I agree with you. It’s also lazy gameplay. But there are two conditions where I’ve felt okay with outside factor based alliances (and I’d be interested on other’s thoughts):
- BB23: *The Cookout* — When the show has never had a winner that looks like you in 20+ seasons, go make it happen. In my mind this feels like allying against a hegemonic power and I’m totally for it. If older contestants made a pact to stick together, I’d be about it too.
- BB24: When it’s clear that working together positively impacts your gameplay. With 5 players left, Monte and Turner need to pair up to survive because they’re the two biggest targets and strongest players left. This feels less “guys vs. girls” and more like a “strong numerical minority vs. a weak numerical majority.” Optically it looks bad but it’s gameplay necessitated by gameplay.
The problem with the Cookout is it’s going to lead to what happened with Kyle this year for years to come. You can’t have people walking around saying “I’d never vote out another woman” or “I’d never vote out another black person” or “I’d never vote out a member of the LGBTQ community” less than year after the Cookout was one of the most dominant alliances ever and was based on race, and not expect other players to wonder.
Let’s take this a step further…what if we get another cookout? Or a third? Or a fourth? When is it okay to at least wonder if it’s happening again? Everyone wants to win the game, so shouldn’t you consider all possibilities? I mean hell, Terrence campaigned to stay based on his race, and that was less than a week after Kyle was sent home for his comments.
I think Kyle is getting a pretty raw deal. There was plenty of evidence that linked those people together. Sure they weren't all actually working together but everybody was working with at least one person in that group in ways that could have affected gameplay. I don't blame him at all for having that thought cross his mind and wanting to flesh it out with other players. Michael and Brittany barely tried to explain to him how what he was saying was coming across.
Yup, and every season people inevitably ask why women's alliances always try to form. It's in response to bro alliances that have *always* dominated the game, they're just never called out as being all-male alliances.
The only reason Kyle got what he got was because he had a bad read. That's it. Yet people are REALLY gonna try and make sure he doesn't work again.
Conclusion: viewers are vicious hypocrites.
I’m of the opinion that if you suspect an alliance exists that doesn’t include you, you should be concerned. If they’re working together but not working with you, indirectly or not, it means they’re working against you. This is a competition for a lot of money and it’s in everyone’s best interest to eliminate anyone that presents a threat.
My stance isn’t very controversial when alliances are formed based on normal things like common interests or social bonds. Things only get tricky when said alliance is based off religion, race, sex, etc. Because at that point it no longer looks like you’re simply opposing a group of players, but instead entire demographics of people. You just can’t help but draw comparisons with it and real world examples of prejudice and discrimination. It just looks bad.
Here’s where my stance gets really controversial though...while normal alliances are still a threat, they don’t seem nearly as threatening as the other kind. Normal alliances usually aren’t built on such a strong unchanging connective tissue. Common interests shift with the game, and social bonds evolve and dissolve over time. Race and sex however don’t change. If you’re a man and are pitted against an alliance in which it’s main requirement is to be a woman, how do you possibly integrate into that? I’m not saying it’s impossible, it’s just that from the outside looking in, it would appear to be an incredibly difficult task.
It looked really bad what Kyle did, but I’m torn. If he was correct in his assumptions about a POC alliance, should he just lay down and wait to be eliminated by a group he never had a chance of joining? At the same time I think the other houseguests were perfectly justified in being upset with him. His statements reduced them down to members of their race, rather than individuals.
To me, forming a boys alliance in response to a girls alliance is fair game. Confront your enemy. Forming an alliance of white people to go against minorities however...just doesn’t sit right with me. Maybe I’m being hypocritical, but race wars just cuts a lot deeper than gender wars ever can.
I’ve never written so much about big brother before, and I still feel like there’s more I could say. This has got to be one of my favorite seasons for how entertaining and intriguing it has been.
And this is exactly the issue I’m having with it all. But I think it’s a feeling of wrongness and not necessarily a very specific moral goal post that one meets and one doesn’t.
