And you must see how offensive it is for someone who doesn't like him to claim to speak on behalf of those who do.
It's hard to take that seriously when I don't see it being made about lots of other posts that express an opinion about why a HM won.
And I'd still like to have it clarified whether you think that because you voted for Luke it's ok for you to say why other people voted for him, even though their reasons could have been different from yours, but it's not ok for someone who didn't vote for him to express an opinion on the subject?
If someone says that Luke only won because he was transgender, of course it is speaking for those who voted for him: how else could he have won, other than by attracting votes?
The post was no more speaking for those who voted for him than any other post that expresses an opinion on why a HM won. I don't see anyone attacking all posts that express such views or holding back from expressing such views themselves.
Notice, btw, how you've droped the "claim" part. Because of course the post did not claim to speak for those who voted for him. "Claim" made it sound worse, but there was no such claim.
That would have been very irritating if I had just put it on its own, but I did justify it with specific examples.
Nonetheless, you accept that people can be wrong about why they think as they do.
Doesn't matter since I find staying out of arguments, except when defending someone who cannot defend themselves, admirable.
If you find it admirable to stay out of arguments even as a tactic to avoid nominations, fine. But that doesn't mean it can't be a tactic to avoid nominations. (Not that staying out of arguments is the only way to try to fly below the radar, of course.)
But it is fatally easy to assume that because something is shown, the housemate(s) expected it to be shown.
Note that I didn't say the HMs expected it to be shown. I even said "they couldn't be sure it would be shown".
There is something wrong with the 'let alone' in that sentence. A lot of housemates are picked for some reason other than their fantastically entertaining personality ...
Once they are in the house they stand or fall on their own merits.
There is something wrong with that 'on their own merits', if it's supposed to mean those other factors somehow vanish or can't matter to viewers.
Yes, because I really don't think they do.
So if a HM's looks were a big factor in why they were picked -- as in some of your initial examples -- then you think their looks cease to matter once they're in the house? Really?
By week 7 there were indeed other factors in play, and he was being judged entirely on his behaviour in the house
You cannot possibly know that. And should you be speaking for all the viewers who formed a judgement?
He (Rylan) looked like the obvious winner from day 1 to me, and I had never seen him before in my life.
What made him look like the obvious winner on day 1?
DId you also not know he'd been in X Factor? In any case, do you think no liking for Rylan carried over from X Factor? Because if some did, how can we know it wasn't enough to get him the CBB win?
Please don't presume to tell me why I wanted Luke to win - nothing to do with his "back story". Is it so hard to accept that I just liked him - and still do.
No one told you why you wanted Luke to win.
When someone speaks in general terms such as "people overlooked their failings as housemates due to their back stories", it should not be understood as a claim about everyone with no exceptions.
But that's no more relevant than a housemate picking up votes for being from Birmingham or having ginger hair. The number of transgender people is relatively small and in any case plainly
none of them would have voted for him if they didn't like him too
Yes it is hard to accept because I'm pretty sure he would have limited support and people wouldn't be so vehemently defending him if it wasn't for his back story, as he contributed little in the house.
Firstly, people on here still vehemently defend other winners too, that's the nature of the forum, some people try to come up with reasons why Housemate A should or shouldn't have won and others try to argue their case for the opposite viewpoint. Secondly Luke was the most recent winner so is more likely than say Brian Belo to have people around to speak up for him.
And last but by no means least Luke has done his utmost to reach out and make himself accessible to the people who supported him in Big Brother.
Firstly, people on here still vehemently defend other winners too, that's the nature of the forum, some people try to come up with reasons why Housemate A should or shouldn't have won and others try to argue their case for the opposite viewpoint. Secondly Luke was the most recent winner so is more likely than say Brian Belo to have people around to speak up for him.
And last but by no means least Luke has done his utmost to reach out and make himself accessible to the people who supported him in Big Brother."
I accept that however, some of his fans seem incapble of acknowledging any of his negative aspects as a housemate and put him on a pedestal which does him or his fans no favours and if anything is quite patronizing towards him.
"Luke has done his utmost to reach out and make himself accessible to the people who supported him in Big Brother
Or in other words, promote himself on twitter. Also according to threads on here his relationship with his fans has become a bit clichey.
When someone speaks in general terms such as "people overlooked their failings as housemates due to their back stories", it should not be understood as a claim about everyone with no exceptions.
