that. The faux-anger from CBS at her racism, while they cashed in on the drama and exploited it as much as they could. And wasn't there other racists on that season, that CBS chose to completely white-wash? CBS always picks their favorites, and shows them squeaky-clean.

I don't really care what he does or doesn't do. I'm just pointing out that a "stay at home dad" has negative connotations. You all know it. You may disagree with it, but that doesn't change it. And, I think it will always be like that, until babies are grown in labs and nobody has a biological sex anymore. Maybe that time will be sooner than we think, but until then, "stay at home dad" will be seen as a somewhat pathetic man. Again, I'm not saying I agree with that connotation, I'm just pointing it out to all of you who already know it but wish to pretend you don't.

You obviously must know why it has a negative connotation for a man. Otherwise, you wouldn't ask. Hey, it may not be right, or PC, but you can't undo 1,000,000 years of human norms just because it's the 21st century.

Yes, the reason why she was ejected is because she went after the producers, making it difficult for them to do their job. I'm sure they were happy about her drama, but not when it came to bothering them. I can understand that, as they're trying to produce a show. Evil Dick did all kinds of nasty stuff in the house. IMO, he should have been kicked out, because he was interfering with other players, and at the very least physically intimidating them. But the producers loved his drama, so they let him do whatever he wanted. If they wouldn't kick Dick out, they certainly have no business kicking out Matt for eating regular food.

The general problem with reality shows, is that a-holes tend to be the ones who make it to the end. Whether it be Survivor (which I no longer watch because it's always the same), or Big Brother, etc. People that are nice and you want to win, seldom do. It certainly won't happen this season.

So, why should he bother eating slop all week, if he knows he's getting evicted? There's no impact to the game or other players. When he gets to jury, he can eat what he wants. So what's the big deal about eating what he wants now? I really don't think anyone should get kicked out unless they break rules which intentionally affects the game or other players. He's only affecting himself, and he's getting a penalty vote as punishment (even if it means little at this point).

They are being applied to everyone. Matt got a penalty vote for violating the rules. That's the rule! There's nothing that says you get kicked of the game for not eating slop.

I thought Ramses was the only gay player this year?

Yup, big difference between destroying property, and just refusing punishments. Ultimately, he'll get his punishment vote, and go to jury where he can eat what he wants. It's not like he has a chance in hell of winning the game, and he knows it, so why bother eating slop and having false-hope? This whole season has been 100% predictable. They should have just given Paul the win back in week 2, instead of the 3-week immunity. Give this boring season a merciful death.

I don't see the big deal. He's eating regular food. So? It's not like he's trying to murder anyone. A penalty vote is the rule, so just give him one and let him eat regular food.

The show would be too boring without drama. I (barely) remember BB1, and it was a horrible production! I have no idea why CBS renewed the show, but adding more drama definitely made it more watchable. You need villains and heros. Unfortunately, CBS doesn't always pick the best person for who they choose to make the hero. But, it is what it is.

I don't think it is the first thing to think of for revenge. Wasn't it meant to be the last thing? i.e., Ramp up the rhetoric until it crosses the line. It's meant to be funny to the person saying it (because it's so ridiculously over the line), it's definitely not meant to be funny to the target. I'd find it quite funny if Kevin said the same thing to Jason. "I'm going to rape your pregnant wife and make your kid watch!" I mean, what would Jason say in return? He said the same thing! It would be funny to watch him squirm in hypocrisy. Or, maybe he'd just laugh. Kinda doubt it, but that would be funny too. In any case, I want to watch the remaining scumbags/bitches in the house feed on each other and experience the hate they spewed on the evicted players. Let Kevin find out what Jason said! Let others say it to Jason! And, please, let them finally start personally attacking Paul!