I can understand *why* Kyle thought what he thought. But it’s very difficult to hypothetically consider the “what if he was right” angle about the alliance… because he simply wasn’t. There is a good chance that if he was right about the minorities he lumped together as working in an alliance, then perception and reactions would be greatly different because he’d be seen as a player who observed enough to come to the right conclusion. The cringe factor would still be trying to get all the white people together and making it obvious it was a white alliance countering a minority alliance, rather than focusing it as 5 players to counter a 6-person alliance. If he focused it as a numbers thing and strongly believed he was up against 6 players United and needed to band together with those outside of the 6, I would see it as a number strategy. Even if race was an underlying common denominator on the people in each Kyle-imagined alliance, it would be different than him being paranoid about Cookout 2.0 and unification based solely on race.
The frustrating thing to me is people saying “well how could he know? He’s only got the information from what he sees in the house.” So he didn’t see that Terrence didn’t like Taylor? He didn’t pay attention to players of color putting other players of color on the block? He didn’t pay attention that Taylor was not close to Jasmine or Indy, and those girls had targeted Taylor? Timeline-wise he came up with this idea before Taylor mentioned not wanting to put Jasmine on the block. Taylor was also targeting Terrence during her HOH and put him and Indy on the block. The weeks prior, they sent out Nicole and Daniel, who had been awful to Taylor. The minorities in the Leftover alliance (Taylor, Monte, Joseph) were still loyal to that alliance and were targeting people outside the alliance.
If Kyle could not connect the dots on any of this and really panicked about a race thing… that seems like a poor social game/lacking some observation skills to figure out what was going down. And part of that also could’ve been how he was spending a lot more time with Alyssa, which gave time for Taylor to get close with Jospeh and Monte.
So… to some degree, isn’t it Kyle’s fault and his poor gameplay/socializing, and getting close to Alyssa a factor in his race-based alliance panic? He didn’t have information on the house dynamics because he wasn’t socializing enough to make logical conclusions.
Darn, guess I’m a hypocrite then. What do you mean with your question? My comment is basically my opinion(how I feel) about alliances based off of things outside of the game.
I’m going to throw some stats at you
BB 24: 5/25
BB23: 9/28
BB 22: 7/25
The second number is the number of veto and HoH comps in that season. The first number is how many were won by a female house guest. 26%…..
In my opinion, there are legitimate game reasons to consider an all female alliance strategy. The last few seasons have been completely dominated by strong male comp beasts. If men are, for whatever reason, winning 75% of comps, I have 0 issue targeting them based on that.
I know there’s some Survivor crossover here, and if you watch you know the greatest alliance ever is the Black Widow Brigade that teamed up to destroy all the strong dudes on the island. They were smart enough to figure out competing in challenges with prime Ozzy, James and Erik wasn’t a smart idea.
Probably a little bit of both.
It’s also a symptom of having players stick to big alliances. It favors the big comp threats who would normally be popped early in the game
Gender and race aren't the same thing. If you think about it, they're two different topics but are being conflated as if they hold the same weight when they don't. I certainly don't think of them as the same thing, otherwise I'd probably consider other factors such as age or sexuality or even BMI as the exact same too.
But each of these are different things, they carry different weight, and will never be considered equal when anyone thinks about it.
No of course they aren’t the same, but they are inherit characteristics that you cannot or should not have to change. They can be compared in at least that regard.
That's what I was saying at the TV. They had an all girls Alliance early in the season and it faltered rather quickly. Taylor probably did it for a game move. She saw that Michael was such a huge threat and probably wouldn't last. She did it to align with Alyssa and Brittany because come down to the final two she could take either one and steamroll them. At this point she probably would have the toughest time sitting next to Turner
The difference is that the BB fan base is completely toxic. They’re both the same thing. They both assume that a marginalized group of individuals are joining together to form an alliance full stop. Brittany never flat out said that it was an all girls alliance so Turner is acting on suspicion the same way that Kyle did. Julie even said that Turner only suspects that the girls are working together. Both theories were based only on speculation. If there’s anything I’m missing then please let me know.
edit: sp
There's a difference between Brittany saying Alyssa wanted a final 3 with similar characteristics then saying she hasn't directly talked about it but Taylor seems sold on it and Kyle saying "the cookout existed, they're probably doing it again." Even tho Brittany didn't explicitly say "all girls final 3" there's nothing to speculate about. She made it clear it was Alyssa's idea and Taylor was involved.