You can't know that.
If he had said some people instead of just people and not used the word majority, then I wouldn't have read as including me! The post comes across to me as giving reasons why I voted as I did and I am entitled to read it this way.
people overlooked their failings as housemates due to their back stories. In both cases the majority voting reflected the times where minorities are lauded just for being minorites,
If he had said some people instead of just people and not used the word majority, then I wouldn't have read as including me! The post comes across to me as giving reasons why I voted as I did and I am entitled to read it this way.
people overlooked their failings as housemates due to their back stories. In both cases the majority voting reflected the times where minorities are lauded just for being minorites,
It shouldn't be necessary to explicitly say "some", and even a "majority" needn't have to include you.
You're entitled to read it any way you want, and I'm entitled to say you're reading it as saying something that it didn't.
I accept that however, some of his fans seem incapble of acknowledging any of his negative aspects as a housemate and put him on a pedestal which does him or his fans no favours and if anything is quite patronizing towards him.
"Luke has done his utmost to reach out and make himself accessible to the people who supported him in Big Brother
Or in other words, promote himself on twitter. Also according to threads on here his relationship with his fans has become a bit clichey.
I accept that some people will not accept any of his faults as a housemate although I myself struggle to find many and those that are listed can usually be explained by a mixture of editing, the singularly unpleasant atmosphere and Big Brother presenters who delighted in looking for anything remotely salacious to report.
No, promoting himself on twitter was not what I meant. In fact he has done very little to actually promote since leaving the house, most of the offers he could have taken up he hasn't ended up doing . I meant he has made himself so accessible that many people seem to think he has a duty to be there for them 24 hours a day responding to messages and has no right to a life of his own.
As regards some of his so-called Army being a bit cliquey that is true but it's probably because he is too nice and was not media savvy enough to have the sense to keep his followers at arm's length
I can't say this enough times: if people had not really liked Luke, they would not have voted for him.
...
Repeating it doesn't make it any more true. People vote for lots of different reasons. When Luke was up against Ashleigh, Becky, and Deana, for example, some could have voted for him because they wanted one of the others out. I don't think I liked Luke at that point, but I may well have voted for him. (I say it like that because I don't remember for sure how, or even if, I voted that time.)
As we've seen in many discussions in this forum, some people care a lot about how much they like the HMs, and other people don't. Didn't you have a whole [thread=1735921]thread[/thread] about that?
If someone is vilified for doing something, it is fair to point out that other people, not vilified, did the same.
Often, it's just a distraction from the topic that's supposed to be under discussion. (Not that the post did vilify him, btw.)
And as I always say when this kind of argument is used against a housemate, what were the others doing while Luke was sitting in the garden? BB is a very, very inactive experience on the whole, except when tasks are in progress. While Luke, Adam, Lauren and later Deana were sitting in the garden, the others were not toiling in thei fields: they were either sitting inside, lying in the garden, or lying in bed. The camera did not pan from the outsiders sitting in the garden to the others organising leapfrog competitions, did it?
"The others were just as bad" is not much of an argument for a HM, though, is it?
No, but the point is that Ashleigh had exactly the same amount of tobacco as the others, and was almost never shown smoking it. Which makes it into an editing trick, as happened with Lisa, who managed to give the impression that she sat and smoked all day even when they were on a ration of two cigarettes a day. Luke and Adam's 'story' was "sits in the garden smoking". Ashleigh's was 'has unattractive romance with Luke S and bitches with the other girls". You could fairly point out that Ashleigh's story was worse, but still, it is curious that BB chose to give the impression that the smoking area was only used by the same four people, when it clearly wasn't.
No, that won't do. Do I have to quote the posts in which the amount of time they spent smoking was treated as the issue? Even in the post in this thread that I was answering, you said -- for example -- "I asked Luke afterwards when Ashleigh smoked, since we almost never saw her; he said in some surprise that she spent as long sitting smoking in the garden as he did." Even in the post I'm answering now, you say "Lisa, who managed to give the impression that she sat and smoked all day"; and you say Luke's 'story' was "sits in the garden smoking". That's about how he spent his time, not about whether he had a larger share of the tobacco.
But now I wonder even more exactly what Luke said about Ashley smoking, and exactly what he was asked. Because if it was about the amount of tobacco, then when you've reported it as about time, that was your inference rather than what he said.