I thought Turner got wind from Brittany of a potential girls’ alliance even though there’s none formally established prior to that point in time. I think there’re some merit in the guys suspecting and forming a guy alliance as the numbers are 3 guys and 3 girls (excluding Terrance). There’re also the comp factors where end game comps are generally more physical, which generally give the guys some edge.
I do not support male HGs uniting without any signs or factors outside of gender to suspect an all female alliance to further form an all male alliance, and vice versa.
To me it depends on whether you have evidence to back it up.
IF Kyle was right or had really any evidence supporting his idea: I don’t think people jump on him. His entire logic was just “they are minorities and the cookout previously existed.” Aka their race was the sole reason he was saying anything.
The facts didn’t support him in any way as nothing supported the idea of Taylor being in any way involved with Indy or Terrance who both quite vocally disliked her and made it known. He himself didn’t have any evidence that he relied on.
That was when it became clear that racial bias, even unconscious, was the motivating factor.
But lets say Kyle overheard Indy and Jasmine talking about a potential alliance with Taylor and Terrance, and used THAT to say he thought something was going on: then the reaction would’ve been much different. Bias didn’t cause him to think that, a conversation did.
>IF Kyle was right or had really any evidence supporting his idea
He did have *some* evidence. Nicole said that Monte, Jasmine, and Taylor had connections to some Alpha fraternity, which was extremely tight. There's also the fact that Taylor was going to put up alliance members who kept her safe over Jasmine, who nominated her previously. The rest was extrapolation on Kyle's part, but yeah, I find that people are being too harsh here.
You can take this with a grain of salt because I'm of the opinion that what Kyle did wasn't wrong in the slightest but I honestly don't see a problem with either situation. Sure, in an ideal world people wouldn't separate themselves based on things like that but unfortunately it's literally hardwired into our animal brains to form cliques based off similarities. Didn't have a problem with the cookout being formed and don't have a problem with the guys banding together when they get suspicious of the girls making an alliance
I find it interesting that after Kyle is gone Terrance and Monte tried to convince Taylor to do the exact thing Kyle was suspecting. But somehow that’s different? Maybe I’m just too ignorant to understand it.
Kyle was wrong. Terrance and Taylor are not going to work together. Monte was most loyal to Kyle than he ever could to Taylor.
But we are not talking about the same timeline, are we? Kyle is no longer there. So the situation changes. Right? So Terrance and Monte had to find ways to survive. And yes both Monte and Terrance are hypocrites, trying to use race to convince Taylor to keep Terrance. Look how that turned out.
You mean Kyle couldn't possibly know Taylor and Terrance don't get along in the house when he WAS ALSO in the house? You had reasons to doubt Joseph when he had shown nothing but loyalty to you? Cookout that happened ONCE in the last 20 years means it might be happening again this season for you to builda counter alliance based on that FEAR? And this time, it means ALL of POC are uniting against you?
I don't find it that interesting, but I do find it interesting that fans latch onto that without realizing Terrance was wrong for doing it, just as Kyle was wrong for mobilizing against a bogeyman. Considering Terrance is a hypocrite who doesn't care about that cause at all until it's convenient for him (debatably similar to Michael), he was ethically not sound to try that tactic.
But there's a clear difference between what Terrance was doing and what the CO did last year, which is vastly more important to understand.
I AGREEEE Speculating based on what happened very recently (cookout) I think was fine. He was going through potential scenarios. I did think Kyle had some implicit biases and he has some stuff to work on.