Indeed, if your point is and was about the amount of tobacco, that makes your argument worse, not better. I don't think i've ever seen anyone say the problem with Luke was that he smoked more of the tobacco than other HMs. The amount has a role, but it's in showing something about the time -- as in your Lisa example: "Lisa, who managed to give the impression that she sat and smoked all day even when they were on a ration of two cigarettes a day. The limited ration is supposed to show that it could not be true that she spent all day sitting and smoking.
Now, if what we have is that Luke and Ashleigh smoked the same about of tobacco, they could have spent different amounts of time doing it, so that "sat and smoked for months" is a fairer description of Luke than of Ashleigh. Of course, it could be argued that they couldn't have spent hugely different amounts of time smoking.
Ok; but the point isn't literally about how much time Luke spent actually smoking. Consider the difference between (a) someone who goes to the smoking area, has a quick cigarette, then goes back to their friends, and (b) someone who spends a lot of time in the smoking area, sometimes smoking, sometimes chatting, or just sitting there, while others smoke, or while others sit there too, or alone. People aren't going to sum up (a)'s time as "sat and smoked for months", but they might so sum up (b)'s. Similarly for Lisa. Sure, she wasn't literally smoking all day. Still, even though she couldn't literally have smoked all day when the ration was so little, she could still have spent most of the day in much the same place, doing nothing else of note (or else bitching or grumbling).
As I said, if BB picked scenes at random, how active would Luke have seemed? I suspect we'd still have seen a lot of him sitting in the smoking area. If much the same result can be had by picking times at random, it doesn't take an editing trick. I don't think many viewers thought Ashleigh didn't smoke. They may well have thought she didn't spend a lot of her time sitting in the smoking area, but it could be true that she didn't spend much of her time that way.
Also, there's often simplification and exaggeration when someone sums up a HM. No one thinks Luke literally did nothing but sit and smoke, as if he didn't even eat or sleep or take part in tasks. There doesn't have to be an editing trick that accounts for simplified and exaggerated descriptions.
One further problem with the "editing trick" idea is that it suggests BB deliberately tried to create a false impression by using editing techniques with that end in mind. A milder version is that BB has made up some stories and edits to fit the stories rather than what actually happened.
BB has people whose job is something like 'story editor'. Guilty as charged? Well, I was watching Springwatch last week, and one of the shows went into how it was produced. Springwatch has story editors too. (I'm not sure of the exact job titles for either show, but they're at least close to 'story editor'.) The process of extracting stories probably does distort to some extent. For example, long stretches in which nothing much happens will tend to be left out or covered very briefly. However, I think it would be misleading to describe the process as an editing trick. (I am not, btw, saying you did or would describe it as such.)
I think that what may have happened was this: When editing whole days down to less than an hour each, and trying to make an interesting show, so consequently trying to select the more significant scenes and moments, few of Ashleigh's were when she was in the smoking area, but many of Luke's were while he was there. Even something like a HM sitting alone in the smoking area can be significant, and the significance doesn't have to be "that's all this HM does" even though it might nonetheless reinforce any such beliefs among viewers.
Well he did cook for the whole house throughout his time there, which was quite active. And again, he was rather unfairly vilified for spending so much time in a three quarters lying position on the sofa. But it is unfair because when he was there, so were the others, doing what they do in BB, ie lounging around. Cameron used to exercise as I recall, and Steph cleaned like a demon, but I doubt whether Gos was any less active than, for example, Tania. He was fatterof course, which unfortunately is likely to have been behind the sneers.
Gos was often lying on the sofa (or was similarly inactive) when the others were active, and even when cooking he wasn't very energetic. I really don't think he qualifies as one of the most physically active housemates in bb4. (I didn't dislike him btw and didn't mind his physique.)
There is nothing in particular that makes a housemate 'deserve to win', other than winning the affections of the people. Brian B succeeded by seeming dim but happy; Aaron succeeded by seeming moody but clever; Kate did it by seeming young, vulnerable but determined; Craig did it by seeming older, confident and relaxed.
Did you, btw, vote for all of those HMs, so that it's ok for you to "speak for" those who did?