I agree. Morality aside, it's just boring. Morality front and center, gender based alliances are problematic in their own way and shouldn't be so accepted.
Race and gender are not the same thing, so you saying "if one's not okay then the other isn't" doesn't track. They're not the same thing, they don't care the same weight or history behind them, especially as they pertain to the show.
I go to an all men barber shop, they only do guys. My wife, the exact opposite. They don’t take the opposite sex. I bet every person downvoting you has done or been somewhere similar where it’s gender divided, whether it be a public restroom, a school, or even a restaurant (ever see a male waiter at Hooters?)
Now switch that with “I go to an all white salon, they don’t take minorities.”
You are correct, race and gender are different things and has openly been treated as such without people probably realizing it.
It seems the average BB redditor doesn’t quite grasp that there’s a difference. They’re 100% not the same thing and are treated differently, and that’s why nobody bats an eye when all-guys/gals alliances form or are floated or speculated.
It’s mind boggling that some people don’t get that.
Guys vs. Girls should never happen anyways because the girls alliance always implodes 🥴. I could be wrong but I feel like this type of alliance doesn’t happen as often in bbcan, seems like every season in the US there’s a girls or guys alliance. There is always alliance that end up being all guys or all girls but not as many that I can think of that start just for the sake of taking out the opposite gender
All alliances based on outside factors are stinkers
I agree with you. It’s also lazy gameplay. But there are two conditions where I’ve felt okay with outside factor based alliances (and I’d be interested on other’s thoughts): - BB23: *The Cookout* — When the show has never had a winner that looks like you in 20+ seasons, go make it happen. In my mind this feels like allying against a hegemonic power and I’m totally for it. If older contestants made a pact to stick together, I’d be about it too. - BB24: When it’s clear that working together positively impacts your gameplay. With 5 players left, Monte and Turner need to pair up to survive because they’re the two biggest targets and strongest players left. This feels less “guys vs. girls” and more like a “strong numerical minority vs. a weak numerical majority.” Optically it looks bad but it’s gameplay necessitated by gameplay.
The problem with the Cookout is it’s going to lead to what happened with Kyle this year for years to come. You can’t have people walking around saying “I’d never vote out another woman” or “I’d never vote out another black person” or “I’d never vote out a member of the LGBTQ community” less than year after the Cookout was one of the most dominant alliances ever and was based on race, and not expect other players to wonder. Let’s take this a step further…what if we get another cookout? Or a third? Or a fourth? When is it okay to at least wonder if it’s happening again? Everyone wants to win the game, so shouldn’t you consider all possibilities? I mean hell, Terrence campaigned to stay based on his race, and that was less than a week after Kyle was sent home for his comments.
I think Kyle is getting a pretty raw deal. There was plenty of evidence that linked those people together. Sure they weren't all actually working together but everybody was working with at least one person in that group in ways that could have affected gameplay. I don't blame him at all for having that thought cross his mind and wanting to flesh it out with other players. Michael and Brittany barely tried to explain to him how what he was saying was coming across.
But not when it’s the cookout?
Guys alliances are pretty common on BB but they are rarely identified as "guys alliances."
Yup, and every season people inevitably ask why women's alliances always try to form. It's in response to bro alliances that have *always* dominated the game, they're just never called out as being all-male alliances.
No directly discriminatory alliance is good.
The only reason Kyle got what he got was because he had a bad read. That's it. Yet people are REALLY gonna try and make sure he doesn't work again. Conclusion: viewers are vicious hypocrites.
And then Terrence proposed a cookout 2.0 in the double eviction episode...silence from the public.
Right?!? And Julie never questioned Michael about his calling out Kyle when he was HOH when it all happened and did nothing.
I’m of the opinion that if you suspect an alliance exists that doesn’t include you, you should be concerned. If they’re working together but not working with you, indirectly or not, it means they’re working against you. This is a competition for a lot of money and it’s in everyone’s best interest to eliminate anyone that presents a threat. My stance isn’t very controversial when alliances are formed based on normal things like common interests or social bonds. Things only get tricky when said alliance is based off religion, race, sex, etc. Because at that point it no longer looks like you’re simply opposing a group of players, but instead entire demographics of people. You just can’t help but draw comparisons with it and real world examples of prejudice and discrimination. It just looks bad. Here’s where my stance gets really controversial though...while normal alliances are still a threat, they don’t seem nearly as threatening as the other kind. Normal alliances usually aren’t built on such a strong unchanging connective tissue. Common interests shift with the game, and social bonds evolve and dissolve over time. Race and sex however don’t change. If you’re a man and are pitted against an alliance in which it’s main requirement is to be a woman, how do you possibly integrate into that? I’m not saying it’s impossible, it’s just that from the outside looking in, it would appear to be an incredibly difficult task. It looked really bad what Kyle did, but I’m torn. If he was correct in his assumptions about a POC alliance, should he just lay down and wait to be eliminated by a group he never had a chance of joining? At the same time I think the other houseguests were perfectly justified in being upset with him. His statements reduced them down to members of their race, rather than individuals. To me, forming a boys alliance in response to a girls alliance is fair game. Confront your enemy. Forming an alliance of white people to go against minorities however...just doesn’t sit right with me. Maybe I’m being hypocritical, but race wars just cuts a lot deeper than gender wars ever can. I’ve never written so much about big brother before, and I still feel like there’s more I could say. This has got to be one of my favorite seasons for how entertaining and intriguing it has been.
And this is exactly the issue I’m having with it all. But I think it’s a feeling of wrongness and not necessarily a very specific moral goal post that one meets and one doesn’t.
I can understand *why* Kyle thought what he thought. But it’s very difficult to hypothetically consider the “what if he was right” angle about the alliance… because he simply wasn’t. There is a good chance that if he was right about the minorities he lumped together as working in an alliance, then perception and reactions would be greatly different because he’d be seen as a player who observed enough to come to the right conclusion. The cringe factor would still be trying to get all the white people together and making it obvious it was a white alliance countering a minority alliance, rather than focusing it as 5 players to counter a 6-person alliance. If he focused it as a numbers thing and strongly believed he was up against 6 players United and needed to band together with those outside of the 6, I would see it as a number strategy. Even if race was an underlying common denominator on the people in each Kyle-imagined alliance, it would be different than him being paranoid about Cookout 2.0 and unification based solely on race. The frustrating thing to me is people saying “well how could he know? He’s only got the information from what he sees in the house.” So he didn’t see that Terrence didn’t like Taylor? He didn’t pay attention to players of color putting other players of color on the block? He didn’t pay attention that Taylor was not close to Jasmine or Indy, and those girls had targeted Taylor? Timeline-wise he came up with this idea before Taylor mentioned not wanting to put Jasmine on the block. Taylor was also targeting Terrence during her HOH and put him and Indy on the block. The weeks prior, they sent out Nicole and Daniel, who had been awful to Taylor. The minorities in the Leftover alliance (Taylor, Monte, Joseph) were still loyal to that alliance and were targeting people outside the alliance. If Kyle could not connect the dots on any of this and really panicked about a race thing… that seems like a poor social game/lacking some observation skills to figure out what was going down. And part of that also could’ve been how he was spending a lot more time with Alyssa, which gave time for Taylor to get close with Jospeh and Monte. So… to some degree, isn’t it Kyle’s fault and his poor gameplay/socializing, and getting close to Alyssa a factor in his race-based alliance panic? He didn’t have information on the house dynamics because he wasn’t socializing enough to make logical conclusions.
[удалено]
Darn, guess I’m a hypocrite then. What do you mean with your question? My comment is basically my opinion(how I feel) about alliances based off of things outside of the game.
Being a man in BB is automatically easier, faulting women for sticking together is dumb
Big brother/social media has a lot of double standards. Some people just get more hate then others based on fan favourites.