You are right that no one has ever won by being active and helpful in the house, but I DO take at least a bit of an interest in who pulls their weight; it irritates me by default when people like Ashleigh never so much as wash a spoon and give the impression that at home they have slaves to pick up after them. It is one little indicator among many of how selfish or unselfish a housemate is, and is interesting on that basis. (Carole came into a different category, using cooking and cleaning as a means of controlling others).
Comments
It's hard to take that seriously when I don't see it being made about lots of other posts that express an opinion about why a HM won.
And I'd still like to have it clarified whether you think that because you voted for Luke it's ok for you to say why other people voted for him, even though their reasons could have been different from yours, but it's not ok for someone who didn't vote for him to express an opinion on the subject?
The post was no more speaking for those who voted for him than any other post that expresses an opinion on why a HM won. I don't see anyone attacking all posts that express such views or holding back from expressing such views themselves.
Notice, btw, how you've droped the "claim" part. Because of course the post did not claim to speak for those who voted for him. "Claim" made it sound worse, but there was no such claim.
Nonetheless, you accept that people can be wrong about why they think as they do.
If you find it admirable to stay out of arguments even as a tactic to avoid nominations, fine. But that doesn't mean it can't be a tactic to avoid nominations. (Not that staying out of arguments is the only way to try to fly below the radar, of course.)
Note that I didn't say the HMs expected it to be shown. I even said "they couldn't be sure it would be shown".
So if a HM's looks were a big factor in why they were picked -- as in some of your initial examples -- then you think their looks cease to matter once they're in the house? Really?
You cannot possibly know that. And should you be speaking for all the viewers who formed a judgement?
What made him look like the obvious winner on day 1?
DId you also not know he'd been in X Factor? In any case, do you think no liking for Rylan carried over from X Factor? Because if some did, how can we know it wasn't enough to get him the CBB win?
That's enough for one post.
No one told you why you wanted Luke to win.
When someone speaks in general terms such as "people overlooked their failings as housemates due to their back stories", it should not be understood as a claim about everyone with no exceptions.
You can't know that.
Oh Dear!
Firstly, people on here still vehemently defend other winners too, that's the nature of the forum, some people try to come up with reasons why Housemate A should or shouldn't have won and others try to argue their case for the opposite viewpoint. Secondly Luke was the most recent winner so is more likely than say Brian Belo to have people around to speak up for him.
And last but by no means least Luke has done his utmost to reach out and make himself accessible to the people who supported him in Big Brother.
I accept that however, some of his fans seem incapble of acknowledging any of his negative aspects as a housemate and put him on a pedestal which does him or his fans no favours and if anything is quite patronizing towards him.
"Luke has done his utmost to reach out and make himself accessible to the people who supported him in Big Brother
Or in other words, promote himself on twitter. Also according to threads on here his relationship with his fans has become a bit clichey.
If he had said some people instead of just people and not used the word majority, then I wouldn't have read as including me! The post comes across to me as giving reasons why I voted as I did and I am entitled to read it this way.
people overlooked their failings as housemates due to their back stories. In both cases the majority voting reflected the times where minorities are lauded just for being minorites,
me too - and two nights in a row
It shouldn't be necessary to explicitly say "some", and even a "majority" needn't have to include you.
You're entitled to read it any way you want, and I'm entitled to say you're reading it as saying something that it didn't.
I accept that some people will not accept any of his faults as a housemate although I myself struggle to find many and those that are listed can usually be explained by a mixture of editing, the singularly unpleasant atmosphere and Big Brother presenters who delighted in looking for anything remotely salacious to report.
No, promoting himself on twitter was not what I meant. In fact he has done very little to actually promote since leaving the house, most of the offers he could have taken up he hasn't ended up doing . I meant he has made himself so accessible that many people seem to think he has a duty to be there for them 24 hours a day responding to messages and has no right to a life of his own.
As regards some of his so-called Army being a bit cliquey that is true but it's probably because he is too nice and was not media savvy enough to have the sense to keep his followers at arm's length
Repeating it doesn't make it any more true. People vote for lots of different reasons. When Luke was up against Ashleigh, Becky, and Deana, for example, some could have voted for him because they wanted one of the others out. I don't think I liked Luke at that point, but I may well have voted for him. (I say it like that because I don't remember for sure how, or even if, I voted that time.)
As we've seen in many discussions in this forum, some people care a lot about how much they like the HMs, and other people don't. Didn't you have a whole [thread=1735921]thread[/thread] about that?