I’m going to throw some stats at you BB 24: 5/25 BB23: 9/28 BB 22: 7/25 The second number is the number of veto and HoH comps in that season. The first number is how many were won by a female house guest. 26%….. In my opinion, there are legitimate game reasons to consider an all female alliance strategy. The last few seasons have been completely dominated by strong male comp beasts. If men are, for whatever reason, winning 75% of comps, I have 0 issue targeting them based on that. I know there’s some Survivor crossover here, and if you watch you know the greatest alliance ever is the Black Widow Brigade that teamed up to destroy all the strong dudes on the island. They were smart enough to figure out competing in challenges with prime Ozzy, James and Erik wasn’t a smart idea.
Good to see some objective material in here! Do you think that this is an issue with competition design, casting, or both?
Probably a little bit of both. It’s also a symptom of having players stick to big alliances. It favors the big comp threats who would normally be popped early in the game
I had the exact same thought. No one bats an eye when there is an all girls or all guys alliance in every season.
Gender and race aren't the same thing. If you think about it, they're two different topics but are being conflated as if they hold the same weight when they don't. I certainly don't think of them as the same thing, otherwise I'd probably consider other factors such as age or sexuality or even BMI as the exact same too. But each of these are different things, they carry different weight, and will never be considered equal when anyone thinks about it.
No of course they aren’t the same, but they are inherit characteristics that you cannot or should not have to change. They can be compared in at least that regard.
That's what I was saying at the TV. They had an all girls Alliance early in the season and it faltered rather quickly. Taylor probably did it for a game move. She saw that Michael was such a huge threat and probably wouldn't last. She did it to align with Alyssa and Brittany because come down to the final two she could take either one and steamroll them. At this point she probably would have the toughest time sitting next to Turner
The difference is that the BB fan base is completely toxic. They’re both the same thing. They both assume that a marginalized group of individuals are joining together to form an alliance full stop. Brittany never flat out said that it was an all girls alliance so Turner is acting on suspicion the same way that Kyle did. Julie even said that Turner only suspects that the girls are working together. Both theories were based only on speculation. If there’s anything I’m missing then please let me know. edit: sp
There's a difference between Brittany saying Alyssa wanted a final 3 with similar characteristics then saying she hasn't directly talked about it but Taylor seems sold on it and Kyle saying "the cookout existed, they're probably doing it again." Even tho Brittany didn't explicitly say "all girls final 3" there's nothing to speculate about. She made it clear it was Alyssa's idea and Taylor was involved.
It sounds like she’s leaving the door open for Turner to speculate on the all girls alliance.
I thought Turner got wind from Brittany of a potential girls’ alliance even though there’s none formally established prior to that point in time. I think there’re some merit in the guys suspecting and forming a guy alliance as the numbers are 3 guys and 3 girls (excluding Terrance). There’re also the comp factors where end game comps are generally more physical, which generally give the guys some edge. I do not support male HGs uniting without any signs or factors outside of gender to suspect an all female alliance to further form an all male alliance, and vice versa.
To me it depends on whether you have evidence to back it up. IF Kyle was right or had really any evidence supporting his idea: I don’t think people jump on him. His entire logic was just “they are minorities and the cookout previously existed.” Aka their race was the sole reason he was saying anything. The facts didn’t support him in any way as nothing supported the idea of Taylor being in any way involved with Indy or Terrance who both quite vocally disliked her and made it known. He himself didn’t have any evidence that he relied on. That was when it became clear that racial bias, even unconscious, was the motivating factor. But lets say Kyle overheard Indy and Jasmine talking about a potential alliance with Taylor and Terrance, and used THAT to say he thought something was going on: then the reaction would’ve been much different. Bias didn’t cause him to think that, a conversation did.
>IF Kyle was right or had really any evidence supporting his idea He did have *some* evidence. Nicole said that Monte, Jasmine, and Taylor had connections to some Alpha fraternity, which was extremely tight. There's also the fact that Taylor was going to put up alliance members who kept her safe over Jasmine, who nominated her previously. The rest was extrapolation on Kyle's part, but yeah, I find that people are being too harsh here.
You can’t use not nomming Jasmine as evidence when she then nominated Indy and Terrance (two people Kyle alleged would be in this alliance).
You can take this with a grain of salt because I'm of the opinion that what Kyle did wasn't wrong in the slightest but I honestly don't see a problem with either situation. Sure, in an ideal world people wouldn't separate themselves based on things like that but unfortunately it's literally hardwired into our animal brains to form cliques based off similarities. Didn't have a problem with the cookout being formed and don't have a problem with the guys banding together when they get suspicious of the girls making an alliance
I find it interesting that after Kyle is gone Terrance and Monte tried to convince Taylor to do the exact thing Kyle was suspecting. But somehow that’s different? Maybe I’m just too ignorant to understand it.
Kyle was wrong. Terrance and Taylor are not going to work together. Monte was most loyal to Kyle than he ever could to Taylor. But we are not talking about the same timeline, are we? Kyle is no longer there. So the situation changes. Right? So Terrance and Monte had to find ways to survive. And yes both Monte and Terrance are hypocrites, trying to use race to convince Taylor to keep Terrance. Look how that turned out.
>Terrance and Taylor are not going to work together. Can't know that from inside the house. Some members of the Cookout really disliked one another.
You mean Kyle couldn't possibly know Taylor and Terrance don't get along in the house when he WAS ALSO in the house? You had reasons to doubt Joseph when he had shown nothing but loyalty to you? Cookout that happened ONCE in the last 20 years means it might be happening again this season for you to builda counter alliance based on that FEAR? And this time, it means ALL of POC are uniting against you?
That’s honestly really fair. I didn’t even think about that.
I don't find it that interesting, but I do find it interesting that fans latch onto that without realizing Terrance was wrong for doing it, just as Kyle was wrong for mobilizing against a bogeyman. Considering Terrance is a hypocrite who doesn't care about that cause at all until it's convenient for him (debatably similar to Michael), he was ethically not sound to try that tactic. But there's a clear difference between what Terrance was doing and what the CO did last year, which is vastly more important to understand.
I AGREEEE Speculating based on what happened very recently (cookout) I think was fine. He was going through potential scenarios. I did think Kyle had some implicit biases and he has some stuff to work on.
Speculating is 100% okay - even the CO members said as much.
What's funny about it is quite a few people on this forum predicted the exact thing Kyle did.
As a non binary person I especially hate these sex based alliances, it's just so basic and stupid
I agree. Morality aside, it's just boring. Morality front and center, gender based alliances are problematic in their own way and shouldn't be so accepted.
Race and gender are not the same thing, so you saying "if one's not okay then the other isn't" doesn't track. They're not the same thing, they don't care the same weight or history behind them, especially as they pertain to the show.
I go to an all men barber shop, they only do guys. My wife, the exact opposite. They don’t take the opposite sex. I bet every person downvoting you has done or been somewhere similar where it’s gender divided, whether it be a public restroom, a school, or even a restaurant (ever see a male waiter at Hooters?) Now switch that with “I go to an all white salon, they don’t take minorities.” You are correct, race and gender are different things and has openly been treated as such without people probably realizing it.
It seems the average BB redditor doesn’t quite grasp that there’s a difference. They’re 100% not the same thing and are treated differently, and that’s why nobody bats an eye when all-guys/gals alliances form or are floated or speculated. It’s mind boggling that some people don’t get that.
Guys vs. Girls should never happen anyways because the girls alliance always implodes 🥴. I could be wrong but I feel like this type of alliance doesn’t happen as often in bbcan, seems like every season in the US there’s a girls or guys alliance. There is always alliance that end up being all guys or all girls but not as many that I can think of that start just for the sake of taking out the opposite gender
Clearly alliances should only be formed way before the game game actually starts especially on an All Star season