Often, it's just a distraction from the topic that's supposed to be under discussion. (Not that the post did vilify him, btw.)
"The others were just as bad" is not much of an argument for a HM, though, is it?
No, that won't do. Do I have to quote the posts in which the amount of time they spent smoking was treated as the issue? Even in the post in this thread that I was answering, you said -- for example -- "I asked Luke afterwards when Ashleigh smoked, since we almost never saw her; he said in some surprise that she spent as long sitting smoking in the garden as he did." Even in the post I'm answering now, you say "Lisa, who managed to give the impression that she sat and smoked all day"; and you say Luke's 'story' was "sits in the garden smoking". That's about how he spent his time, not about whether he had a larger share of the tobacco.
But now I wonder even more exactly what Luke said about Ashley smoking, and exactly what he was asked. Because if it was about the amount of tobacco, then when you've reported it as about time, that was your inference rather than what he said.
Indeed, if your point is and was about the amount of tobacco, that makes your argument worse, not better. I don't think i've ever seen anyone say the problem with Luke was that he smoked more of the tobacco than other HMs. The amount has a role, but it's in showing something about the time -- as in your Lisa example: "Lisa, who managed to give the impression that she sat and smoked all day even when they were on a ration of two cigarettes a day. The limited ration is supposed to show that it could not be true that she spent all day sitting and smoking.
Now, if what we have is that Luke and Ashleigh smoked the same about of tobacco, they could have spent different amounts of time doing it, so that "sat and smoked for months" is a fairer description of Luke than of Ashleigh. Of course, it could be argued that they couldn't have spent hugely different amounts of time smoking.
Ok; but the point isn't literally about how much time Luke spent actually smoking. Consider the difference between (a) someone who goes to the smoking area, has a quick cigarette, then goes back to their friends, and (b) someone who spends a lot of time in the smoking area, sometimes smoking, sometimes chatting, or just sitting there, while others smoke, or while others sit there too, or alone. People aren't going to sum up (a)'s time as "sat and smoked for months", but they might so sum up (b)'s. Similarly for Lisa. Sure, she wasn't literally smoking all day. Still, even though she couldn't literally have smoked all day when the ration was so little, she could still have spent most of the day in much the same place, doing nothing else of note (or else bitching or grumbling).
As I said, if BB picked scenes at random, how active would Luke have seemed? I suspect we'd still have seen a lot of him sitting in the smoking area. If much the same result can be had by picking times at random, it doesn't take an editing trick. I don't think many viewers thought Ashleigh didn't smoke. They may well have thought she didn't spend a lot of her time sitting in the smoking area, but it could be true that she didn't spend much of her time that way.
Also, there's often simplification and exaggeration when someone sums up a HM. No one thinks Luke literally did nothing but sit and smoke, as if he didn't even eat or sleep or take part in tasks. There doesn't have to be an editing trick that accounts for simplified and exaggerated descriptions.
One further problem with the "editing trick" idea is that it suggests BB deliberately tried to create a false impression by using editing techniques with that end in mind. A milder version is that BB has made up some stories and edits to fit the stories rather than what actually happened.
BB has people whose job is something like 'story editor'. Guilty as charged? Well, I was watching Springwatch last week, and one of the shows went into how it was produced. Springwatch has story editors too. (I'm not sure of the exact job titles for either show, but they're at least close to 'story editor'.) The process of extracting stories probably does distort to some extent. For example, long stretches in which nothing much happens will tend to be left out or covered very briefly. However, I think it would be misleading to describe the process as an editing trick. (I am not, btw, saying you did or would describe it as such.)
I think that what may have happened was this: When editing whole days down to less than an hour each, and trying to make an interesting show, so consequently trying to select the more significant scenes and moments, few of Ashleigh's were when she was in the smoking area, but many of Luke's were while he was there. Even something like a HM sitting alone in the smoking area can be significant, and the significance doesn't have to be "that's all this HM does" even though it might nonetheless reinforce any such beliefs among viewers.
Gos was often lying on the sofa (or was similarly inactive) when the others were active, and even when cooking he wasn't very energetic. I really don't think he qualifies as one of the most physically active housemates in bb4. (I didn't dislike him btw and didn't mind his physique.)
Did you, btw, vote for all of those HMs, so that it's ok for you to "speak for" those who did?
Ok.